Transparency data

Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation Minutes - Board Meeting 3

Updated 12 October 2023

This transparency data was withdrawn on 16 October 2023

This content is no longer current. The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI) Advisory Board closed on 9 September 2023.

Wednesday 6 March

12.30pm - 2.00pm

Wallacespace St Pancras, 22 Dukes Road, London, WC1H 9PN

Attendees:

• Roger Taylor (RT)
• Rt Revd Dr Steven Croft (SC)
• Edwina Dunn (ED)
• Dame Patricia Hodgson (PH)
• Dr Susan Liautaud (SL)
• Baroness Kate Rock (KR)
• Richard Sargeant (RS)
• Dr Adrian Weller (AW)
• Prof Lord Robert Winston (RW)

Apologies:

• Prof Luciano Floridi (LF)
• Kriti Sharma (KS)
• Dame Glenys Stacey (GS)

Observers (CDEI staff):

• Ollie Buckley (OB)
• Natalie Davis (ND)
• Benedict Dellot (BD)
• Emily James (EJ)
• Alex Lawrence-Archer (ALA)

Item 1: Chair’s Welcome

The Chair, RT, welcomed the Board and reflected on the positive public engagement event held that morning.

Declaration of interests:

• There were no declared interests.

Minutes from previous Board meeting:

• RT asked the Board to approve the draft minutes from the previous Board meeting.

Decisions:

• The Board agreed the minutes from the previous Board meeting.

Actions:

• CDEI to publish the minutes on gov.uk.

Chair’s update:

• RT provided an update to the Board on his recent activities, including his visit to Barcelona to attend the GSMA Mobile World Congress Conference and his appearance before the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee.

Head of CDEI Team’s update:

• OB reflected on the CDEI’s evolution, from the set-up phase in 2018 and early 2019 through to the new phase we are about to enter once the strategy is finalised and the work programme is agreed by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
• OB provided an update to the Board on operational progress, including around resourcing and recruitment to ensure the CDEI has the appropriate skills and expertise.
• OB gave an update on the two Reviews, on bias and targeting, noting that literature reviews have been commissioned for both. AW asked about the multidisciplinary nature of the literature reviews and requested to see the names of those carrying out the literature reviews. OB also updated the Board on potential partners we are liaising with, particularly on the bias review.
• The CDEI now has its own URL (gov.uk/cdei). The Board requested our external contact email address is @cdei too.

Actions:

• CDEI to send AW the names of academics carrying out the literature reviews.
• CDEI to liaise with IT to change the contact email address to @cdei.

Item 2: Reporting

Forward Look

• ALA presented the forward look to the Board, for the next three months and the year ahead. The Board asked about the comms strategy and whether the CDEI was building its presence enough. ALA confirmed that the full comms strategy would be brought to the next Board meeting for approval, but specific comms was being developed around the strategy launch.

Actions:

• CDEI to present Comms Strategy at next Board meeting.

Risk Register

• ALA talked through the risk register, highlighting the changes since the previous Board meeting.

Budget 18/19

• ALA outlined our budget for the remainder of the financial year, noting there were no major changes since the previous Board meeting. ALA confirmed that any underspend would not be rolled over to the next financial year.

Item 3: Budget 19/20 and financial oversight

ALA set out the high level budget for 19/20 alongside the proposed financial oversight process for the Board to sign off specific spend in year. ALA also set out the governance of the Reviews, noting that the steering groups for Reviews would not have any formal decision-making powers in relation to budgetary spend. The Board were broadly happy with the high level budget for 19/20, including the split of resources across the CDEI’s main functions. The Board commented that there was little room for slack in the budget and if we were asked to take on significant additional work to what is set out in the draft Work Programme, we would need to make clear we do not have the resources to deliver it and would either need to request additional funding or postpone other work. It was proposed that budgetary constraints were not the key risk to CDEI and that we need to ensure the CDEI has the right technical capabilities. The Board discussed how the CDEI was planning to bring in external skills and expertise when needed on a short-term basis. The Board were keen to ensure any contractors presented value for money. The Board also reflected on the amount of goodwill that exists in organisations that want to help and work with the CDEI so we should utilise that effectively. There was a question around what more the Board members could do to support the CDEI to secure effective partnerships with external organisations.

Decisions:

• The Board agreed the overall high-level budget allocations for 19/20.
• The Board agreed with the process for signing off spend in year.
• The Board agreed with the governance approach of the reviews.

Actions:

• CDEI to provide further information to the Board on recruitment plans for external expertise.
• Board members to suggest potential partners for the Reviews to RT.

Item 4: Reactive capacity and allocating resource

BD set out three potential types of output regarding the CDEI’s reactive output:

• Sense-making: making sense of a technology or application of technology
• Problem-solving: consider potential solutions to the sense-making issue
• Solution-assessing: investigate and assess a particular solution

These approaches could be implemented over various time-scales depending on the complexity of the issue.

The Board discussed how the CDEI organises its reactive capacity, including:

• The importance of getting the balance right between investing resource in long-term reviews while also being agile and responding to new and emerging issues.
• The type of short project the CDEI could do and the importance of having a narrow focus (e.g. if we did something on health it would need a very specific aspect).
• The length of time a short project would take and ensuring we don’t fall somewhere in the middle of being useful i.e. somewhere in the middle of being a long, thorough review and a short, snappy project.
• Short projects should not necessarily include recommendations as the reviews will, rather they could just be about pulling relevant information together and recommending areas for further research.
• While short projects were important, how could the CDEI pull together paradigms across issues and create frameworks and models that can be applied more widely. We need to derive useful conclusions across issues.
• The potential value of using the outputs to help inform and educate. The CDEI has a role in taking a position on these issues and helping to shape the debate. Using simple language would be particularly crucial in these outputs.
• How would the CDEI make decisions about which short projects would be prioritised. It was important the CDEI was responsive but we also needed to be sensible with our limited resources and be clear about when we would not be exploring an issue.

Actions:

• The CDEI to return to the next Board meeting with further proposals that incorporate the Board’s comments, including 1-2 scoped short projects for consideration by the Board.
• The CDEI to bring a completed ‘snapshot’ type paper, ready for publication, to the next Board meeting for approval.

Item 5: Strategy and Work Programme

The Board received an almost final version of the strategy, alongside the draft Work Programme that RT would send to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for agreement before being published. A reception at number 11 Downing St was taking place on 20 March to mark the publication of these documents.

Decisions:

• The Board agreed the strategy and work programme, subject to a number of minor changes.

Actions:

• Board members to send the CDEI team suggested people to invite to the number 11 reception.

Item 6: AOB

Following the Board’s request for using Board management software to make accessing papers and sharing notes easier, ND has investigated various options. Quotes for the software were between £2,000 and £15,000 so we will be looking to confirm a provider at the lower end of the scale.