Tim Clement-Jones

Remove the divide between the creative insustries and technology

The House of Lords recently debated the Report from the Communications and Digital Committee At risk: our creative future.

A key theme in the Report is the absolute importance of ensuring we combine our strengths and skills in both technology AND creativity and the importance too of intellectual property protection.

I focused on both aspects in my speech an edited version of which is below

I became the Front-Bench spokesman for the creative industries for my party back in 2004, and we have seen enormous changes in those nearly 20 years, with the rise of the digital economy. I very much welcome what the committee said about that and the way in which the noble Baroness introduced its report in that context. So, although I welcome the creation of the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, I am rather conflicted because I believe we need to be very clear about the vital role that digital technology plays and will continue to play in the arts and creative industries, and about the need to plan for its impact. I very much hope that the CMS department, as we must now call it, continues to have a strong focus on this; it cannot simply subcontract it to another government department. We heard about the size of the creative industries, certainly prior to the pandemic, growing at twice the rate of the UK economy. So, as was said, there is no case for any complacency or government denial that this sector continues to be of huge importance.

It is clear from the speeches that we heard that the committee has already had results, in the stimulation of the production of the sector vision, which sets out a strategy for increasing the sector’s growth and which I welcome. Of course, we are now in a much better position to judge whether the Select Committee’s recommendations are being met, in the light of that document. But, perhaps going a bit further than the

committee’s report, like the noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck, I believe that the creative industries are working against a backdrop of severe and chronic skills shortages, in terms of recruitment, retention and diversity.

I was very much taken by BECTU’s briefing to us saying that thousands of freelancers are leaving the industries for better pay, better conditions and more stability elsewhere. It points out that creative freelancers were hit particularly hard by the pandemic, which we all know about, with many of them ineligible for government support schemes. I entirely agree with BECTU because freelancers are absolutely at the core of the creative industries. It says that the Government must

“work with unions and industry to ensure the sector is an equal, safe and rewarding place to build a career”.

Without that, there is little prospect of the Government’s second skills-related goal, set out in the sector vision, being achieved.

IP is an area where I have a particularly strong interest. Nowhere is government action—or inaction—more relevant than in respect of IP since it is central to the creative industries. It is good to see that it formed a strong part of the committee’s recommendations: first, the pause to the text- and data-mining regime; and, secondly, recommendations to ratify the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances—that is, performing rights—which would grant performers the right to be identified as the performer and the right to object to distortion, mutilation or other modification to the recorded or broadcast material that would be prejudicial to their reputation. That is an unpacking of what the Beijing treaty essentially does.

It was good that the Government’s response was positive in both respects. Particularly as a result of Patrick Vallance’s digital review, the Government committed to working with users and rights holders on text and data mining; for example, by producing a code of practice by the summer and helping to ensure that the tech and creative sectors can grow together in partnership. I welcome that, and I pay tribute to the efforts of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Intellectual Property and of the Alliance for Intellectual Property, which I believe was instrumental, along with the Select Committee, in persuading the previous IP Minister, George Freeman, not to go ahead with the original proposal. But who is being consulted on the code of practice? When is it going to be published? Will it be published in draft form? What impact is it intended to have?

Likewise, the Government’s response on the Beijing treaty was positive, but they said:

“The Treaty also contains optional provisions which the UK will need to decide whether and how to implement”,

and that to ratify the treaty, the UK will need to decide on specific options for implementation through stakeholder consultation. That sounds a bit qualified. I very much hope that the Government, who said they were going to publish the consultation in spring this year, will get on with it. We are well out of spring now, so where is that consultation? When can we expect it?

Why are we over two years down the track from the original call for views on signing up to the Beijing treaty?

There are many other issues relating to IP. We have the worrying aspect of calls for changes to the exhaustion regime. A recent Telegraph piece, with the misleading sub-heading:

“Controversial EU law bans firms from selling legitimate branded goods if they are already on the market in a country outside the bloc”

seems to have been inspired by the European Research Group of Back-Bench Conservative MPs. Actually, that is a sovereign decision of the UK; it is entirely at the UK’s behest. It is in its interests to keep exhaustion as it is; it would be deeply damaging for the creative industries to change that.

There are other international issues relating to the disclosure of unregistered designs overseas, particularly in the EU, a subject that I very much hope that the Government have under review. Similarly, on the question of unregulated representatives in the IP system, changes have long been asked for by CITMA.

There is a very welcome reference to IP in the sector vision, which states:

“Central to our business environment is the UK’s IP framework … We also understand that technology must advance in harmony with the creative sector to ensure creators are not unintentionally negatively impacted by these advancements”.

But we need to go further in the AI age. I am delighted that we have AI and IP under one Minister now, but the IPO needs to grasp the nettle, particularly in respect of performing rights, which have been the subject of a major campaign by Equity, Stop Stealing the Show. As it says, performers are having their image, voice or likeness reproduced by others, using AI technology, without consent. This goes further than anything that would be covered by the Beijing treaty. We are talking about deepfakes, now easily generated by AI, and this includes visual works as well as music performance. What can the Minister say about the Government’s response to this?

There are many other questions relating to the creative industries. On music venues, As the Music Venue Trust say in 2023 more than one music venue has closed every week Grassroots Music Venues (GMVs) currently have a profit margin of 0.2%. I welcome some of the government support that has been given. Will it it consider introducing tax relief as with Theatres and Orchestras?

We have the whole question of creative clusters, and I congratulate the committee on their focus on that. I was in Yorkshire recently, and extremely impressed by some of the clustering effects there such as witrh XR Stories Production Park. They are really impressive, demonstrating the marriage of creativity and technology.

We have heard about the post-Brexit touring restrictions that is of huge importance. I do welcome the additional funding announced for the Music Export Office but for what purpose? The best thing the Government could do is to get back to the negotiating table.

Other areas that concern me are the seeming devaluation of arts and humanities degrees by this government.

There has been too narrow a focus by Review such Agar on earning power without looking at the overall value of these disciplines.

I welcome the work of the British Academy in trying to change the narrative around skills and the humanities. These are the social sciences, humanities and the arts for people and the economy, now described as SHAPE. There is a vital crossover with technology. The chair of Goldsmiths, Dinah Caine, recently said at a meeting in Parliament that the UK was working to become a science superpower but that it was already a creative power; she stressed the interdisciplinary links and called for the divides to be removed. That is exactly the way forward, and it is very much in line with the committee’s recommendations.

by Tim Clement-Jones

A long way off a Science and Technology Superpower

This is an extended version of a speech I made in a recent debate held in the Lords on a Report from the Science and Technology Committee "Science and technology superpower”: more than a slogan? which extensively discussed government policy in science and technology

The Committee's comprehensive report despite being nearly a year old still has great currency and relevance. Its conclusions are as valid as they were a year ago

Sir James Dyson has described the government’s science superpower ambition as a political slogan. Grandiose language about Global Britain from the Integrated review-and stated ambition to be a Science Superpower by 2030 -or is it a Science and Technology Superpower, is clearly overblown and detracts from what needs to be done. .

UCL research has demonstrated that if measured by authorship, the UK accounts for about only about 13 per cent of the top 1 per cent of the most highly cited work across all research fields

We have had a proliferation of strategies as the Committee noted.

R&D Roadmap,
the Innovation Strategy,
the Life Sciences Vision
the People and Culture Strategy,
and the National Space Strategy
National Quantum strategy.
National semi conductor strategy
A taskforce on foundation models is being set up

We have had a whole series of attempts at creating a strategy in various areas but with what follow up and delivery?

As well as the strategies I have mentioned we have had a series of reviews

Professor Dame Angela McLean’s Pro-innovation Regulation of Technologies Review Life Sciences
The Vallance Review of Pro-innovation Regulation of Digital Technologies
Independent Review of Research Bureaucracy the Review by Professor Adam Tickell
The independent review of UKRI by Sir David Grant
We now have the Independent Review of The Future of Compute announced
And now the Chancellors recent Life Sciences package

Where’s the result. What will the KPI’s be ? What is the shelf life of these reviews and where is the practical implementation?

Take for example the Life Sciences Vision launched back in 2021

Dame Kate Bingham is quoted as believing the Vaccine scheme legacy has been ‘squandered’.

Professor Adrian Hill, director of the Jenner Institute, which was responsible for the Oxford Covid vaccine, has said that the recent loss of the Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre (VMIC) in Oxfordshire, which had been created to respond to outbreaks, showed that the UK had been going backwards since the coronavirus pandemic.

