Tag Archives: digital

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.

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.

Is tech political_

Is tech political?

Leave a reply

 

It is not unreasonable to take the position that technology firms – at the cutting edge of innovation through new product and service development – should steer well away from the complex world of politics. However this overlooks the reality that the policy and regulatory decisions underpinning the sector’s operating environment are by their nature, political, and therefore engaging proactively with policymakers to help shape that future environment makes good business sense.

The range of current Government workstreams on technology and digital issues is vast. From the future of the UK’s data and privacy regime, to innovation and digital regulation, online safety, competition in digital markets, cyber security, AI technologies, digital tax and online advertising – there is a significant amount of thinking going on across Government about how policy and regulation should be shaped in response and to promote growth in this and other sectors where ministers see opportunities for the UK to develop a competitive edge in the post-Brexit environment.

Indeed for SMEs or newer entrants to the market, the risks of sitting back are even greater, as established players and those with the loudest voices look to either maintain the status quo or shape the regulatory environment in their favour, with heavy handed regulators also getting involved and creating a stifling environment for growth.

The tech sector is the fastest growing in the UK economy, but there is no monopoly of wisdom within Government about how best to tackle the challenges it faces. The risks of unintended consequences are significant. It is essential therefore that technology firms communicate effectively about the value of tech and work with the Government to shape the policy and regulatory environment in a way that creates a positive environment for long-term growth. Tech is political – and so it ought to be. But it is essential that companies take advantage of opportunities to be part of the conversation within Government and beyond.

Our team has significant experience of advising technology companies, helping them to engage with policymakers on a range of digital policy issues. If you would be interested in a conversation, please contact Will Blackman at will@gkstrategy.com