Category Archives: Tech

Education and Digital Revolution: AI under Labour

The government is embracing the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) and attempting to integrate it into the education system. Improving mainstream education and increasing accessibility for young people has been central to Labour’s agenda, with one of the five key manifesto missions being ‘breaking barriers to opportunity’. To address challenges in mainstream schools, ministers are focused on issues such as teacher recruitment and retention. However, in the current economic and political climate, immediate solutions are limited, bar the initial 5.5% teacher pay rise in September 2024. To address these shortfalls in the long term, the government is exploring innovative ways to make the teaching profession more appealing and improve the overall efficiency of educational provision, including the use of AI to support teachers and school administrators.

As the government recognises the potential risks for young children when accessing AI, the introduction of AI into the classroom will be a teacher and administrator facing policy. To mitigate further issues, the government has committed to implementing safeguards. These safeguards include age restrictions on who can use AI tools and filtering and monitoring standards to ensure schools have the appropriate restrictions in place. However, with appropriate regulation, there is potential for expanding the use of AI tools to student facing use in supervised educational environments. Stakeholders and developers should anticipate these restrictions and the potential expansion from a teacher facing policy to one that includes students when developing AI models for educational settings.

AI models in education will focus on generative AI, with applications across various teaching and learning functions, such as creating educational resources, curriculum planning, feedback, revision activities, administrative tasks and supported personalised learnings. The government is also likely to encourage the introduction of other AI tools outside of the classroom that can enhance efficiency in schools and reduce administrative burdens. The new technologies and tools will likely require additional skills training for teachers and support staff. Organisations that provide the necessary training in this area, alongside the development of AI, are likely to be viewed favourably by government and schools.

To ensure a safe and responsible introduction of AI into the classroom, the government is collaborating with educational technology sector, experts and academics. As part of this dialogue, the government is piloting the EdTech Evidence Board to analyse the impact of edtech tools on teaching and learning. The Chartered College of Teaching is delivering the initial pilot scheme and is inviting organisations in the edtech sector to submit projects to the board later this year. This is an opportune moment for education service providers and stakeholders to engage with policymakers, demonstrating how their products can support the government’s educational objectives.

We’d be delighted to share our thoughts on what the government’s approach to AI and edtech could mean for you and how you can engage with the ongoing dialogue. Please contact mariella@gkstrategy.com if you would like to discuss the reforms with the GK team.

What does the future hold for crypto regulation?

Positioning the UK as a leader in the global market

UK policymakers and regulators have expressed their intention to encourage growth, innovation and competition in the digital assets industry. However, the government also wants to protect consumers and maintain market integrity. This is a balance that policymakers and regulators in other jurisdictions have found difficult to strike. The previous Conservative government wanted to make the UK a global hub for cryptoasset technology and investment – a goal shared by Keir Starmer.

Accelerating the timeline for reform

In 2018, HM Treasury (HMT) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) began coordinating a phased regulatory approach, initially focusing on stablecoins before introducing new regulations for the wider cryptoassets industry.

Since the 2024 general election, the FCA’s approach has shifted slightly. The government has indicated its support for most of the reforms set out prior to the general election. However, Starmer is less focused on stablecoins than his predecessor and is likely to accelerate the timeline for the regulation of the wider cryptoasset industry, rather than adopt the phased approach.

The government is aware that other international hubs have also taken significant steps in regulating digital assets. The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) became fully applicable in December 2024 and has introduced a comprehensive regulatory regime for the European bloc’s digital asset market. Given the EU continues to work on secondary legislation to supplement MiCA and also requires crypto firms to align with other EU rules on governance and data-sharing, the EU’s new regime is likely to significantly increase the regulatory burden on firms. The second Trump administration has already signalled that it will take a much more lenient approach in the US compared to the Biden administration. Trump has issued an executive order directing agencies within his administration to create a regulatory framework that supports the cryptoassets industry and limits unnecessary government intervention.

