We asked DSIT for reassurances that there would be sufficient transparency and mechanisms for citizens to challenge AI assisted decisions. It told us that there were provisions in the Data (Use and Access) Bill to allow for redress and challenge in cases of automated decision–making. It also acknowledged that it had more to do to communicate effectively with the public and to be “demonstrably trustworthy” and this was an important area of focus for it in the coming years.29 Actions it told us...

We asked DSIT for reassurances that there would be sufficient transparency and mechanisms for citizens to challenge AI assisted decisions. It told us that there were provisions in the Data (Use and Access) Bill to allow for redress and challenge in cases of automated decision–making. It also acknowledged that it had more to do to communicate effectively with the public and to be “demonstrably trustworthy” and this was an important area of focus for it in the coming years.29 Actions it told us it is taking include developing technical standards and guidelines, publishing guidance, and strengthening DSIT’s spend controls around the use of high– Type: conclusion | Number: 13 | Response status: not_addressed Government response: 2. PAC conclusion: Public trust is being jeopardised by slow progress on embedding transparency and establishing robust standards for AI adoption in the public sector. 2a. PAC recommendation: DSIT should write to the Committee in six months to update us on: • Dep