Politics

Copy article

Britain let a Bank Define Digital Skills Goals for 8 Years. Now AI's on the List, the Government Wants the Job Back.

ended 26. March 2026

Lloyds Banking Group has been deciding what counts as essential digital competence for the British public since 2018. Not Ofsted. Not the Department for Education. A bank.

That arrangement ended quietly on Monday, buried in a progress report from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The government announced it is taking over the Essential Digital Skills Framework — the official benchmark used to measure whether UK adults can function online — from Lloyds Banking Group. The framework will be updated to include AI literacy and online safety.

The timing is not coincidental. AI is now embedded in recruitment screening, benefits assessment, healthcare triage, and financial services. The definition of what it means to be digitally competent has suddenly become a question with serious consequences for the nation's future. And for eight years, a commercial bank was shaping it.

More than a million people have been helped online through the Digital Inclusion Action Plan in its first year. Over 22,000 devices — laptops, phones, tablets — have been donated through government schemes and industry partnerships. £11.9 million has funded more than 80 local digital inclusion programmes across the UK. The stories behind the numbers are real: a year 8 student in Wales doing his homework properly for the first time, a domestic abuse survivor in Yorkshire rebuilding her life with a donated phone, a mother in Birmingham who got a job that fits around her children after learning to use AI tools on a six-week course.

Those outcomes matter. But a device and a broadband connection gets someone online. It does not tell them what to do when an algorithm rejects their job application without explanation, or when an AI system gives them wrong medical information, or when a chatbot replaces the customer service line they used to call.

Digital inclusion and digital understanding are not the same thing. The government's own plan conflates them.

Lloyds created the framework in 2018 with genuine intent, and by its own account it became the standard measure of UK adults' digital capabilities. But a commercial bank's definition of essential skills will always be shaped, consciously or not, by what a commercial bank needs its customers to be able to do. That is not a criticism of Lloyds. It is a structural observation about who was asked to hold the pen.

The government is now taking the pen back. It says it will update the framework in consultation with stakeholders, informed by public engagement, to reflect the skills needed for work and life today. What that process looks like, who gets a seat at that table, and whether the resulting framework treats AI literacy as a genuine civic competency or a checkbox will determine whether Monday's announcement means anything at all.

A million people got online this year. The question now is whether the rulebook being written in their name is good enough for what they're walking into.

We'd like your views:

  • The Essential Digital Skills Framework was written by a bank and used as a national benchmark for eight years. Should a commercial institution ever hold that role, and what did eight years of commercial authorship leave out?
  • The government is now updating the framework to include AI. Who should decide what AI literacy means for the 16 million UK adults currently estimated to have low or no digital skills to start with?
  • Digital inclusion is measured by access, devices, connections, reach. Should it be measured instead by whether people can recognise when an AI system is making decisions about them?
  • A million people were helped online in year one. Helped to do what, exactly? And is that enough when AI is already embedded in all the services they're being helped to access?
  • The state is taking over a privately authored competency framework at the exact moment that framework needs to cover AI. Is this the government finally stepping up, or scrambling to catch up?

3 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Colette Mason
AI Ethics Consultant at Clever Clogs AI
Donating devices to disadvantaged people who need them is a good policy decision. But let's not confuse device access with tech aptitude.
Britain has 16 million adults with no meaningful digital skills whatsoever. The productivity gains everyone keeps promising from AI don't come from basic access: they come from power users, the 'F1 drivers', not people pootling on a Sunday tip run.

Prompting well, interrogating outputs, catching hallucinations, building workflows are the skills that move the needle. We're nowhere near it at scale. 20% of the populace still haven't left the starting blocks after 2 decades of smartphones, aka tech with training wheels.

The government moves in five-year cycles. AI doesn't. It took eight years to reclaim a skills framework from a bank. By the time the update lands, it'll already be out of date.

Britain's productivity problem needs human-augmented AI to actually function. Right now the government has only just decided it needs to own the syllabus.
Copy

Editor
Dil Gujral
Chief AI Trainer at AI Now Academy
History repeats itself as the UK government pivots to a new "white heat" of technology, swapping Harold Wilson’s industrial vision for the nebulous promise of AI.

We are led by a political class dominated by lawyers who struggle to manage basic state functions, let alone navigate a revolution that outpaces even its own creators.

Asking this administration to spearhead AI literacy is like asking a carriage driver to explain a jet engine while the wheels are falling off the cart.

AI moves in weeks, while government policy moves in decades.

Before destroying the future, the state must prove it can fix the present.

A government that cannot walk and chew gum has no business lecturing the public on a technology it is fundamentally unequipped to handle.

We do not need more tech-utopian rhetoric; we need a government that can actually make the country work.
Copy

Rohit Parmar-Mistry
Founder at Pattrn Data
Letting a mega-corp bank define ‘digital competence’ for years was a mistake. Banks optimise for compliance, risk and digital self service, not what citizens and smaller firms actually need.

A refreshed framework should start with SMEs and frontline employers: practical competence, basic cyber hygiene, using AI tools safely, and knowing when to escalate.

Build it from real workflows, not bank centric corporate journeys, and measure outcomes in confidence and capability, not channel shift.