Business investment is crucial. And no where more than in the life sciences sector.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath highlighted issues relating to investment in the sector two weeks ago in his regret motion on the Branded Health Service Medicines (Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. All the levers to create incentives for the development of new medicines are under government control.

As his motion noted the UK’s share of global pharmaceutical R&D has fallen by over one-third between 2012 and 2020. He argued rightly that both the voluntary and statutory pricing schemes for new medicines schemes are becoming a major impediment to future investment in the UK. We seem to be treating the pharma industry as some kind of golden goose

Despite the government’s Life Sciences Vision we see Eli lilley pulling investment on laboratory space in London because the UK “does not invite inward investment at this time and Astra Zeneca has decided to build its next plant in Ireland because of the U.K.’s “discouraging” tax rate.

Eli Lilly, the American multinational, had been looking to investing laboratory space in the UK, but it has put its plans for London on hold because, it said,”

The excellent O’Shaunessy report on clinical trials is all very well but if there is no commercial incentive to develop and launch. new medicines here why should pharma companies want to engage in clinical trials here? The Chancellor’s growth package for life Sciences announced on the 25th May fails to tackle this crucial aspect.

In other sectors

The CEO OF Johnson Matthey, a chemicals company with a leading position in green hydrogen,has said the UK is at risk of losing its lead thanks to a policy vacuum.
The co founder of ARM, Britain’s biggest semiconductor company, blames our “technologically illiterate political elite” and “Brexit idiocy” for the country’s paltry share of the chips market.

On these benches however we do welcome the creation of the new department and I welcome the launch of the Framework for Science and Technology to inform the work of the department to 2030.

There are 10 key objectives:

identifying, pursuing and achieving strategic advantage in the technologies that are most critical to achieving UK objectives

showcasing the UK’s S&T strengths and ambitions at home and abroad to attract talent, investment and boost our global influence

boosting private and public investment in research and development for economic growth and better productivity building on the UK’s already enviable talent and skills base

financing innovative science and technology start-ups and companies

capitalising on the UK government’s buying power to boost innovation and growth through public sector procurement

shaping the global science and tech landscape through strategic international engagement, diplomacy and partnerships

ensuring researchers have access to the best physical and digital infrastructure for R&D that attracts talent, investment and discoveries

leveraging post-Brexit freedoms to create world-leading pro-innovation regulation and influence global technical standards
creating a pro-innovation culture throughout the UK’s public sector to improve the way our public services run

What are the key priority outcomes? What concrete plans for delivery lie behind this? And does this explicitly supersede all of the visions and strategies that have gone before?

As the Committee said in its report

“The government should set out what it wants to achieve in each of the broad areas of science and technology it has identified, with a clear implementation plan including measurable targets and key outcomes in priority areas, and an explanation of how they will be delivered.

And - The government should consolidate existing sector-specific strategies into that implementation plan”

Also in terms of vital cross departmental working, joining up government on Science and Technology policy what is the role of the eNational Science and Technology Council and what are its key priorities?

This applies especially with Home office on visas for researchers if the UK wants to be a world leader in science and technology, it needs to be world leading in its approach to researcher mobility.

The UK’s upfront costs for work and study visas are up to 6 times higher than the average fees of other leading science nations. The application process for UK visitor visas is also bureaucratic and unwieldy, and the UK has one of the highest visitor visa refusal rates.

There are really important systemic issues which should be a top priority for resolution by the new Department.

Published at the same time as the DSIT framework was the independent review of the UK’s research, development and innovation landscape by Sir Paul Nurse,

Sir Paul calculated our spending around 2.5% of GDP. But he still concluded that funding, particularly provided by government, was limited, and below that of other competitive nations such as the Germans, South Koreans and US.

There is the particular and urgent problem of Horizon and the uncertainty around our membership. The absolute top priority for UK R&D should be rejoining Horizon.We need access to collaboration across the EU where pre Brexit we disproportionately benefited from Horizon’s 95 billion euro budget. We need a clear commitment to negotiate re entry. What is the position now nearly two months after the Prime Minister’s letter to Sir Adrian Smith of 14th April assuring him about our intentions on Horizon?

Iceland and Israel, Norway and New Zealand, and Turkey and Tunisia, are all already part of Horizon, as is Ukraine. Why not us?

The two universities of Oxford and Cambridge once received more than £130m a year from European research programmes but are now getting only £1m annually between them.

Meanwhile Britain has fallen behind Russia, Italy and Finland in the world league table for computing power., Britain has slipped from third in the rankings in 2005 to seventh now, according to the Independent Review of The Future of Compute.

The way the UK delivers and supports research is also “not optimal,” the Nurse review said said. Of course research academics here will know the frustrations of the bureaucracy associated with applying for U.K. research grants. As the Tickell review found there are issues with bureaucracy around research and development funding.

EPSRC is according to researchers admirable in how it oversees the research grants. Innovate UK with its Knowledge Transfer Partnerships however has a far more risk averse and bureaucratic approach just at the point where a bit of commercial risk taking is needed. We need to benchmark to ensure the least bureaucratic processes. I am told that the European Innovation Council is a model.

ARIA was specifically designed to avoid bureaucracy as we said during the passage of the bill but why weren't all of UKRI processes remodelled rather than creating a new entity? Incidentally do we have any more information now about their key research and development projects?

The government doesn’t really have a clear idea of the role of university research either. The Research Excellence Framework has the perverse incentive of discouraging cooperation. We should be encouraging strategic partnerships in research especially internationally as the Committee concludes

Commercialisation is a crucial aspect linking R&D to economic growth. This in turn means the need for a consistent industrial strategy with the right commercial incentives and an understanding of the value of intangible assets such as IP and data. In this context Catapults are performing a brilliant job but need a bigger role and more resource as the Committee have recommended in a previous report.

Of course we are all much relieved for the tech sector by the rescue of Silicon Valley bank by HSBC. But the popularity of a US bank in a way demonstrates that we may have a growing start up culture but scale up is still a problem as Sir Patrick Vallance said in his evidence to the Commons Science Innovation and Technology Committee last month.

The US is still preferred for listing by tech companies over London as we’ve seen with U.K. based ARM seeking a listing in the US.

There are aspects of wider government policy where there is no perceived benefit to U.K. science and technology

Reduction of of R & D tax credits for SME’s
Raising corporation tax to 25%

One of the long outstanding issues is reform to assist with derisking so that pension funds can play their part in helping grow tech companies also mentioned by Sir Patrick as an important aspiration and I see that finally something is stirring from the British Business Bank with the LIFTS initiative.

There are many other elements that need to be covered for a viable Science and technology strategy.

Regulatory Divergence

Even where the government thinks it is being innovation friendly it is clouded by the desire to be divergent from the EU to get some kind of Brexit dividend.. It talks about pro innovation regulation but Contrary to the advice of virtually every prominent technologist the AI governance white paper only concerns itself with voluntary sectoral regulation and leaves it to the regulators in particular sectors not proposing a broader risk based regulatory regime like that proposed under the EU’s AIA or indeed by the US Administration’s Blue Print for AI. Maybe that will change after the Prime Minister’s ’s visit to the US this week.

Changes to our Data Protection regime proposed by the Data Protection and Digital Information bill no 2 which go further than just clarifying the retained GDPR and of course make changes to the ICO’s structure could leads to a lack of EU data adequacy and new compliance costs..

We have waited forever for competition law in the digital space to be reformed through a Digital Markets Act and Digital Markets Unit to be put on a statutory basis and now we have a bill which gives inadequate powers to the CMA to act swiftly to ensure competition. In the meantime the so called hyperscalers gain greater and greater influence over the development of new technologies such as AI.

Diversity

In the the wise words of the British Science Association we must ensure the opportunities and benefits are equitable in any future science strategy, not only to shape a world-leading science industry, but to sustain progress and successfully bring out the potential of people from all communities, backgrounds and regions. Britain cannot be a superpower if parts of society are not welcomed and able to contribute to science research and innovation. Making science inclusive – from classroom to career – is essential to establishing a globally competitive workforce.

Mathematics

As regards mathematics, where is the £300m promised additional funding for mathematical science research as announced in January 2020 or the National Academy for the Mathematical Sciences or a National Strategy for Mathematics.

