In a quiet office block in central London last week, the machinery of data governance shifted. On 15 July the government appointed seven new non-executive members to the Information Commission Board, a move framed as essential preparation for the body that will replace the Information Commissioner’s Office under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.
The appointees — Laurie Benson, Maggie Carver, Stephen Cohen, Sukhvinder Kaur-Stubbs, Gary Kildare, Hilary Newiss and Scott McPherson — each bring portfolios that span regulation, technology and public service. They will serve an initial three-year term, paid £25,000 annually, and take up their seats when the new commission assumes full powers later this year. Paul Arnold, already serving as interim chief executive and accounting officer, will join them on the board.
This reconstitution follows the resignation of John Edwards as Information Commissioner on 19 June after a workplace investigation. The timing is not coincidental. Recent events have exposed the limits of concentrating authority in a single commissioner; the new structure spreads strategic responsibility across a collective board, aiming for clearer accountability and steadier direction.
A regulator built for trust rather than control
Liz Kendall, secretary of state for science, innovation and technology, put it plainly in the announcement:
The Information Commission must be an organisation that people trust - and trust starts with culture. That means strong leadership, clear values, and a Board that upholds the highest standards of conduct and accountability where staff at all levels are treated with respect and dignity. I’m delighted to welcome seven new Non-Executive members who bring the breadth of experience needed to build that culture from the ground up. Together they will work with the leadership team to help shape an organisation that is open and accountable, building public trust in the responsible use of data. Today we are also launching the search for a new Chair to lead the Commission and set its tone from the very top. This is a significant role at a significant moment, and I look forward to announcing the transition to the Information Commission in due course.
Her words carry weight precisely because they avoid the expansive rhetoric that often accompanies data regulation. The emphasis rests on culture, respect and practical trust — qualities easier to claim than to embed. In an environment where regulators can drift toward ever-wider definitions of harm, a board grounded in diverse operational experience offers at least the prospect of proportionate judgment.
Paul Arnold echoed the same pragmatic tone from the regulator’s side:
