The UK government is making a significant move into government AI with the introduction of ‘Consult,’ a new tool aimed at simplifying how public consultation feedback is handled. Part of the “Humphrey” suite, a set of digital tools designed to modernize civil service operations, Consult promises to speed up analysis by as much as 1,000 times compared to traditional methods.
For a government that deals with hundreds of consultations each year, this could mean a lot: reduced bureaucracy, quicker decision-making, and potential savings of up to £20 million annually. However, like many advancements in AI, this isn’t a perfect solution. Alongside the enthusiasm, there are growing concerns about data quality, transparency, and bias that need to be addressed.
What the Government AI Tool ‘Consult’ Actually Does
At its core, ‘Consult’ is a government AI engine built to rapidly process written feedback submitted by citizens in public consultations. In a recent trial conducted by the Scottish Government, the tool was tested on more than 2,000 public responses to proposed regulations on non-surgical cosmetic procedures. The feedback spanned six open-ended questions, typically requiring human analysts hours or even weeks to interpret. With Consult, the same data was analyzed in record time. What stood out to officials was that the tool’s summaries and thematic groupings closely aligned with what human analysts concluded. This suggests that AI can indeed support and, in some cases, match the nuance of human judgment.
Beyond summarization, Consult provides an interactive dashboard for civil servants to filter and explore public sentiment. It is not just about speed. It is about visibility and accessibility. In theory, it enables policymakers to make more informed and inclusive decisions faster while shortening the feedback loop between the government and the public.
Readers interested in how technology well-being may also want to explore how digital burnout affects your body and health, especially as governments adopt AI tools that increase screen time and cognitive load for civil servants.
The Efficiency Argument: Can Government AI Really Save Millions in the Public Sector?
Supporters of the tool cite strong reasons for excitement. Handling over 500 consultations annually poses a massive logistical challenge, tying up skilled staff who could focus elsewhere. The UK government estimates that by automating these processes, it could reclaim around 75,000 administrative workdays and save £20 million a year. These are not minor improvements. They represent a fundamental shift in how government functions at scale.
In an age where public demand for transparency and responsiveness is high, the government’s push toward AI solutions like Consult could help bridge the gap between citizen feedback and policy action. Especially during times of crisis or reform, having access to near real-time insights into what the public thinks could be a powerful advantage. It is not just a matter of efficiency. It could become a tool that strengthens the foundation of democracy itself.
Why Experts Are Pumping the Brakes on AI-Driven Policy Tools
Yet despite its many advantages, Consult brings a serious question to the forefront. What happens when the data it analyzes is incomplete, biased, or fails to accurately reflect public sentiment? Stuart Harvey, CEO of Datactics, points out that the quality of the data used to train any AI system and the information it receives in real-time entirely determine its effectiveness. If the majority of responses come from a specific demographic group, such as tech-savvy individuals, the tool might misinterpret that feedback as representative of the wider population.
Academic experts share these concerns. Professor Michael Rovatsos, an AI ethicist at the University of Edinburgh, cautions that without strong safeguards, tools like Consult could unintentionally reinforce societal biases. In some scenarios, they might even be manipulated to favor certain opinions over others. He emphasizes the importance of keeping human oversight at the center of these systems, maintaining transparency in how AI decisions are made, and continuously investing in data that reflects a broad and diverse range of voices. Without careful handling, a tool designed to improve democracy could end up weakening the public’s trust in it.
A Real-World Reminder of What Can Go Wrong With AI in Government
The UK’s experience with AI in public service has already come under criticism. One recent example involves a controversy surrounding an AI-generated peatland map that DEFRA commissioned to support land restoration planning. The tool mistakenly identified rocks, forests, and dry grasslands as peat bogs. At the same time, it overlooked several areas of genuinely degraded peatland. These errors were not just technical slip-ups. They had real-world consequences for landowners, farmers, and policies tied to environmental funding.
This incident highlights a larger issue. AI is only as dependable as the data it receives and the oversight someone provides. Without expert review and proper validation, even the most advanced systems can produce flawed results. In government settings, mistakes like these do not stay confined to the backend. They can influence public policy and directly impact lives.
Different Countries, Different Comfort Levels With AI in Governance
Globally, governments are approaching the rise of artificial intelligence with a mix of excitement and caution. In the United Kingdom, researchers are actively testing tools like Consult to improve public consultation processes. Meanwhile, in India, the Finance Ministry has issued clear warnings against the use of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT in official work. Their primary concern lies in the potential for data leaks and the mishandling of sensitive government information.
At the same time, local governments in India are taking a different path. For example, the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Municipal Corporation has begun using AI to enhance civic services and is training bureaucrats in emerging digital technologies. This contrast between national-level caution and local-level experimentation reflects an important insight. The success of AI in the public sector relies not only on the technology itself but also on how clearly governments define its use, how ethically they implement it, and how well it fits within each region’s policy and cultural framework.
Use AI as a Tool, Not a Replacement for Public Judgment
The rise of Consult represents more than just a technical advancement. It signals a fundamental change in how governments manage scale, speed, and public engagement. Artificial intelligence is no longer a futuristic concept. It is already influencing how we process citizen feedback and shape policies. With that influence comes a significant level of responsibility.
Improved efficiency is a strong benefit, but it cannot be the only measure of success. What truly matters is how designers create these tools, how transparently they function, and how well they reflect democratic values. If implemented with care, Consult has the potential to narrow the distance between citizens and decision-makers. It could help governments become more inclusive, more accountable, and better equipped to respond to real-world needs. But if used carelessly, it could undermine the very trust it aims to build.
This is not just a question of what artificial intelligence is capable of. It is a question of how society chooses to use it. And that choice must always prioritize people over algorithms.