So much to do for the new Department. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in DSIT will rise to the challenge

by Tim Clement-Jones

The long-awaited AI Governance White Paper falls far short of what is needed

Lord Clement-Jones

@whiterhino1949

Last week over a thousand leading technologists wrote an open letter pointing out the “profound risks to society and humanity” of artificial intelligence (AI) systems with human-competitive intelligence.

They called inter alia for AI developers to “work with policymakers to dramatically accelerate development of robust AI governance systems”. So, it is ironic that our government published proposals for AI governance barely worthy of the name.

This at a time when there is huge interest and apprehension of the capabilities of new AI, such as ChatGPT and GPT-4, has never been higher.

Business needs a clear central oversight and compliance mechanism, not a patchwork of regulation

A long gestation period of national AI policy making, which started so well back in 2017 with the Hall-Pesenti Review and the creation of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, the Office for AI and the AI Council, has ended up producing a minimal proposal for “a pro-innovation approach to AI regulation”. In substance this amounts to toothless exhortation by sectoral regulators to follow ethical principles and a complete failure to oversee AI development with no new regulator.

Much of the white paper’s diagnosis is correct in terms of the risks and opportunities of AI. It emphasizes the need for public trust and sets out the attendant risks and adopts a realistic approach to the definition of AI. It makes the case for central coordination and even admits that this is what business has asked for, but the actual governance prescription falls far short.

The suggested form of governance of AI is a set of principles and exhortations which various regulators – with no lead regulator – are being asked to interpret in a range of sectors under the expectation that they will somehow join the dots between them. They will have no new enforcement powers. There may be standards for developers and adopters but no obligation to adopt them.

There is no recognition that the different forms of AI are technologies that need a comprehensive cross-sectoral approach to ensure that they are transparent, explainable, accurate and free from bias whether they are in an existing regulated or unregulated sector. Business needs a clear central oversight and compliance mechanism, not a patchwork of regulation. The government’s proposals will not meet its objective of ensuring public trust in AI technology.

The government seems intent on going forward entirely without regard to what any other country is doing in the belief that somehow this is pro innovation. It does not recognise the need for our developers to be confident they can exploit their technology internationally.

Far from being world leading or turbocharging growth in practice, our developers and adopters will be forced to look over their shoulder at other more rigorous jurisdictions. If they have any international ambitions they will have to conform to European Union requirements under the forthcoming AI Act and ensure they avoid liability in the United States by adopting the AI risk management standards being set by the National Institute for Standards and Technology. Once again government ideology is militating against the interests of our business and science and technology communities.

What is needed – which I sincerely hope the Science and Technology Committee will recommend in its inquiry into AI governance – is a combination of risk-based, cross-sectoral regulation combined with specific regulation in sectors, such as financial services, underpinned by common trustworthy international standards of risk assessment, audit and monitoring.

We have world beating AI researchers and developers. We need to support their international contribution, not fool them they can operate in isolation.

Lord Clement-Jones, Liberal Democrat peer and spokesperson for Science Innovation and Technology in the Lords and co-founder of the All Party Parliamentary Group on AI.

by Tim Clement-Jones

Common Ethics and Standards and Compatible Regulation will let responsible AI Flourish

This is the talk I gave at the opening of the excellent Portraits of AI Leadership Conference organized by Ramsay Brown of the The AI Responsibility Lab based in LA and Dr Julian Huppert Director of the Intellectul Forum at Jesus College Cambridge

It’s a pleasure to help kick off proceedings today.

Now you may well ask why a lawyer like myself fell among tech experts like yourselves

In 2016 as a digital spokesperson at an industry and Parliament trust breakfast I realized that the level of parliamentary understanding was incredibly low so with Stephen Metcalfe MP then the chair of Science and Technology Select Committee I founded the All Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence.The APPG is dedicated to informing parliamentarians about developments and creating a community of interest around future policy regarding AI, its adoption use and regulation.

As a result I was asked to chair the House of Lords Special Enquiry Select Committee on AI with the remit “to consider the economic, ethical and social implications of advances in artificial intelligence. This produced its report “AI in the UK: Ready Willing and Able?” in April 2018. It took a close look at government policy towards AI and its ambitions including those contained in the Hall/ Pesenti Review of October 2017 and those set out by former prime Minister Teresa May in her Davos World Economic Forum Speech including her goal for “ the UK to lead the world in deciding how AI can be deployed in a safe and ethical manner.”

Since then, as well as co-chairing the All Party AI Group, I have maintained a close interest in the development of UK policy in AI, chaired a follow-up to the Select Committee’s report, “AI in the UK: No Room for Complacency”, acted as an adviser to the Council of Europe’s working party on AI (CAHAI) and helped establish the OECD Global Parliamentary Network on AI.

I am now the Science Innovation and Technology Spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords for my sins.

Accross the world COVID-19 has emphasized and accelerated the dependence of virtually every business and sector on the successful adoption of the latest relevant technologies for their survival. Barely a day goes by without some reference to AI in the news. Both today and yesterday GPT 4 was one of the lead stories.

Artificial Intelligence presents opportunities in a whole variety of sectors. Variously we know what it can do,.

Detect financial crime/fraud/anti competitive behaviour.
Deliver personalised Education-of the learning experience
Energy Conservation
In Healthcare: Diagnostics. Drug Discovery and distribution, administration too
Delivery of the UN Sustainable development goals in terms of more productive agriculture, alleviation of hunger and poverty
Smart or connected cities
In terms of technology used by regulators or Reg tech

The opportunities for AI are incredibly varied indeed many people find it unhelpful to have such a variety of different types of machine learning labelled AI as it is. But I think we are stuck with it! There are common factors such as deep neural networks and machine learning. Increasingly the benefits are not just seen around not just about increasing efficiency, speed etc in terms of analysis, pattern detection and ability to predict but more about what creatively AI can add to human endeavour

We’ve seen the excitement over ChatGPT from Open AI and other large language models and AI text to image applications such as DALL E and now we have GPT 4. . The combination of these systems will give every appearance of AGI.

The anticipated economic benefits over this decade are significant with estimates predicting that the UK’s GDP will be up to 10% higher in 2030 from the development and adoption of AI

But things can go wrong.This isn’t just any old technology-The degree of autonomy, lack of human intervention, the Black box nature of some systems makes it different from other tech.

This is well illustrated by Brian Christian’s book ; the Alignment Problem and Stuart Russell’s Human Compatible. The challenge is to ensure that AI is our servant not our master. Stuart Russell says we have to build in uncertainty into the delivery of objectives of AI systems so that a human in loop is not just desirable but necessary.

Furthermore failure to tackle issues such as bias/discrimination and lack of transparency could lead to a lack of public/consumer trust, reputational damage and inability to deploy new technology. Public trust and trustworthy AI is fundamental to continued advances in technology.

Just take for instance

Consumer Financial Services decisions such as on Credit rating
Cybersecurity issues
Deployment in the workplace

This is particularly true in government and public sector use of AI.

Public sector decisions such as on social security matters
Live Facial recognition by the police-The dangers of the surveillance state
And of course deployment of Lethal AutonomousWeapons

The need to ensure responsible or ethical AI in its business and public adoption could and should however lead to a positive appraisal of governance more broadly both in the private and public sector

It is clear that AI even in its narrow form will and should have a profound impact on and implications for corporate governance. Trade organisations such as techUK and specific AI organisations such as the Partnership on AI recognize that corporate responsibility and governance on AI is increasingly important.

This means a much more value driven approach to the adoption of new technology. Engagement from boards through governance right through to policy implementation is crucial. This not purely a matter for the CTO/CIO.

Key areas that need tackling

Raising senior management awareness of issues posed by AI
Definition/classification of AI systems being developed, procured and deployed,
Employment issues : will it augment human skills or substitute them?
Oversight including Accountability through Boards and Audit and Risk Committees,
Risk assessment that is undertaken with the identification of high risk uses
Procurement rules
Whistleblowing

But it also importantly means assessing the ethics of adoption of AI and the ethical principles to be applied: It may involve the establishment of an ethics advisory committee.

We have a pretty good common set of principles -OECD or G20- which are generally regarded as the gold standard which can be adopted which can help us ensure

Quality of training data
Freedom from Bias
The impact on Individual civil and human rights
Accuracy and robustness
Transparency and Explainability which of course include the need for open communication where these technologies are deployed.

