Digital sovereignty without digital isolation

The challenge is not choosing between sovereignty and innovation, but securing both

Lee Perkins, CEO, Civica

Digital sovereignty is fast becoming one of the defining technology questions for government.

For many years, public sector technology decisions have rightly focused on service quality, value for money, security and delivery. Those questions still matter. But they are no longer enough on their own. As more public services depend on cloud infrastructure, data platforms, AI systems and a small number of global technology providers, leaders also need to ask a more strategic question: who ultimately controls the systems that citizens rely on?

This is not a theoretical debate. The House of Lords Library recently described digital sovereignty as a question of how nation states retain control over digital infrastructure, technologies and data in an interconnected world. It also noted that the UK has not adopted a formal digital sovereignty strategy, instead seeking to build sovereign capability in areas such as AI while continuing to work through international partnerships.

That is a pragmatic starting point. Complete technological independence is neither realistic nor desirable. Modern public services depend on global innovation, international supply chains and collaboration with trusted partners. But dependence without visibility, choice or resilience creates risk. The task now is to build digital public services that can innovate at pace while retaining control over the data, systems and outcomes that matter most.

The debate has moved beyond procurement

Digital sovereignty is often framed as a procurement question: should government buy from domestic suppliers or global providers? That is too narrow.

The real issue is resilience. Can a council, health body or central government department maintain service continuity if a supplier changes terms, a market consolidates, a geopolitical dispute escalates, a platform becomes unavailable or a system needs to be replaced? Can it move data safely? Can it understand where information is processed, who can access it and under which legal framework? Can it retain enough internal and supplier-side knowledge to avoid being locked into decisions made years earlier?

These questions are now being asked more openly. The House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s June 2026 report on digital government warned that the public sector is dependent on a small number of large digital and technology providers and identified vendor lock-in and overseas technology dependence as barriers to delivering a more effective digital state. An Early Day Motion tabled in January 2026 also called for a UK digital sovereignty strategy, citing risks around supplier concentration, exit planning, interoperability and public service continuity.

That does not mean every global provider is a problem. Many deliver security, resilience and investment at a scale few alternatives can match. Nor does it mean every sovereign solution is automatically safer, more innovative or more resilient. Sovereignty should not become a slogan that replaces proper assessment.

The more useful test is practical: does the technology give public service organisations enough control, flexibility and assurance to serve citizens well, whatever changes around them?

AI makes sovereignty a public service issue

AI has brought this debate into sharper focus. The UK Government’s creation of a Prime Minister’s AI Taskforce, chaired by Lord Vallance, and AI Minister Kanishka Narayan’s attendance at Cabinet meetings show that AI has moved from the edge of policy to the centre of public service transformation. The new Taskforce has been given a remit to drive the Government’s AI strategy, support public sector transformation and unlock growth.

That shift is welcome. AI has real potential to improve services, reduce administrative burden and help public sector teams respond earlier and more effectively to citizens’ needs. But the greater the opportunity, the greater the need for control.

Public sector AI cannot be treated simply as another layer of automation. It depends on data quality, governance, transparency, human judgement and public trust. If public bodies do not understand how AI systems are built, where data is processed, what dependencies sit beneath them or how outcomes are monitored, they risk creating new forms of lock-in at exactly the moment they are trying to modernise.

Sovereign AI should therefore be understood less as a promise to build everything domestically and more as a commitment to accountable AI. Public bodies must be able to explain how AI-enabled services work, challenge outputs, protect citizens’ data, change supplier if needed and keep human oversight visible in decisions that affect people’s lives.

British expertise, grounded in public service reality

Civica is a British company with 25 years of operations in the UK. We are proud of that. We work deeply across local and central government, health and care and education, and we understand that technology decisions in these sectors are never just technical. They affect real people, often at important moments in their lives.

That perspective matters in the sovereignty debate. UK-based providers can bring local accountability, domain expertise and a closer understanding of the public services they support. They can help ensure that innovation is shaped around operational reality, not imposed as a one-size-fits-all platform model.

But it would not be credible to pretend that British ownership alone solves digital sovereignty. Like many technology companies, Civica operates within a wider ecosystem that includes major cloud and infrastructure providers. For example, where services use hyperscale cloud platforms, data residency and processing arrangements need to be understood clearly, but cloud dependency cannot be described as fully sovereign simply because the software provider is UK-based.

That honesty is important. Public sector customers do not need simplistic claims. They need clarity about architecture, data flows, resilience, contracts, security controls, continuity plans and exit options.

Sovereignty should not become a false choice

The risk in the current debate is that digital sovereignty becomes a binary argument: domestic versus global, sovereign versus insecure, open versus proprietary. Public service technology is more complex than that.

The right answer will often be a blended approach. Public bodies should be able to work with global platforms where they provide genuine value, security and resilience. They should also have stronger UK capability, more diverse supplier markets and greater use of open standards, interoperability and data portability.

This is especially important for councils. Many local authorities face severe budget pressures, rising demand and ageing legacy systems. For them, the choice is rarely between a perfect sovereign architecture and a global platform. It is often between modernising services or leaving teams and citizens stuck with fragmented, outdated systems.

That is why the sovereignty debate must stay grounded in citizen outcomes. A system that is theoretically sovereign but expensive, fragile or hard to integrate will not serve the public well. Equally, a system that is highly capable but impossible to exit, interrogate or adapt creates long-term risk.

The goal should be technology that is secure, resilient, interoperable and transparent, with clear accountability for the services citizens depend on.

A mature approach to digital sovereignty

International collaboration, investment and innovation are essential to growth. But the UK also needs a more deliberate approach to the technologies that underpin public services, national resilience and citizen trust.

That means investing in domestic capability where it is strategically important. It means maintaining strong partnerships with trusted international providers. It means supporting UK suppliers and SMEs where they can add value. It means insisting on open standards, data portability, transparency and credible exit planning. And it means making sure public sector organisations retain choice and control over the systems they fund and rely on.

Digital sovereignty should not be about shutting the world out. It should be about ensuring that public services can continue to operate, adapt and improve in a changing world.

For government and councils, the priority is not sovereignty for its own sake. It is resilient public services. It is citizen trust. It is the ability to innovate with confidence while keeping control of the outcomes that matter.

That is the balance the UK needs to strike.

About Civica 

Civica is a global GovTech champion that delivers cloud-based software and solutions, powering critical public services for over 100 million citizens worldwide. Trusted by more than 6,000 customers across central and local government, health and care and education, we help the public sector build financial resilience, strengthen community commitment and improve citizen welfare. With operations in seven countries across North America, Europe and APAC and 25 years of experience, we combine global scale with deep sector expertise to support those who serve citizens every day. Find out more: www.civica.com