Thoroughly knowledgeable,
very pragmatic and
quick-thinking

Chambers Guide

Insights

Keep up to date with our latest insight pieces, news and industry developments. See below for the latest posts or use the categories to hone your search for stories of interest.

Rather listen? The WABChats Podcast provides engaging and informative conversations with contacts, clients, advisors and friends of White & Black Limited. Listen Now.

The AI Opportunities Action Plan – What we learnt

The UK government’s ambitious plan to ‘unleash’ the power of artificial intelligence (AI) across the nation was itself unleashed earlier this week. The AI Opportunities Action Plan details ambitious targets that aim to leverage AI to revolutionise public services, from healthcare to transportation, whilst simultaneously positioning the UK as the (not just a) global leader in AI innovation, becoming a ‘change maker rather than a ‘change taker’. Commercial Partner Andrew Bees explores further. 

The AI Opportunities Action Plan - header image

Underscoring the breath of ambition that’s on display, each of the 50 recommendations outlined in the Action Plan (written by the government’s AI Opportunities Adviser – Matt Clifford) has been endorsed by Keir Starmer with the government also committing (albeit with varying degrees of specificity at this stage, and with a number of cans having been kicked down the road) to a series of actions to implement each recommendation. The Action Plan is broken down into three overarching thematic pillars:

Laying the foundations to enable AI – this pillar focus on:

    1. building sufficient, secure and sustainable AI infrastructure (recommendations 1 to 6): the UK’s public / sovereign compute infrastructure should be vastly (twentyfold by 2030) increased (and powered through smart grids, small modular nuclear reactors, etc.), supported by new “AI Growth Zones” (the first of which will be in Culham, Oxfordshire), and effectively treated as a national asset that can be strategically allocated (along DARPA / ARIA lines) to “high-potential projects of national importance” 

    2. unlocking public and private sector data assets (recommendations 7 to 13): public data sets should be identified and created and, as part of the UK’s “National Data Library”, be effectively bundled with the UK’s public / sovereign compute infrastructure to aid AI development. The recommendations also propose that government should “strategically shape” data collected through the National Data Library and create a “copyright cleared British media asset training set” for international licensing

    3. training, attracting and retaining the next generation of AI scientists and founders (recommendations 14 to 22): skills gaps should be identified and addressed, at educational and professional levels

    4. enabling safe and trusted AI development and adoption through regulation, safety and assurance (recommendations 23 to 30): the AI Safety Institute should continue to be supported (and put on a statutory footing), and the government’s response says that DSIT will consult on proposed legislation “to provide regulatory certainty to help kickstart growth and protect UK citizens and assets from the critical risks associated with the next generation of the most powerful AI models”. The UK’s text and data mining regime needs to be at least as competitive as the EU’s (the government launched a separate consultation on this in December 2024 – more below) and regulators need to be enabling (and resourced to enable) AI in those they regulate

Changing lives by embracing AI: this pillar focuses on:

  1. government adopting a “Scan>Pilot>Scale” approach (recommendations 31 to 42): the government needs to identify where it can promote and embed AI in the public sector through its five “missions”, and government’s sourcing machine (including how “make/buy” decisions are made) needs to ensure that the right products are available, both at pilot stage and beyond

  2. enabling mutually reinforcing public and private sector roles in AI adoption (recommendations 43 to 46): the public and private sectors should support each other, including through smart procurement from the AI ecosystem

  3. addressing adoption barriers in the private sector (recommendations 47 to 49): government should drive adoption of AI, and identify obstacles to adoption, in the private sector

  4. Securing the UK’s future with homegrown AI: perhaps most ambitious of all, under this last pillar (recommendation 50), government should secure the UK’s future with homegrown AI, building world-leading “national champion” AI providers, enabled by a new “UK Sovereign AI” unit in government

 

Securing the UK’s future with homegrown AI

Perhaps most ambitious of all, under this last pillar (recommendation 50), government should secure the UK’s future with homegrown AI, building world-leading “national champion” AI providers, enabled by a new “UK Sovereign AI” unit in government.