Firms operating across multiple jurisdictions need to be cognisant of how the UK’s approach differs with other cryptoasset hubs to ensure compliance. The government is likely to favour an approach that places the UK somewhere between the EU and the US. While the UK’s eventual cryptoassets regime is likely to provide stronger consumer protections than a Trump-inspired US regime, it is unlikely to be as prescriptive as the EU on the categorisation of cryptoassets, the scope of regulated activities, and disclosure obligations for cryptoasset issuers.

Implementing the new regulatory regime

In November 2024, the FCA published a “Crypto Roadmap” of key dates for the development and introduction of the UK’s cryptoasset regime. The roadmap sets out a series of consultations focused on different aspects of the future regulatory regime to be held over the course of 2025 and during the first quarter of 2026, with the final rules published in 2026. This includes the completion of a consultation on the proposed creation of an information sharing platform for industry stakeholders (to be approved by HMT) to prevent market abuse and boost compliance with future regulation. The FCA also plans to consult on a governance regime in autumn 2025 including further measures to ensure crypto firms adhere to the FCA’s Consumer Duty and its Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR). This would likely require individuals in senior roles at firms be approved by the FCA or the Prudential Regulatory Authority.

The cryptoassets industry is likely to benefit from Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ decision to urge regulators to accelerate efforts to support growth and innovation. As part of a wider deregulation push, Reeves tweaked the FCA’s secondary objective to make it clear that the regulator must do more to make the UK financial services markets more competitive than other countries. Although the FCA’s CEO Nikhil Rathi is concerned that deregulation could lead to ‘bad actors slipping through the net’, he has said that he is willing to consider the easing of some consumer protections to reduce the regulatory burden. This could be significant for the cryptoassets industry. Larger firms are currently better placed to comply with expected new regulatory measures, while smaller firms may not have the internal structures and resources to do so, potentially forcing them out of the market or creating opportunities for consolidation.

We’d be delighted to share our perspectives on what the government’s crypto and fintech reforms could mean for you and how you can engage with policy debates. Please contact joshua@gkstrategy.com if you would like to discuss the reforms with the GK team.

Labour’s new era for agriculture: Can political stability drive agri-tech innovation?

GK Senior Adviser James Allan analyses the government’s agriculture policy plans and the opportunities that could arise for investors.

With the Labour government now in power, some may wonder if the food, farming and agriculture sectors are about to see a major shift – a shift from being an important constituent of the then Conservative administration of 14 years to lower down the political list of priorities within Labour’s “mission led” government.

The Autumn Budget on 30 October will partly address this concern and end the speculation about potential changes to agriculture property relief and Defra’s agricultural budget. But with a Party of a different political hue now occupying the corridors of power, it’s worth considering whether Labour’s pro-growth messaging of “political stability” to attract private sector investment extends to the food, farming and agriculture (FFA) sectors, and if so, to what extent.

Why Labour must harvest more than just political stability

To attract private investment, ‘political stability’ alone is not sufficient – it needs to be backed up by policy substance and public investment, and with long-term strategic thinking. From aquaculture to viticulture, solar farms to biodiversity, food pricing and standards to foods high in fat, salt and sugar, there are many agendas and issues at play. These will all be playing out against a political backdrop with a renewed sense of momentum, a government with a greater willingness to intervene in the name of public health, an entire mission focused on decarbonisation, and a tight fiscal environment impacting the potential for significant public investment.

The first 100 days for the new government have proved that governing isn’t easy. Political pinch points and missteps aside, a common thread in the criticisms levelled against Labour ministers has been the absence of a defining vision for the sector to provide the framework for policy thinking and development; not least for food security which is set to become one of the defining political issues of the parliament. Without this overarching vision for the sector, the ability for businesses to plan their own investment and growth strategies becomes much more difficult and limits the ability of government to ‘crowd in’ private capital to drive growth.

