Digital and Technology Policy: National Sovereignty

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. In doing so, I declare my relevant technology interests as adviser to the Crown Estate and to Simmons & Simmons LLP.

I must start by congratulating my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her brilliant and blistering introduction to this debate. The noble Baroness is having quite a month of it: this debate today, a new book out and a fantastic White Paper published just last week. I know it is only a matter of time—and quite right—before moviegoers will be treated to “Baroness Beeban: The Biopic”. I will be speaking with Christopher Nolan later today.

The departmental chairs have been rearranged. What does this mean, though, for digital sovereignty? Yesterday, the Minister, Jonathan Reynolds, described the new department as a “genuinely new beast”. Make of that what you will, but largely, the technology industry was dismayed that DSIT is no more. I ask the Minister: can they all be wrong?

We also have GDS on the move. Rather than being the positive, impactful, cross-departmental force, it will now be within DCMS, so it will be part of a department, giving a departmental view with a departmental Secretary of State, seeking to influence other different government departments. How will this play out?

Similarly, we have the separation of AI sovereignty and digital infrastructure, now relying on co-ordination where before we had effective oversight. How will this benefit digital sovereignty?

We have the AI Security Institute now responsible within that office for increasing take-up of technology across government. If you have the same group responsible for testing the tech and deploying and supplying the tech, ask anybody what the outcome will be and you will get a single—and in this context, unhelpful—answer. Add to that what is happening with AI IP and copyright and AI growth zones and you have quite a cocktail, none of which on the face of it seems to have an effective and laser focus on digital and AI sovereignty.

So, what do we require? As is always the case, I take your Lordships back to the three Cs: clarity, consistency and coherence of approach. It does not matter whether you are a citizen, creative, consumer, innovator or investor: it is about clarity, consistency and coherence. In the specific context of digital sovereignty, it is about definitions, dependencies and decisions. There are as many definitions of sovereignty as you care to take, but the Government need to pick one, stick to it and clearly and coherently communicate it.

On dependencies, what are the Government prepared to tolerate? We do not need to—nor could we—do full-stack sovereignty. But the truth of it is that no nation, not even the United States of America, nor China, has true, pure, full-stack sovereignty. It is not doable and it is not necessary. What is the risk profile that the Government are prepared to tolerate, and what do they say in terms of broad resilience? To govern is to choose: ultimately, these decisions have to be made.

We have heard variously from the Minister over debates and Oral Questions in your Lordships’ House that digital and AI are now across all domains. Nobody would disagree with that, but would that not suggest that we need a cross-departmental, cross-domain approach when it comes to our legislation and regulation? That is the approach being taken with the cyber Bill, and I agree with it—although it is deficient and absent in some serious areas, with no mention currently of AI, and we will be coming back to that in the September sitting. If it makes sense to have a cross-sector cyber Bill, surely it makes sense to have a cross-sector, cross-economy AI Bill.

For digital sovereignty and AI sovereignty we must think cross-sector and be principles-based and outcomes-focused, with inputs understood. Those principles include trust and transparency, inclusion and innovation, interoperability and an international outlook, accountability, assurance and accessibility. Many of those principles have been weakened by the recent changes to departmental responsibilities, and there needs to be that laser focus on clarity, consistency and coherence. Ultimately, digital sovereignty, AI sovereignty and data sovereignty are all essential elements, and we need to look at how we take an approach which enables, empowers and fundamentally allows all of us as citizens to say, with full throat, that our data, our decisions and our digital futures, together, are human-led, inclusive digital futures.