Generally in business and in the tech research and development world I think there there is an appetite for regulatory certainty and adoption of common standards particularly on standards for tools such as

Conformity/risk and impact assessment
AI audit
Continuous Monitoring
Scoreboxes
And Sandboxing

I am optimistic too that common standards

can be achieved internationally in all these areas. Work on common standards is bearing fruit. In particular We have seen the launch last October of the interactive AI Standards Hub by the Alan Turing institute with the support of the British Standards Institution and National Physical Laboratory which will provide users across industry, academia and regulators with practical tools and educational materials to effectively use and shape AI technical standards.

This in turn could lead to agreement on ISO standards with the EU and the US where NIST is actively engaged in developing such standards

Agreement on the actual regulation of AI ie what elements of governance and application of standards is obligatory, however, is more difficult.

There are already some elements of a legal framework in place. Even without specific legislation, AI deployment in the UK will interface with existing legislation and regulation in particular relating to

personal data under the GDPR
discrimination and fair treatment under the Human Rights Act and Equality Act
product safety and public safety
And various sector-specific regulatory regimes requiring oversight and control by persons undertaking regulated functions, the FCA for financial services, Ofcom in the future for social media for example.

But when it comes to legislation and regulation that is specific to AI that’s where some of the difficulties and disagreements start emerging especially from the UK’s divergent approach.

The UK has stated that it wishes its regulation to be innovation friendly and context specific. We do need however to be clear that regulation is not necessarily the enemy of innovation, it can in fact be the stimulus and be the key to gaining and retaining public trust around digital technology and its adoption so we can realise the beneﬁts and minimise the returns.

Then we have the policy that regulation will be context specific. As regards categorising AI rather than working to a broad definition of AI and determining what falls within scope, which is the approach taken by the EU AI Act, the UK looks like electing to follow an approach that instead sets out the core principles of AI which the government says “allows regulators to develop their own sector-specific definitions to meet the evolving nature of AI as technology advances.”

This approach which potentially adopts different regulatory requirements across sectors in my view runs the risk of creating barriers for developers and adopters having to navigate through the regulators of multiple sectors even given the new levels of cooperation currently being put in place. Where a cross-compatible AI system is concerned for example in finance and telecoms for example they would have to potentially understand and comply with different regimes administered by the FCA, Prudential Reg Authority, and Ofcom at the same time.

In its AI policy paper published last July there is a surprising admission by the government that a context-driven approach may lead to less uniformity between regulators and may cause confusion and apprehension for stakeholders who will potentially need to consider a regime of multiple regulators as well as the measures required to be taken to deal with extra- territorial regimes, such as the EU Regulation.

Also the the more we diverge when it comes to regulation from other jurisdictions the more difficult it gets for developers and those who want to develop AI systems internationally

One example is the proposals to water down data protection under the GDPR which could mean difficulty in transferring data between the UK and Europe. The more I look at the new Data Protection and Digital Identity bill introduced into Parliament last week the more problematic it appears.

In my view without a broad definition and some overarching duty to carry out a risk and impact assessment and subsequent regular audit to assess whether an AI system is conforming to Al principles the governance of AI systems will be deficient, on the grounds alone that not every sector is regulated.

For example, except for certain specific products such as driverless cars or say in financial services and as proposed for social media platforms there is no accountability or liability regime established for the operation of AI systems more broadly..

Regulation could and should take the form of an overarching regulatory regime designed to ensure public transparency in the use of AI technologies and the recourse available across sectors for non ethical use.This should set out clear common duties to assess risk and impact and adhere to common standards. Depending on the extent of the risk and impact assessed further regulatory requirements would arise.

This includes the public sector. Although The UK Government has recognized the need for guidance for public sector organizations in the procurement and use of AI there is no central and local government compliance mechanism and no transparency yet in the form of a public register of use of automated decision making. It is is interesting that many US cities-and indeed big tech companies- have been much more proactive

Also, despite the efforts of Parliamentarians and organisations such as the Ada Lovelace Institute, there is no no recognition at all by Government that explicit legislation and/‘or regulation for intrusive AI technology such as live facial recognition is needed to prevent the arrival of the surveillance state

But International harmonization is in my view essential if we are to see developers able to commercialize their products on a global basis assured that they are adhering to common standards of regulation and I believe would help provide the certainty businesses would need to develop and invest in the UK more readily

I would go further when it comes to dealing with our nearest trading partner. When the White Paper does emerge I believe that it is important that there is recognition that we need a considerable degree of convergence between ourselves and the EU and that a risk based form of horizontal rather than purely sectoral regulation is required otherwise we face potentially another trade barrier -AI Adequacy -to add to the need for data adequacy.

That in my view is the way to get real traction to realise the full benefits of the global development of responsible AI, AI for good which we all to see flourish !

by Tim Clement-Jones

We Can't Let this Disastrous Retained EU Law Bill go through in its current form

In the Lords we recently saw the arrival of the Retained EU (Law Revocation and Reform ) Bill. With its sunset clause threatening to phase out up to 4000 pieces of vital IP, environmental, consumer protection and product safety legislation on 31st December 2023 we need to drastically change or block it. This is what I said on second reading

I hosted a meeting with Zsuzsanna Szelényi, the brave Hungarian former MP, a member of Fidesz and the author of Tainted Democracy: Viktor Orbán and the Subversion of Hungary. I reflected that this Bill, especially in the light of the reports from the DPRRC and the SLSC, is a government land grab of powers over Parliament, fully worthy of Viktor Orbán himself and his cronies. This is no less than an attempt to achieve a tawdry version of Singapore-on-Thames in the UK without proper democratic scrutiny, to the vast detriment of consumers, workers and creatives. It is no surprise that the Regulatory Policy Committee has stated that the Bill’s impact assessment is not fit for purpose.

It is not only important regulations that are being potentially swept away, but principles of interpretation and case law, built up over nearly 50 years of membership of the EU. This Government are knocking down the pillars of certainty of application of our laws. Lord Fox rightly quoted the Bar Council in this respect. Clause 5 would rip out the fundamental right to the protection of personal data from the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. This is a direct threat to the UK’s data adequacy, with all the consequences that that entails. Is that really the Government’s intention?

As regards consumers, Which? has demonstrated the threat to basic food hygiene requirements for all types of food businesses: controls over meat safety, maximum pesticide levels, food additive regulations, controls over allergens in foods and requirements for baby foods. Product safety rights at risk include those affecting child safety and regulations surrounding transport safety. Civil aviation services could be sunsetted, along with airlines’ liability requirements in the event of airline accidents. Consumer rights on cancellation and information, protection against aggressive selling practices and redress for consumer law breaches across many sectors could all be impacted. Are any of these rights dispensable—mere parking tickets?

The TUC and many others have pointed out the employment rights that could be lost, and health and safety requirements too. Without so much as a by-your-leave, the Government could damage the employment conditions of every single employee in this country.

For creative workers in particular, the outlook as a result of this Bill is bleak. The impact of any change on the protection of part-time and fixed-term workers is particularly important for freelance workers in the creative industries. Fixed-term workers currently have the right to be treated no less favourably than a comparable permanent employee unless the employer can justify the different treatment. Are these rights dispensable? Are they mere parking tickets?

Then there is potentially the massive change to intellectual property rights, including CJEU case law on which rights holders rely. If these fall away, it creates huge uncertainty and incentive for litigation. The IP regulations and case law on the dashboard which could be sunsetted encompass a whole range, from databases, computer programs and performing rights to protections for medicines. At particular risk are artists’ resale rights, which give visual artists and their heirs a right to a royalty on secondary sales of the artist’s original works when sold on the art market. Visual artists are some of the lowest-earning creators, earning between £5,000 and £10,000 a year. Are these rights dispensable? Have the Government formed any view at all yet?

This Bill has created a fog of uncertainty over all these areas—a blank sheet of paper, per Lord Beith; a giant question mark, per Lord Heseltine—and the impact could be disastrous. I hope this House ensures it does not see the light of day in its current form.

by Tim Clement-Jones

Crossparty work yet to do on the Online Safety Bill

Finally the Online Safety Bill has arrived in the House of Lords. This is what I said on winding up at the end of the debate which had 66 speakers in total, many of them making passionate and moving speeches. We all want to see this go through, in particular to ensure that children and vulnerable adults are properly protected on social media, but there are still changes we want to see before it comes into law.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed introduction and his considerable engagement on the Bill to date. This has been a comprehensive, heartfelt and moving debate, with a great deal of cross-party agreement about how we must regulate social media going forward. With 66 speakers, however, I sadly will not be able to mention many significant contributors by name.

