Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how organisations operate, and the civil service should not be afraid of that.
The FDA's recent report on automation and artificial intelligence in the civil service found that public servants are not opposed to technological change. Far from it. Our members see significant opportunities for AI to remove routine administrative burdens, free up time for higher-value work and help redesign public services around the needs of the public.
But there is an important difference between using technology to improve work and using it as a justification to quietly remove expertise, capacity and jobs.
That distinction matters enormously in the Department for Business and Trade, where a major restructuring programme is set to dramatically reduce the number of international trade advisers supporting small and medium-sized enterprises looking to export.
The changes, which will leave just a skeleton staff of advisers covering England, are being presented as part of a wider transformation agenda built around digital and AI-enabled services. Yet for many businesses, particularly SMEs, the value of export support has never been found in a website, an algorithm or a chatbot. It has been found in trusted relationships with skilled advisers who understand their business, their sector and their ambitions.
I know this because I was one of those advisers.
Before joining the FDA, I worked as an international trade adviser. I spent years helping businesses navigate complex overseas markets, understand regulations, identify opportunities and overcome barriers to growth. The support was rarely transactional. It relied on experience, judgement and trust. It was about understanding what made each business different and helping them to succeed.
That human dimension cannot simply be automated away.
This is not an argument against AI. The reality is that digital tools can and should play a valuable role in supporting businesses. They can make information more accessible, reduce bureaucracy and help advisers to focus their time where it adds the greatest value. Used properly, AI can enhance public services rather than diminish them.
Indeed, that is one of the central messages emerging from the FDA's research. Civil servants are not seeking to block innovation. They want to be partners in shaping it. They recognise the potential benefits of new technologies and are often best placed to identify where they can deliver genuine improvements.
What they do not support is the use of technology as a cover for workforce reductions or service withdrawal.
Unfortunately, that is the concern many FDA members have regarding the changes currently taking place in DBT.
The scale of the proposed reduction in adviser numbers raises fundamental questions about whether businesses will continue to receive the level of personalised support they need. More importantly, it raises questions about how these decisions have been made.
The move away from adviser-led support has been rolled into a broader restructuring exercise, meaning the implications for both staff and businesses have attracted far less public attention than they deserve. Yet for those directly affected, the consequences are profound. Highly skilled roles are disappearing, institutional knowledge is being lost and a service that has long been valued by businesses is being fundamentally redesigned.
This is precisely why unions must be part of the conversation about AI and workplace transformation.
The FDA's research highlights the importance of meaningful consultation whenever automation affects jobs, roles or the delivery of public services. Change imposed from above rarely delivers the best outcomes. Change designed with the people who understand the work often does.
Public sector workers possess deep operational expertise. They know which tasks can be automated, which processes are inefficient and where human judgement remains essential. Ignoring that expertise risks poor decision-making and weaker services.
The debate, therefore, should not be about whether AI is good or bad. It should be about how it is implemented, for what purpose and with whose input.
If AI allows civil servants to spend less time on repetitive administration and more time supporting businesses, citizens and ministers, that is a positive development. If it helps improve productivity and service quality, it should be embraced.
But if AI becomes a mechanism through which organisations quietly reduce headcount, withdraw services and eliminate valuable human expertise without meaningful engagement with staff and their representatives, then we should all be concerned.
The government has rightly placed economic growth at the centre of its agenda. SMEs will be critical to delivering that growth. Many of those businesses have benefitted from the knowledge, experience and relationships built by international trade advisers over many years.
As departments modernise and adopt new technologies, we must ensure that innovation strengthens those relationships rather than replaces them.
The future of public services should not be a choice between people and technology. The real opportunity lies in combining the strengths of both. To achieve that, the government must work openly with staff and unions, not treat them as obstacles to change.
The FDA stands ready to support that conversation. Our members are not resisting progress. They are asking for something far more reasonable: that transformation is transparent, evidence-based and designed in partnership with the people who deliver public services every day.
Because when change happens by stealth, nobody benefits: not civil servants, not businesses and ultimately not the public.
Matt Newman is the FDA union's national officer for the Department for Business and Trade and a former international trade adviser