What are some of the key technology, data and commercial legal themes that are likely to emerge from the Action Plan?

  • Recommendations 7 to 13 suggest making much more aggressive use of public (including personal) data, effectively commoditising it and making it available alongside public compute capacity as a national asset. Whilst the government’s response says that it will “responsibly, securely and ethically unlock” the value of that data, “underpinned by strong privacy-preserving safeguards”, it can expect significant scrutiny on how it intends to make that work within the limits of the current data protection regime.

  • In terms of AI regulation more widely, nothing in the Action Plan suggests the government intends to depart from its current cautious approach; the Action Plan says that the “UK’s current pro-innovation approach to regulation is a source of strength relative to other more regulated jurisdictions and we should be careful to preserve this”, and any regulation ought to be “pro-innovation”. The government is keen to want to shape a favourable geopolitical and investment position for the UK between the more heavily regulated approach in the EU and the somewhat less regulated approach in the US. Whilst in Europe businesses are implementing the AI Act, ChatGPT had not been launched during Trump’s first term in office and, having already made noises about repealing Biden’s Executive Order on AI – already a lighter-touch approach to the EU’s – experts are predicting an even more relaxed approach to AI policy during his second term. However, it’s clear that some UK regulation, possibly framed more narrowly around AISI’s safety-focused role and high(er)-risk frontier AI, will be coming at some stage (the government’s response suggests that we can expect to hear more in the spring).

  • On intellectual property rights, the Action Plan talks about the UK needing a “competitive copyright regime” that can support AI and the UK’s creative industries. Some rights holders already feel under attack from AI, and it’s clear that a better balance needs to be struck. As noted earlier, the government launched a separate consultation on copyright and AI back in December 2024, which runs until 25 February. This proposes a text and data mining exception for commercial purposes, subject to an opt-out right by rights holders, effectively improving access to content by AI developers. The consultation makes clear that the success of any change will be underpinned by new transparency obligations, developing stronger trust between AI developers and rights holders, but the sweeping acceptance of the recommendations in the Action Plan has already caused some consternation amongst rights holders around the extent to which all options in the consultation remain on the table.

  • Do the UK’s national (e.g., subsidy control) and international trade obligations support the creation of “national champions”, and what’s in the legal toolkit to stop promising SMEs being acquired? And, given the potential treasure trove of data and infrastructure that could be on offer to AI companies, how will the government ensure fairness?

  • Public sector procurement will have a lot of heavy lifting to do to realise the benefits in the second pillar. With the new Procurement Act 2023 due to come into force in just over a month’s time, there are big question marks over whether the new regime is capable of facilitating the “radical change” and “fast light-touch” Clifford is hoping to see.

Quite how the UK government will walk the line without picking sides remains to be seen. With the UK’s exit from the EU and an ongoing need for new foreign investment highlighted in recent weeks, there would seem to be little sense in following the tighter line taken by the EU, adding further deterrents for potential investors and running the risk of damaging the UK’s ‘pro-innovation’ stance. Interestingly, the Action Plan came on the same day as the pound hit a 14-month low against the USD.
Either way, the EU AI Act will always remain present in the UK in some form, its scope meaning any UK businesses wishing to export AI technologies to Europe will still be bound by its requirements. Regardless of the chosen position, one would think a clear direction will need to be set if the ambitious targets of the AI Opportunities Action Plan are to be met.

Where does this leave us?

‘Spring 2025’ is mentioned twenty-two times in the government’s plan. So, whilst Monday’s announcement has brought the national AI conversation back to the front pages, we will have to wait for the government’s spring spending review and publication of its new industrial strategy (the Action Plan will form part of the strategy’s plan for the digital and technologies sector) before we know more. We will continue to monitor developments and provide further updates and expert insight as the landscape in the UK continues to evolve.

Disclaimer: This article is produced for and on behalf of White & Black Limited, which is a limited liability company registered in England and Wales with registered number 06436665. It is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The contents of this article should be viewed as opinion and general guidance, and should not be treated as legal advice.

This site uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site you agree to these cookies being set. To find out more see our cookies policy