Heather Cover‑Kus, associate director for central government and education at techUK, examines how delivering world‑leading digital public services now requires balancing sovereignty, security, capability and public interest

Weighing up the factors

Things move fast in tech and famously slowly in government. What does that mean for public sector technology? Unsurprisingly, it’s a mixed picture. The UK is ambitious about its approach to technology, and bold in its desire to deliver seamless digital public services; however, there are many variables to be weighed in the pursuit of that goal that might slow things down. To deliver world-leading public services today, a government must consider speed, cost, effectiveness, and trust.  

In many ways, at its core, governance has always been an exercise in managing scarcity and balancing trade-offs. How should the budget be split between investing in the long-term benefits of education versus the immediate, lifesaving demands of healthcare? Should the Government spend on roads and bridges or airports and harbours? Every policy decision carries an opportunity cost. In the current digital age, the decisions around delivering public services are more complex with a growing number of factors to consider and balance. AI or robotics? Speed or security? Invest to save or lower cost now?  

There are two issues that have recently become important factors in public sector digital considerations – sovereignty and public interest. While these issues are not necessarily new, they have come to the forefront in light of the current financial and geopolitical context of the UK. This article explores the impact of these two issues on public sector digital services and the tech supplier community that works with government to deliver them.

The Sovereignty Scale

In an increasingly connected world, the issue of digital sovereignty is clearly becoming more pressing. This growth in importance is the result of a two main factors. The first is cross-border digital services – with the increased use of cloud computing and data centres, national borders are often crossed to deliver services that are efficient and cost-effective. Data is constantly pinging across the globe. Moreover, those services are delivered by multinational tech companies with interests in many countries.

The second is geopolitical shifts. There is no doubt that there has been a seismic shift in global alliances recently. We are operating in a new geopolitical reality where traditional allies no longer behave predictably, and, conversely, certain non-traditional partners are proving to be surprisingly more reliable.

These factors taken together have transformed sovereignty from a theoretical preference into a necessary consideration. When traditional geopolitical anchors shift, governments start to more deeply examine the network of interconnected cross-border digital services and the impact on digital services. In a new geopolitical landscape, what does it mean to have digital sovereignty?

Despite its growing importance, digital sovereignty is probably the most cited yet least understood priority in modern policy. Everyone has a different interpretation of what it means. The Government has not provided a functional definition to operate from, so suppliers will often adopt a definition that aligns with their own commercial interests. We see a recurring pattern where the definition shifts to suit the specific agenda of the provider.

In reality, there is no “one size fits all” definition to be had. Issues of sovereignty will have a different significance in the defence and national security space than they do in education or health. Context matters. Additionally, issues of cost, control of data, and technical capability will all factor in considerations of the importance of sovereignty. Essentially, sovereignty is linked to issues of security and resilience and is an important factor to consider in what world-leading digital public services looks like for the UK.

We watch with interest to see how the government in the UK, and indeed other jurisdictions around the world will approach the issue of digital sovereignty as decisions on sovereignty will have a huge impact on the tech supplier market.

Reframing the Public Interest Test

The Government also must weigh up whether to procure from the market or develop in-house. While the build versus buy debate is not new, the Government has recently announced a new “Public Interest Test”, compelling departments to assess whether outsourced service contracts over £1 million could be delivered more effectively in-house. This test impacts over 95 per cent of central government contracts by value. They argue that this change will deliver value for money and provide “taxpayers a fairer deal by ending outsourcing by default”.

However, this approach to procurement sets up a false tension and creates the impression that building in-house is better for the public than buying from the market. When it comes to technology, the choice of build vs buy is not a good versus evil debate. Private sector markets have an important role to play in driving innovation. Those companies are the creators and the risk takers. They sometimes offer capabilities and skills that are not always easy to find (in scale) in the public sector. Although the public sector is rapidly growing the size of its digital professional class, there is still a lack of digital skills in government.

By the same token, government procurement plays an important part in supporting and developing markets and SMEs in particular. Government spending is a key element of economic growth and public procurement helps support and sustain native industries. Along with steel and shipbuilding, AI and energy infrastructure was recently recognised as critical for national security, with new guidance prioritising contracts for British business, where necessary, to protect our national security expected to be published.

There will be times when developing in-house may be more cost-effective, or secure, or possibly even faster – and in these instances, it is in the public interest to do so. But one hopes that all procurement decisions are already undertaken with public interest in mind. If this is the case, the new Public Interest Test will not move the needle much and there won’t be many savings to be had here.