It has been a long and winding road to get to this point, as noble Lords have pointed out. As the Minister pointed out, along with a number of other noble Lords today, I sat on the Joint Committee which reported as far back as December 2021. I share the disappointment of many that we are not further along with the Bill. It is still a huge matter of regret that the Government chose not to implement Part 3 of the DEA in 2019. Not only, as mentioned by many, have we had a cavalcade of five Culture Secretaries, we have diverged a long way from the 2019 White Paper with its concept of the overarching duty of care. I share the regret that the Government have chosen to inflict last-minute radical surgery on the Bill to satisfy the, in my view, unjustified concerns of a very small number in their own party.

Ian Russell—I pay tribute to him, like other noble Lords—and the Samaritans are right that this is a major watering down of the Bill. Mr Russell showed us just this week how Molly had received thousands and thousands of posts, driven at her by the tech firms’ algorithms, which were harmful but would still be classed as legal. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, graphically described some of that material. As he said, if the regulator does not have powers around that content, there will be more tragedies like Molly’s.

The case for proper regulation of harms on social media was made eloquently to us in the Joint Committee by Ian and by witnesses such Edleen John of the FA and Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower. The introduction to our report makes it clear that the key issue is the business model of the platforms, as described by the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Mitchell, and the behaviour of their algorithms, which personalise and can amplify harmful content. A long line of reports by Select Committees and all-party groups have rightly concluded that regulation is absolutely necessary given the failure of the platforms even today to address these systemic issues. I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett; being a digital native is absolutely no protection—if indeed there is such a thing as a digital native.

We will be examining the Bill and amendments proposed to it in a cross-party spirit of constructive criticism on these Benches. I hope the Government will respond likewise. The tests we will apply include: effective protections for children and vulnerable adults; transparency of systems and power for Ofcom to get to grips with the algorithms underlying them; that regulation is practical and privacy protecting; that online behaviour is treated on all fours with offline; and that there is a limitation of powers of the Secretary of State. We recognise the theme which has come through very strongly today: the importance of media literacy.

Given that there is, as a result of the changes to the Bill, increased emphasis on illegal content, we welcome the new offences, recommended in the main by the Law Commission, such as hate and communication crimes. We welcome Zach’s law, against sending flashing images or “epilepsy trolling”, as it is called, campaigned for by the Epilepsy Society, which is now in Clause 164 of the Bill. We welcome too the proposal to make an offence of encouraging self-harm. I hope that more is to come along the lines requested by my noble friend Lady Parminter.

There are many other forms of behaviour which are not and will not be illegal, and which may, according to terms of service, be entirely legal, but are in fact harmful. The terms of service of a platform acquire great importance as a result of these changes. Without “legal but harmful” regulation, platforms’ terms of service may not reflect the risks to adults on that service, and I was delighted to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, had to say on this. That is why there must be a duty on platforms to undertake and publish risk and impact assessments on the outcomes of their terms of service and the use of their user empowerment tools, so that Ofcom can clearly evaluate the impact of their design and insist on changes or adherence to terms of service, issue revised codes or argue for more powers as necessary, for all the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, and my noble friend Lady Parminter.

The provisions around user empowerment tools have now become of the utmost importance as a result of these changes. However, as Carnegie, the Antisemitism Policy Trust, and many noble Lords today have said, these should be on by default to protect those suffering from poor mental health or who might lack faculty to turn them on.

Time is short today, so I can give only a snapshot of where else we on these Benches—and those on others, I hope—will be focusing in Committee. The current wording around “content of democratic importance” and “journalistic content” creates a lack of clarity for moderation processes. As recommended by the Joint Committee, these definitions should be replaced with a single statutory requirement to protect content where there are reasonable grounds to believe it will be in the public interest, as supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

There has been a considerable amount of focus on children today, and there are a number of amendments that have clearly gained a huge amount of support around the House, and from the Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety. They were so well articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will not adumbrate them, but they include that children’s harms should be specified in the Bill, that we should include reference to the UN convention, and that there should be provisions to prevent online grooming. Particularly in the light of what we heard this week, we absolutely support those campaigning to ensure that the Bill provides for coroners to have access to children’s social media accounts after their deaths. We want to see Minister Scully’s promise to look at this translate into a firm government amendment.

We also need to expressly future-proof the Bill. It is not at all clear whether the Bill will be adequate to regulate and keep safe children in the metaverse. One has only to read the recent Institution of Engineering and Technology report, Safeguarding the Metaverse, and the report of the online CSA covert intelligence team, to realise that it is a real problem. We really need to make sure that we get the Bill right from this point of view.

As far as pornography is concerned, if we needed any more convincing of the issues surrounding children’s access to pornography, the recent research by the Children’s Commissioner, mentioned by several noble Lords, is the absolute clincher. It underlines the importance of the concerns of the coalition of charities, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and many other speakers today, who believe that the Online Safety Bill does not go far enough to prevent children accessing harmful pornographic content. We look forward to debating those amendments when they are put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell.

We need to move swiftly on Part 5 in particular. The call to have a clear time limit to bring it in within six months of the Bill becoming law is an absolutely reasonable and essential demand.

We need to enshrine age-assurance principles in the Bill. The Minister is very well aware of issues relating to the Secretary of State’s powers. They have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, and we need to get them right. Some can be mitigated by further and better parliamentary scrutiny, but many should simply be omitted from the Bill.

As has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, there is huge regret around media literacy. We need to ensure that there is a whole-of-government approach to media literacy, with specific objectives set for not only Ofcom but the Government itself. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will be talking about an independent ombudsman.

End-to-end encryption has also come up; of course, that needs protecting. Clause 110 on the requirement by Ofcom to use accredited technology could lead to a requirement for continual surveillance. We need to correct that as well.

There is a lot in the Bill. We need to debate and tackle the issue of misinformation in due course, but this may not be the Bill for it. There are issues around what we know about the solutions to misinformation and disinformation and the operation of algorithmic amplification.

The code for violence against women and girls has been mentioned. I look forward to debating that and making sure that Ofcom has the power and the duty to produce a code which will protect women and girls against that kind of abuse online. We will no doubt consider criminal sanctions against senior managers as well. A Joint Committee, modelled on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to ensure that the Bill is future-proofed along the lines that the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Balfe, talked about is highly desirable.

The Minister was very clear in his opening remarks about what amendments he intends to table in Committee. I hope that he has others under consideration and that he will be in listening mode with regard to the changes that the House has said it wants to see today. Subject to getting the Bill in the right shape, these Benches are very keen to see early implementation of its provisions.

I hope that the Ofcom implementation road map will be revised, and that the Minister can say something about that. It is clearly the desire of noble Lords all around the House to improve the Bill, but we also want to see it safely through the House so that the long-delayed implementation can start.

This Bill is almost certainly not going to be the last word on the subject, as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, very clearly said at the beginning of this debate, but it is a vital start. I am glad to say that today we have started in a very effective way.

by Tim Clement-Jones

Tackling the Harms in the Metaverse

I recentlty took part in a session entitled Regulation and Policing of Harm in the Metaverse as part of a Society for Computers and the Law and Queen Mary University of London policy forum on the metaverse alongside Benson Egwuonwu from DAC Beechcroft and Professor Julia Hornle Chair of Internet Law at the Centre for Commercial Law Studies at Queen Mary

This is what i said in my introduction.

This is what two recent adverts from Meta said:

“In the metaverse farmers will optimize crop yields with real time data”
“In the metaverse students will learn astronomy by orbiting Saturn’s rings”

Both end with the message “The metaverse may be virtual but the impact is real”.

This is an important message but the first advert is a rather baffling use of the metaverse, the second could be quite exciting. Both adverts are designed to make us think about the opportunities presented by it.

But as we all know, alongside the opportunities there are always risks. It is very true of Artificial Intelligence, a subject I speak on regularly, but particularly as regards the metaverse.

The metaverse opens new forms and means of visualisation and communication but I don’t believe that there is yet a proper recognition that the metaverse in the form of immersive games which use avatars and metaverse chat rooms can cause harm or of the potential extent of that harm.

