The Weekend Briefing: passport queues, AI in government, the cladding scandal and more.

The Bench Report Weekend Briefing presents a summary of our topics discussed in episodes this past week and beyond

We begin with the question of dedicated UK passport queues and the government's focus on efficiency over national identity. 

The briefing then addresses the ongoing UK cladding scandal, highlighting slow progress and significant cost increases. 

Challenges hindering the adoption of Artificial Intelligence within UK government due to outdated technology and skill shortages are discussed.

We also examine the state of UK grassroots sports, acknowledging investment but questioning its sufficiency against rising costs. 

Finally, the briefing covers the controversial Tobacco and Vapes Bill, exploring its aim to create a smoke-free generation alongside concerns about enforcement and personal liberties.

All podcast episodes referenced be found at www.thebenchreport.co.uk

Chapters

• 0:13 UK Airport Queues
• 2:39 Cladding Scandal
• 4:35 AI Systems in Government
• 4:38 Tobacco and Vapes Bill
• 7:01 Grassroots Sports

Transcript

Welcome to the bench report weekend briefing, an overview of the topics covered this past week plus a couple of extras. We are Amy and Ivan, your hosts. So kicking things off, we looked into that rather, well, surprisingly passionate debate in the Lords about passport queues. Yes. The great queue conundrum.

Why don't British passport holders get their own dedicated lane when they arrive back in The UK? Exactly. You'd think it's just about that feeling, you know, I'm home. Give me the fast lane. A bit of national pride.

But the government's view is very much, focused elsewhere. It's all about cold, hard efficiency, apparently. Efficiency? How so? They basically argue that having separate lines would actually mess things up for everyone.

It would slow the whole process down, leading to longer waits overall. So mixing everyone together is faster seems odd. Their solution, or the current system they defend, relies heavily on the e gates. They say British citizens can already use those quickly. Right.

The automated face scanners. Zip through there. Job done. No need for a special human run queue. That's the logic.

Diverting Brits away from potentially faster e gates might create bottlenecks elsewhere. But this raises the point about other travelers, doesn't it? If Brits did get priority, what kind of welcome does that give visitors? Precisely. Longer queues for them, a less welcoming experience right at the start.

It's a tricky balance. And, you can't ignore the Brexit factor looming over this. Some definitely suggested the queues are just, well, a consequence of leaving the EU. More checks, more time. That's certainly part of the background noise in this discussion.

Mhmm. Whether whether it's the primary cause or not is debated, but it's there. And then there's the fairness angle. If EU citizens get decent treatment here, shouldn't that The UK be pushing for the same for Brits going to the EU reciprocity? A fair point.

Mhmm. Should we be negotiating for fast track access over there, mirroring what happens here? The Lord certainly thought so. Though, maybe the most sensible idea floated was just improve the whole system, more staff, better tech. Instead of just shuffling queues around, yes, invest properly to make it faster for everyone regardless of their passport.

And finally on this, there's a mention of exit checks tracking who leaves and tourism worries about UK visas being too pricey or complicated. Yeah. The tourism sector is always concerned that hurdles like visa costs might put people off coming. It's that constant tension. Security versus welcoming visitors versus national identity.

A real juggling act makes you think next time you're standing in that line? Definitely. Okay. Moving on. We then tackled the, ongoing UK cladding scandal.

And, honestly, the scale of this is just staggering, still unfolding after Grenfell. It really is. Remember that initial estimate, 600,000,000 to fix dangerous cladding. Seems almost laughable now, doesn't it? Completely.

The potential bill now might be closer to, wait for it, 22,400,000,000.0. Billion. That's astronomical. And the terrifying thing is they're still finding dangerous buildings. Thousands haven't even been identified yet.

And for the 5,000 or so they do know about, work hasn't even started on more than half. It's incredibly slow. Why so slow? What's the holdup? It's a whole mess.

Reluctant landlords, supply chain problems, regulatory hurdles getting in the way. Developers not always acting consistently. And meanwhile, people are stuck living in these places, unsafe homes. It's awful. Absolutely.

And it's not just the cladding either. There are often internal fire safety problems too, which complicates things further. Leaving leaseholders potentially facing ruinous bills. Exactly. Bills they simply can't afford for problems they didn't create, trapped in homes they can't sell, can't make safe.

And the cladding manufacturers in all this, have they coughed up? Apparently, not directly into the main remediation fund, which seems, well, pretty shocking given they made the material. Shocking is one word for it. We're talking about maybe up to three million people affected by this, lives completely on hold. It's a genuine human catastrophe.

The stress, the fear, the financial worry, it's immense. And you have to ask, is the government actually getting value for money with their mediation schemes? That's a key question being asked. Plus, think about the resources diverted from building new homes. Right.

So it's making the housing crisis even worse. Fixing past mistakes is stopping us from building for the future. It really begs the question, what fundamental changes are needed so this kind of disaster, this systemic failure can never happen again? Okay. Let's shift gears.

Wednesday, we looked at the UK government's attempts to embrace artificial intelligence. AI, the future, except maybe not quite yet. Well, a report from the public accounts committee certainly highlighted some, significant roadblocks. It wasn't exactly a glowing review. Roadblocks like ancient technology.

Or quite much. They found 72 high risk legacy IT systems still needing fixes. You can't really run sophisticated AI on creaking old infrastructure. No kidding. And AI needs good data.

Right? That's its fuel. Absolutely critical. Yeah. And the report suggested government data is often, well, let's just say, not always in the best shape.