The sowing of early seeds positive for UK investors

There are a few positive and recent developments of note. First, the Farming Minister, Daniel Zeichner, has confirmed the government’s intention to introduce secondary legislation which will bring to reality the regulatory regime of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023.[1] This will help to simplify the authorisation process for bringing new products to market from 1o years to an estimated 12 months.[2] Investors should note the government’s familiar caveat of “as soon as parliamentary time allows” which means the introduction of secondary legislation is unlikely to be imminent and will compete with an already packed legislative calendar. Speeding up routes to market will be welcomed by investors backing early-stage or growth-stage companies involved in gene editing, crop efficiency technologies, or those innovating in climate-resistant crop varieties. The streamlined regulatory environment lowers barriers, creating the potential for significant returns more quickly. Zeichner has also confirmed 43,000 Seasonal Worker visas for the horticulture sector and 2,000 for the poultry sector for 2025. Accompanied by a few additional measures to simplify free-range labelling requirements, this signals that the Defra ministerial team is actively listening to the sector and willing to flex policy to meet operational challenges and remove barriers to growth.[3]

Secondly, the government has secured access to the US market for British beetroot farmers, boosting export opportunities and attributed to the efforts of DEFRA’s agri-food attaché in the US.[4] This establishes an interesting precedent for securing market access outside of more formal and comprehensive free trade agreements, and creates attractive investment opportunities in companies that produce export-ready, high-quality British agricultural goods. Crucially, produce by produce access deals averts the political tightrope of negotiating comprehensive trade deals, not least one with the US which has long been the envy of previous Conservative Prime Ministers. For investors and argi-businesses on the lookout for export opportunities, engaging with DEFRA’s eleven attaches located in British embassies and consulates in Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Kenya, The Gulf, India, Japan, China, Thailand and Vietnam will be important to replicate this success.

Thirdly, there is recognition in government of the long and fraught dissatisfaction among farmers concerning the future viability of the agricultural sector.[5]  The Labour ministerial team perceives a lack of confidence among farmers as the rationale for needing to optimise Environmental Land Management schemes as part of a wider new deal for farmers. The precise details of this new deal have yet to be clarified but the government has signalled a focus on:

  • Trade deals undercutting low welfare and low standards
  • Maximising public sector purchasing power to back British produce
  • A land-use framework to balance nature recovery and long-term food security

A latter focus on food security will be important for investors seeking opportunities which align with Labour’s aim to make the UK more self-reliant in the food and energy sectors, but especially where technological innovation contributes to more efficient and resilient farming processes and produce. Defending their record in government and playing in safe political territory, this was a focus of a recent opposition day debate in Parliament where several Conservative MPs made the case for greater public investment in new farming technologies to safeguard the nation’s food supply.[6] However, as noted by DEFRA Secretary, Steve Reed, the government’s ability to do so is up for consideration in the upcoming Budget and next year’s Spending Review and therefore competes with other public spending priorities.

A wet start for the farming sector

This year’s harvest of the five key crops – wheat, winter and spring barley, oats and oilseed rape – saw a decrease of 15% compared to the 2023 harvest with an estimated loss of £600m in revenue for English farmers due to considerable wet weather.[7] The impact has extended beyond these core crops with a south Devonshire winemaker reporting a 70% decrease in expected volumes compared to 2023 and another winemaker noting heightened disease pressures due to constant rain. For the British viticulture industry, the wet weather year of 2024 follows a boom in capital investment and overseas wine producers buying into the UK as a hedge against climate change. Rural and farming communities might not be this government’s traditional supporter base but neglecting the sector – with its sub-sector growth gems like viticulture – risks undermining long-term food security and economic growth not just farmers but the broader economy and consumers alike.

[1] DEFRA, New legislation to support precision breeding and boost Britain’s food security (Sept-23 link)

[2] DEFRA, Impact Assessment – Impact Assessment – Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Mar-22 link)

[3] DEFRA, Government provides certainty to horticulture and poultry businesses  (Oct-24 link)

[4] DEFRA, British beetroot growers to put down roots in US market (Sept-24 link)

[5] DEFRA, Government to restore stability for farmers as confidence amongst sector low (Aug-24 link)

[6] House of Commons, Opposition day debate on farming and food security (Oct-24 link)

[7] Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, England has second worst harvest on record with fears mounting for 2025 (Oct-24 link)

Silouhette of soldier

Artificial Intelligence: ‘The Future of Defence Capability’

The Draft Media Bill: A wolf in sheep’s clothing?

GK Consultant and resident specialist on digital policy, Robert Blackmore, takes a look at the recently published Draft Media Bill, and discusses one of the Bill’s most controversial aspects.