I suspect this could be because although we now recognize that there are harms in the Online world, the virtual world is even further away from reality and we again have a pattern repeating itself. At first we don’t recognize the potential harms that a new and developing technology such as this presents until confronted with the stark consequences.

The example of the tragic death of Molly Russell in relation to the understanding of harm on social media springs to mind

So in the face of that lack of recognition it’s really important to understand the nature of this potential harm, how can it be addressed and prevent what might become the normalisation of harm in the metaverse

The Sunday Times in a piece earlier this year on Metaverse Harms rather luridly headlined “My journey into the metaverse — already a home to sex predators” asserted: “....academics, VR experts and children’s charities say it is already a poorly regulated “Wild West” and “a tragedy waiting to happen” with legislation and safeguards woefully behind the technology. It is a place where adults and children, using their real voices, are able to mingle freely and chat, their headsets obscuring their activities from those around them.”

It went on: “Its immersive nature makes children particularly vulnerable, according to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) charity.”

This is supported by the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s investigation last year into Facebook’s VR metaverse which found children exposed to sexual content, bullying and threats of violence.

And there are other potential and actual harms too not involving children. Women and girls report being harassed and sexually assaulted, there is also fraudulent activity and racial abuse.

It is clear that because of the very nature of the metaverse- the impact of its hyper-realistic environment -there are specific and distinct harms the metaverse can cause that are different from other online platforms.

These include harms that may as yet be unquantified – which makes regulation difficult. There is insufficient knowledge and understanding about harms such as the potentially addictive impact of the metaverse & other behavioural and cognitive effects it may have.

Policy and enforcement are made more difficult by fact that the metaverse is intended to allow real-time conversations. Inadequate data storage of activity on the metaverse could mean a lack of evidence to prove harm and the track of perpetrators but in turn this also raises conflicting privacy questions.

So What does the Online Safety Bill do?

It is important that metaverse is included within the platform responsibilities proposed by the bill. The Focus of the bill is about systems and risk assessment relating to published content but metaverse platforms are about activity happening in real-time and we need to appreciate and deal with this difference. It also shows the importance of having a future proofing mechanism within the bill but one that is not reliant on the decision of the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport.

There is the question whether the metaverse definition of regulated services currently falls within scope. This was raised by my colleagues in the Commons and ministerial reassurance was given in relation to childrten but we have had two Ministerial changes since then!

Architects of the Bill such as CarnegieUK are optimistic that the metaverse – and the tech companies who create it will not escape regulation in the UK because of the way that user generated content is defined in clause 50 and the reference there to “encountered”.

It is very likely that harms to children in the metaverse on these services will be caught.

As regards adults however the OSB now very much focuses on harmful illegal content. Query whether it will or should capture analogous crimes within the metaverse so for instance is ‘virtual rape and sexual assault’ considered criminal in the metaverse?

As regards content outside this, the current changes which have been announced to the bill which focus on Terms of Service rather than ‘legal but harmful’ create uncertainty.

It seems the idea is to give power to users to exclude other participants who are causing or threantening but how is this practical in the context of the virtual reality of the metaverse?

A better approach might be to clearly regulate to drive Safety by Design. Given the difficulties which will be encountered in policing and enforcement I believe the emphasis needs to be placed on design of metaverse platforms and consider at the very outset how platform design contributes to harm or delivers safety.

Furthermore at present there is no proper independent complaints or redress mechanism such as an Ombudsman proposed for any of these platforms which in the view of many is a gaping hole in the governance of social media which includes the metaverse.

In a recent report The Center for Countering Digital Hate recorded 100 potential violations of Meta’s policies in 11 hours on Facebook’s VR chat . CCDH researchers found that users, including minors, are exposed to abusive behaviour every seven minutes. Yet the evidence is also that Meta is already unresponsive to reports of abuse. It seems that of those 100 potential violations, only 51 met Facebook’s criteria for reporting offending content, as the platform rejects reports if it cannot match them to a username in its database.

Well we are expecting the Bill in the Lords in the early New Year . We’ll see what we can do to improve it!

by Tim Clement-Jones

Lord C-J at the Piccaso Data Privacy Awards

I recently attended and spoke at the inaugural Piccaso Data Privacy awards celebrating the contribution of businessers and organisations innovating in data privacy .

Piccaso is an acronym (Privacy, InfoSec, Culture, Change , Awareness, Societal Organisation) for an organisation which aims to harness "the knowledge and experience of experts both from the privacy, data protection, and information security domains to inspire, challenge, and educate our community to elevate the practice of privacy and data protection maturity within their firms and sectors."

This is what I said.

I’m delighted to have been asked to make a few remarks at this evening’s terrific inaugural Piccasso event… and it’s a privilege to follow the avatar of John Edwards the Information Commissioner, especially his sales pitch for the ICO! It is a great example of his positive approach to regulation which we know needs to be principled, proportionate and communicative.

Continuing the wise approach of his predecessor, Elizabeth Denham who I am delighted to see is one of our judges.

We of course have new data protection legislation coming down the track which may or may not prove positive, which we are going to have to grapple with inside and outside Parliament fairly soon

I hope that whatever changes are made to the GDPR its broad approach will continue, and any changes to the GDPR structure and oversight of the regulator, mean we not only remain data adequate for EU purposes but keep public trust in the use and sharing of their data in the UK!

And the need for public trust in the use and sharing of our data and the preservation of individual privacy is crucial if we are to get the full benefit of the adoption of new technologies such as AI and Machine learning. We have seen how when trust fails, such as with the poorly handled GP data saga last year, when over three million NHS patients opted out of sharing their health data.

This is a unique and very special event gathering together the full width of community, public and private and third sector, who really get this and each of whom is supporting privacy compliant innovation, by developing privacy enabling solutions, ensuring organisations use their data in a privacy by design and trusted way, and enabling individuals to exercise their privacy rights.

The 15 award categories tonight and those people and organisations nominated give a real sense of the breadth of the skills and talent present – all of you focussed on making our organisations, economy and society a trusted and safe place to live and operate.

Tonight’s event is a celebration of your incredible contributions, which are all too often overlooked and under-appreciated.

Given that a culture of privacy protection is not always the rule, I want us to commend and celebrate the good work that is being done by so many in this room tonight - including those engaged in thought leadership, testing and setting boundaries and devising creative policy approaches which address new developments such as blockchain, Web 3.0 and the Metaverse.

You all know, live with and understand the importance of data protection and privacy, and your leadership is helping to enable a safer future, and one where innovation is encouraged.

So whether you win or not tonight, thank you - and congratulations for playing a really important role in a privacy protecting future!

by Tim Clement-Jones

It's time to have a moratorium on Live Facial Recognition use

We recently debated the recommendations of the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report Technology rules? The advent of new technologies in the justice system

This is what I said on welcoming the $eport.

I entirely understand and welcome the width of the report but today I shall focus on live facial recognition technology, a subject that I have raised many times in this House and elsewhere in Questions and debates, and even in a Private Member’s Bill, over the last five years. The previous debate involving a Home Office Minister—the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—was in April, on the new College of Policing guidance on live facial recognition.

On each occasion, I drew attention to why guidance or codes are regarded as insufficient by myself and many other organisations such as Liberty, Big Brother Watch, the Ada Lovelace Institute, the former Information Commissioner, current and former Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioners and the Home Office’s own Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group, not to mention the Commons Science and Technology Committee. On each occasion, I have raised the lack of a legal basis for the use of this technology—and on each occasion, government Ministers have denied that new explicit legislation or regulation is needed, as they have in the wholly inadequate response to this report.

In the successful appeal of Liberal Democrat Councillor Ed Bridges, the Court of Appeal case on the police use of live facial recognition issued in August 2020, the court ruled that South Wales Police’s use of such technology had not been in accordance with the

law on several grounds, including in relation to certain human rights convention rights, data protection legislation and the public sector equality duty. So it was with considerable pleasure that I read the Justice and Home Affairs Committee report, which noted the complicated institutional landscape around the adoption of this kind of technology, emphasised the need for public trust and recommended a stronger legal framework with primary legislation embodying general principles supported by detailed regulation, a single national regulatory body, minimum scientific standards, and local or regional ethics committees put on a statutory basis.