Patchy, inconsistent. Garbage in, garbage out as they say. Then there's a trust issue. They set up a website to show off government AI tools. The transparency register.

Yes. Yeah. Designed to build public confidence. How many entries did it have? A rather underwhelming 33.

30 three across the entire government. That doesn't exactly scream transparency, does it? It suggests there's a long way to go in terms of openness and maybe even in terms of actual deployment. Perhaps the biggest hurdle, though, is finding people who actually know how to do AI. The skills gap, hugely significant.

Half of all digital and data roles in the civil service are unfilled. Half. Why? Primarily pay. The private sector just pays so much more for those skills.

It's hard for the public sector to compete. So even if they have the ambition, they don't have the people. Are they actually using AI anywhere? There are pilot projects happening. Yes.

But the report noted a lack of joined up learning. Different departments are kind of reinventing the wheel. No central coordination. Everyone doing their own thing? It seems that way, which isn't very efficient.

Even the process of buying AI is apparently a problem. How so? Outdated procurement methods. They're just not suited for buying agile, fast moving technologies like AI. It slows everything down.

So old tech, messy data, no staff, no coordination, and they can't even buy the stuff properly. Sounds promising. There is a new government digital service meant to try and fix some of this, but it highlights the massive potential that's currently being hampered. Because AI could transform public services, couldn't it? Automate boring tasks, boost efficiency, improve support.

The potential is enormous. But those fundamental challenges, the infrastructure, the data, the skills, the processes they need tackling first. Right. Let's move to something slightly less digital maybe, grassroots sports. A topic dear to our producer Tom's heart, especially football.

We looked at the state of local clubs. Yes. Based on recent parliamentary discussions. And there is quite a bit of investment going in, which is positive. How much are we talking?

Well, a hundred and 23,000,000 this year just for grassroots football pitches. Another 123,000,000 for multi sport facilities. Plus Sport England puts over 250,000,000 a year into communities. Okay. Those are big numbers.

But the big question is, is it enough? Enough to keep these clubs going long term, especially with costs rising everywhere. That's the core issue. Clubs face real challenges. Things like just securing a permanent ground to play on or dealing with pitches that are basically waterlogged half the year.

Unusable training pitches nightmare fuel for any coach. Even established community clubs are feeling the financial fresher. It's a constant struggle for many. Yet the value they provide is huge, isn't it? Beyond just playing sport.

Immense. You've got organizations like the Football Foundation making a real difference with facility upgrades. But these clubs are community hubs. They generate massive social value, apparently. Huge amounts.

EFL clubs alone were estimated to contribute over 1,200,000,000.0 talent worth. They're vital for health, tackling inactivity, fostering local pride. And supporting the growth in women's and girls football too, which is booming. Absolutely crucial for that. So the investment is welcome.

The passion is there, but there are still worries. About future funding, keeping it going. Exactly. Especially for things like school sports initiatives. There's concern about the security of that funding pipeline.

So ensuring these vital community assets survive requires ongoing support from government, governing bodies, local communities. It needs everyone pulling together to make sure grassroots sport can continue to thrive. And finally, the topic that got everyone talking, the tobacco and vape spill. A really controversial one, trying to balance public health with, well, choice. Definitely controversial.

It proposes some pretty major changes, potentially a seismic shift in policy. The headline grabber is clause one, isn't it? The plan to permanently ban tobacco sales to anyone born on or after 01/01/2009. That's the one. Aiming to create a smoke free generation, as they call it, phasing out smoking completely over time.

Supporters point to the awful impact of smoking eighty thousand deaths a year in The UK. Massive costs to the NHS. The health arguments are incredibly strong. Smoking is linked to so many serious diseases. But the critics have raised some serious questions, practical ones, ethical ones.

Like, how on earth can shops realistically enforce that age gap decades from now? Checking ID for someone who looks 50 to see if they were born before or after 02/2009. Sounds like a recipe for chaos. And won't it just push everything onto the black market, unregulated, untaxed? That's a major concern.

A potential boom in illicit tobacco sales, which could be even more dangerous. And is it actually fair to tell future generations they can never legally buy something that previous generations could? That's the ethical argument about individual liberty and generational fairness. It's a really tricky one. Was there an alternative discussed?

Yes. Simply raising the smoking age to 21 for everyone was proposed. A simpler, more universal measure perhaps. Less radical, maybe. But the bill isn't just about smoking, is it?

It's hitting vaping hard too, especially youth vaping. Big focus on that. Measures like much stricter online age verification, controls on vape flavors and designs. Getting rid of the colorful high puff disposables that seem aimed squarely at kids. That's the idea.

And maybe even limiting vague tank sizes, anything to make them less appealing and accessible to under eighteens. There was even talk of putting age verification tech into the vapes themselves. Seriously. It sounds futuristic, maybe even a bit Orwellian to some, but it shows how determined they are to crack down on underage use. And what about advertising?

Ban it all or just restrict it? That's another balancing act. How do you let adult smokers know vaping is an alternative without tempting nonsmokers or kids? Maybe restricting ads to adult only spaces. Plus, there are plans for retailer licensing, crackdowns on illegal sales, maybe more smoke free zones.

It's a very comprehensive bill covering a lot of ground, trying to tackle tobacco and vaping from multiple angles. It really throws that fundamental tension into sharp focus, doesn't it? The state's role in protecting health versus an individual's right to choose. Absolutely. It's a debate about freedom, responsibility, health, and the limits of government intervention, and it's definitely not over yet.

Please subscribe to the bench report wherever you get your podcasts. Take care.