Little fanfare met the long-awaited publication of the Media Bill during the early hours of March 29th . This was perhaps not a surprise – it was, after all, published in draft form. Furthermore, the Government’s previously publicised decision to U-turn on its highly contentious proposal to privatise Channel 4 certainly took the ‘sting’ out of its release.

However, the importance of the legislation cannot be understated, and nor should the potential for it to become another front in the Government’s delicate attempt to balance freedom of expression with the ‘safety’ of its citizens.

But first, why is the Government proposing an update to media law?

The draft bill represents the Government’s understandable desire to refresh the rules that govern a broadcasting landscape that has altered dramatically since New Labour’s 2003 Communications Act.

Back in 2003, notwithstanding the ascendancy of Sky Television and its monopoly over coverage of the Premier League, the linear model of television consumption still dominated, and few questioned the prominence of the Public Sector Broadcasters (PSB), namely, the BBC, ITV, STV, S4C, Channel 4 and Channel 5. Ofcom define these broadcasters as those that deliver “impartial and trusted news, UK-originated programmes and distinctive content.”

Two decades on and the market has been transformed. 75% of households use online Video-on-Demand (VOD) platforms, such as Disney+ and Netflix, with few viewers limiting their media habits only to linear television channels. This, combined with the consolidation of the global broadcasting market by global media entities in recent years, has raised questions regarding whether PSBs are so “prominent” after all.

The draft bill proposes several solutions to the so called ‘crowding-out’ of PSBs. Some are relatively minor, such as compelling set-top boxes and streaming sticks to provide PSB VOD services with priority in terms of discoverability, while others more substantial, like allowing online programmes to count towards PSBs meeting their public service remit.

However, one proposal has proven particularly contentious and far-reaching.

With echoes of the Government’s attempt to reign in ‘global big tech’ through the Online Safety Bill, written into the draft Media Bill is an extension of Ofcom’s remit that would grant it regulatory oversight of global (‘Tier One’) VOD platforms with a UK customer base, likely to include the likes of Netflix and Amazon.

This would take the form of a new code of practice that would seek to protect audiences from ‘harmful content’ and place impartiality requirements on non-news programmes. Indeed, for the first time, a UK viewer would be able to file a complaint against a non-PSB VOD platforms, which if upheld, could lead to Ofcom issuing fines of up to £250,000.

For global VOD platforms that operate in the UK, such a proposal is an unwelcome development, and an example of what they would describe as ‘government overreach’.

At a recent Westminster Forum event, Benjamin King, UK and Ireland director of public policy at Netflix, stated this proposal could have a “chilling effect” on the provision of its service, and undermined “freedom of expression”. He cited that it would significantly undermine “Netflix’s appetite to make available our many documentaries, which are so beloved by UK members”. He also called for legislators to carefully reflect on attempts to transpose UK regulations across international content.

Mr King will have welcomed, therefore, that the publication of the Bill was in draft form. This (relatively unusual) step allows the Bill’s text to receive pre-legislative scrutiny, and a potential re-drafting, prior to its formal introduction to Parliament.

Legislators are not naïve to the concerns of global VOD platforms. The Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) Committee immediately launched an inquiry into the draft bill in April. Amongst the questions the Committee highlighted in its terms of reference was: “Do the proposals in the draft Media Bill create any risks to UK’s desirability as a market for VoD content?” Interested parties have been granted the opportunity to feed into the inquiry via written evidence that will support the Committee in their scrutiny of the draft bill.

For their part, PSBs have broadly welcomed the proposals, with ITV crediting the draft Bill for providing them with the confidence to apply for a 10-year renewal to its PSB licence. However, they are also impatient for the Government to allocate parliamentary time to the Bill.

So what are the next steps for the draft Bill?

While it is believed that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is very keen for the Bill to be formally introduced in the 4th (and final) session of this Parliament, the legislative timetable is already highly concentrated. Indeed, if following the pre-legislative scrutiny the Government decides that major changes to the draft Bill are necessary, publication this side of an election (expected in 2024) could, ultimately, prove difficult.