Despite what paragraph 4 of the response says, neither House of Parliament has ever adequately considered or rigorously scrutinised automated facial recognition technology. We remain in the precarious position of police forces dictating the debate, taking it firmly out of the hands of elected parliamentarians and instead—as with the recent College of Policing guidance—marking their own homework. A range of studies have shown that facial recognition technology disproportionately misidentifies women and BAME people, meaning that people from those groups are more likely to be wrongly stopped and questioned by police, and to have their images retained as the result of a false match.

The response urges us to be more positive about the use of new technology, but the UK is now the most camera-surveilled country in the Western world. London remains the third most surveilled city in the world, with 73 surveillance cameras for every 1,000 people. The last Surveillance Camera Commissioner did a survey, shortly before stepping down, and found that there are over 6,000 systems and 80,000 cameras in operation in England and Wales across 183 local authorities. The ubiquity of surveillance cameras, which can be retrofitted with facial recognition software and fed into police databases, means that there is already an apparatus in place for large-scale intrusive surveillance, which could easily be augmented by the widespread adoption of facial recognition technology. Indeed, many surveillance cameras in the UK already have advanced capabilities such as biometric identification, behavioural analysis, anomaly detection, item/clothing recognition, vehicle recognition and profiling.

The breadth of public concern around this issue is growing clearer by the day. Many cities in the US have banned the use of facial recognition, while the European Parliament has called for a ban on the police use of facial recognition technology in public places and predictive policing. In 2020 Microsoft, IBM and Amazon announced that they would cease selling facial recognition technology to US law enforcement bodies.

Public trust is crucial. Sadly, the new Data Protection and Digital Information Bill does not help. As the Surveillance Camera Commissioner said last year, in a blog about the consultation leading up to it:

“This consultation ought to have provided a rare opportunity to pause and consider the real issues that we talk about when we talk about accountable police use of biometrics and surveillance, a chance to design a legal framework that is a planned response to identified requirements rather than a retrospective reaction to highlighted shortcomings, but it is an opportunity missed.”

Now we see that the role of Surveillance Camera Commissioner is to be abolished in the new data protection Bill—talk about shooting the messenger. The much-respected Ada Lovelace Institute has called, in its report Countermeasures and the associated Ryder review in June this year, for new primary legislation to govern the use of biometric technologies by both public and private actors, for a new oversight body and for a moratorium until comprehensive legislation is passed.

The Justice and Home Affairs Committee stopped short of recommending a moratorium on the use of LFR, but I agree with the institute that a moratorium is a vital first step. We need to put a stop to this unregulated invasion of our privacy and have a careful review, so that its use can be paused while a proper regulatory framework is put in place. Rather than update and use toothless codes of practice, as we are urged to do by the Government, to legitimise the use of new technologies such as live facial recognition, the UK should have a root-and-branch surveillance camera and biometrics review, which seeks to increase accountability and protect fundamental rights. The committee’s report is extremely authoritative in this respect. I hope today that the Government will listen but, so far, I am not filled with optimism about their approach to AI governance.

by Tim Clement-Jones

AI Governance: Science and Technology Committee launches enquiry

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has launched an inquiry into the governance of artificial intelligence (AI).

This is what they said on launching it:

In July, the UK Government set out its emerging thinking on how it would regulate the use of AI. It is expected to publish proposals in a White Paper later this year, which the Committee would examine in its inquiry.

Used to spot patterns in large datasets, make predictions, and automate processes, AI’s role in the UK economy and society is growing. However, there are concerns around its use. MPs will examine the potential impacts of biased algorithms in the public and private sectors. A lack of transparency on how AI is applied and how automated decisions can be challenged will also be investigated.

In the inquiry, MPs will explore how risks posed to the public by the improper use of AI should be addressed, and how the Government can ensure AI is used in an ethical and responsible way. The Committee seeks evidence on the current governance of AI, whether the Government’s proposed approach is the right one, and how their plans compare with other countries.

Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Chair of Science and Technology Committee, said:

“AI is already transforming almost every area of research and business. It has extraordinary potential but there are concerns about how the existing regulatory system is suited to a world of AI.

With machines making more and more decisions that impact people’s lives, it is crucial we have effective regulation in place. In our inquiry we look forward to examining the Government’s proposals in detail.”

These are these key questions they are asking

How effective is current governance of AI in the UK?
What are the current strengths and weaknesses of current arrangements, including for research?
What measures could make the use of AI more transparent and explainable to the public?
How should decisions involving AI be reviewed and scrutinised in both public and private sectors?
Are current options for challenging the use of AI adequate and, if not, how can they be improved?
How should the use of AI be regulated, and which body or bodies should provide regulatory oversight?
To what extent is the legal framework for the use of AI, especially in making decisions, fit for purpose?
Is more legislation or better guidance required?
What lessons, if any, can the UK learn from other countries on AI governance?

This is the written evidence to the Committee from myself and Coran Darling, a Trainee Solicitor and member of the global tech and life sciences sectors at DLA Piper

Introduction

I, alongside Stephen Metcalfe MP, co-founded the All Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence (“APPG”) in late 2016. The APPG is dedicated to informing parliamentarians of contextual developments and creating a community of interest around future policy regarding AI, its adoption, use, and regulation.

I was fortunate to then be asked to chair the House of Lords Special Enquiry Select Committee on AI with the remit: “to consider the economic, ethical, and social implications of advances in artificial intelligence”. As part of our work, the Select Committee produced its first report “AI in the UK: Ready Willing and Able?” in April 2018. The report looked closely at the current landscape of governmental policy towards the subject of AI and its ambitions for future development. This included, for example, those future plans contained in the Hall/Pesenti Review of October 2017, and those set out by former prime Minister Teresa May in her Davos World Economic Forum Speech, including her aim for the UK to “lead the world in deciding how AI can be deployed in a safe and ethical manner.”

Since then, as well as continuing to co-chair the APPG, I have maintained a close interest in the development of UK policy in AI, chaired a follow-up to the Select Committee’s report, “AI in the UK: No Room for Complacency”, acted as an adviser to the Council of Europe’s working party on AI (“CAHAI”) and helped establish the OECD Global Parliamentary Network on AI.

Lord Clement-Jones

25th November 2022

Background

The Hall Pesenti Review (“Review”) was an independent review commissioned in March 2017 tasked with reporting on the potential impact of AI on the UK economy. While it did not tackle the question of ethics or regulation of AI, the Review made several key recommendations designed to set a clear course for UK AI strategy including that:

Data Trusts should be developed to provide proven and trusted frameworks to facilitate the sharing of data between organisations holding data and organisations looking to use data to develop AI;
the Alan Turing Institute should become the national institute for AI and data science with the creation of an International Turing AI fellowship programme for AI in the UK; and
the establishment of an UK AI Council to help coordinate and grow AI in the UK should occur.

The Government's subsequent “Industrial Strategy: building a Britain fit for the future” published in November 2017 (“Industrial Strategy”), identified putting AI “at the forefront of the UK’s AI and data revolution” as one of four 'Grand Challenges' identified as key to Britain's future. At the same time, the Industrial Strategy recognised that ethics would be key to the successful adoption of AI in the UK. This led to the establishment of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation in late 2018 with the remit to “make sure that data and AI deliver the best possible outcomes for society, in support of their ethical and innovative use”. In early 2018, the Industrial Strategy would go on to produce a £950m ‘AI Sector Deal’, which incorporated nearly all the recommendations of the Review and established a new Government Office for AI designed to coordinate their implementation.

Building on the work of the Review and the Industrial Strategy, the original Select Committee report enquiry concluded that the UK was in a strong position to be among the world leaders in the development of AI. Our recommendations were designed to support the Government and the UK in realising the potential of AI for our society and our economy and to protect from future potential threats and risks. It was concluded that the UK had a unique opportunity to forge a distinctive role for itself as a pioneer in ethical AI. We did, however, emphasise that if poorly handled, public confidence in AI could be undermined significantly.

In anticipation of the OECD’s subsequent digital AI principles, which were adopted in 2019, the Select Committee proposed five principles that could form the basis of a cross-sector AI code, and which could be adopted both nationally and internationally.

We did not at that point recommend a new regulatory body for AI-specific regulation, but instead noted that such a framework of principles could underpin regulation, should it prove to be necessary, in the future and that existing regulators would be best placed to regulate AI in their respective sectors. The Government in its response accepted the need to retain and develop public trust through an ethical approach both nationally and internationally.

In December 2020, the Select Committee’s follow up report “AI in the UK: No Room for Complacency” we examined the progress made by the Government to date since our earlier work. After interviews with government ministers, regulators, and other key players, the new report made several key recommendations. In particular, that:

greater public understanding was essential for the wider adoption of AI and active steps should be taken by the Government to explain to the general public the use of their personal data by AI;
the development of policy and mechanisms to safeguard the use of data, such as data trusts, needed to pick up pace, otherwise it risked being left behind by technological developments;
the time had come for the Government to move from deciding what the ethics are to how to instil them in the development and deployment of AI systems. We called for the CDEI to establish and publish national standards for the ethical development and deployment of AI;
users and policymakers needed to develop a better understanding of risk and how it can be assessed and mitigated, in terms of the context in which it is applied; and
that coordination between the various bodies involved in the development of AI, including the various regulators, was essential. The Government therefore needed to better coordinate its AI policy and the use of data and technology by national and local government.

Despite the passage of time since the Industrial Strategy, the current governance of AI remains incomplete and unsatisfactory in several respects.

With respect to the use of data for training and inputs, such as for decision making and prediction, the UK General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and the Data Protection Act 2018 are important forms of governance. The Government’s “Data A New Direction” consultation however has led to a new Data Protection bill (“DP Bill”) which, while currently in development, proposes major changes to the GDPR post Brexit. These include significant amendments, such as no longer requiring firms to have a designated Data Protection Officer. The proposed DP Bill also waters down several provisions relating to data impact assessments. This holds the potential to create a divergence from the established data protection position in the UK and is likely to impact on the important EU Adequacy Decision in June 2021, leading to uncertainty for those wishing to use data for training and processing. The Government’s apparent intention to amend Article 22 of the GDPR giving the citizen the right not to be subjected to automated decision making also creates further uncertainty and runs the risk of a lower level of governance over decision made by AI systems.

A further area currently without a satisfactory approach is that of data and the issue of bias in decision making as a result of inherent bias caused by the improper use of data sets during the process of training algorithms. While it is likely that the Government’s own gap analysis will show that equalities legislation covers bias in acquired data which leads to discriminatory decisions made by AI, further consideration is needed on whether specific legal obligations in relation to the use of AI should be implemented in this context to actively mitigate its risk, rather than state that a discriminatory outcome is prohibited.

It is also the case that in many other areas of data and AI, there is no proper current governance in terms of binding legal duties that ensure that key internationally accepted ethical principles, such as those set out in the OECD AI Principles, are observed. These include:

Inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being;
Human-centred values and fairness;
Transparency and explainability;
Robustness, security and safety; and

Despite the overall acceptance that the UK would need to consider developing policy or regulations in order to remain ahead of the curve, the UK’s National AI Strategy, published in September 2021, contained no discussion of ethics or regulation. Instead, an AI Governance whitepaper was promised to be published at some point in 2022.

Subsequent publication of an AI policy paper and AI Action Plan in July 2022 did however indicate that the Government was committed to developing “a pro-innovation national position on governing and regulating AI.” It is expected that this will be used to develop the AI Governance White paper.

Their approach is as follows:

“Establishing clear, innovation-friendly and flexible approaches to regulating AI will be core to achieving our ambition to unleash growth and innovation while safeguarding our fundamental values and keeping people safe and secure […] drive business confidence, promote investment, boost public trust and ultimately drive productivity across the economy.”

To facilitate its ‘pro-innovation’ approach, the Government has proposed several early cross-sectoral and overarching principles which build on the OECD AI Principles. These principles will, it seems, be interpreted and implemented by regulators within the context of the environment they oversee and will therefore be flexible to interpretation.

In terms of classification of AI within this ‘pro-innovation’ approach, rather than working to a clear definition of AI and determining what falls within scope, as chosen by the EU with their proposed AI Act, the UK has elected to follow an approach that instead sets out the core principles of AI which allows regulators to develop their own sector-specific definitions to meet the evolving nature of AI as technology advances.

In my view however, without a broad definition and some overarching duty to carry out a risk and impact assessment and subsequent regular audit to assess whether an AI system is conforming to Al principles, the governance of AI systems will be deficient, on the grounds alone that not every sector is regulated as is likely to be required. For example, except for certain specific products such as driverless cars there is no accountability or liability regime established for liability for the operation of AI systems at present.

This is the case for the public sector, as well as those in the private sector. While The Government has recognised the need for guidance for public sector organisations in the procurement and use of AI, it remains that there is no central and local government compliance mechanism to put this into practice. There are therefore insufficient measures of transparency, such as in the form of a public register of use of automated decision making, that require oversight and assessment of the decisions being carried out by AI in the context of public organisations. Furthermore, despite the efforts of parliamentarians, and organisations such as the Ada Lovelace Institute, there is no material recognition by the Government that explicit legislation, and/or regulation for intrusive AI technology such as live facial recognition, is needed to prevent the arrival of the surveillance state.

In light of the recognition by the National AI Strategy of the need to gain public trust, and for the wider use of trustworthy AI, the Government’s current proposals for a context specific approach are inadequate. In the face of this need to retain public trust, it must be clear, above all however, that regulation is not necessarily the enemy of innovation. In fact, it can in be the stimulus and key to gaining and retaining public trust around digital technology and its adoption. An approach by the Government could and should take the form of an overarching regulatory regime designed to ensure public transparency in the use of AI technologies and the recourse available across sectors for non-ethical use.

As is currently proposed, an approach which adopts divergent regulatory requirements across sectors would run the risk of creating barriers for developers and adopters through the requirement of having to navigate the regulatory obligations of multiple sectors. Where a cross-compatible AI system is concerned, for example in finance and telecoms, an organisation would have to potentially understand and comply with different regimes administered by the FCA, Prudential Regulation Authority, and Ofcom at the same time.

So, for these reasons, a much more horizontal cross sectoral approach than the Government is proposing is needed for the development and adoption of AI systems. This should set out clear common duties to assess risk and impact and adhere to common standards. Depending on the extent of the risk and impact assessed further legal duties would arise.

The question (What lessons, if any, can the UK learn from other countries on AI governance?) in my view should extend wider and ask not just about the lessons but the degree of harmonisation needed to ensure the most beneficial context for UK AI development, adoption, and assurance of ethical AI standards.

In its recent AI policy paper, a surprising admission is made by the Government that a context-driven approach may lead to less uniformity between regulators and may cause confusion and apprehension for stakeholders who will potentially need to consider multiple regimes, as well as the measures required to be taken to deal with extra-territorial obligations, such as those of the proposed EU AI Act.

International harmonisation is, in my view, essential if we wish to see developers and suppliers able to commercialise their products on a global basis assured that they are adhering to common standards of regulation without lengthy verification on entry of each individual jurisdiction in which they interact.

This could come in the form of a national version of the EU’s approach, where we have regulation that harmonises the landscape across sectors and industries, or in the form of international agreement on the standards of risk and impact assessment to be adopted. Work on common standards (i.e. the tools which would be deployed if regulation were out in place) is bearing fruit and may also assist organsiations in ensuring they are in conformity without navigating every subsector or jurisdiction with which they interact.

Most recently, we have seen the launch of the interactive AI Standards Hub by the Alan Turing institute with the support of the British Standards Institution and National Physical Laboratory which will provide users across industry, academia, and regulators with practical tools and educational materials to effectively use and shape AI technical standard. This in turn could lead to agreement on ISO standards with the EU and the US where NIST is actively engaged in developing similar protocols.

Having a harmonised approach would help provide the certainty businesses would need to develop and invest in the UK more readily.

When it comes to dealing with our nearest trading partner, it may be favourable to go one step further. When the White Paper does emerge, I believe that it is important that there is recognition that a considerable degree of convergence between us and EU is required practically, and that a risk-based form of horizontal, rather than purely sectoral, regulation is needed.

The Government is engaged in a great deal of activity. The question, therefore, is whether it is fast or focused enough and whether its objectives (such as achieving trustworthy AI and harmonised international standards) are going to be achieved through the actions being taken so far. As it stands currently, this does not look to be the case.

Lord Clement-Jones,

Coran Darling

by Tim Clement-Jones

STAY CONNECTED

ABOUT LORD CLEMENT-JONES

Tim Clement-Jones

The House of Lords recently debated the Report from the Communications and Digital Committee At risk: our creative future.

A key theme in the Report is the absolute importance of ensuring we combine our strengths and skills in both technology AND creativity and the importance too of intellectual property protection.

I focused on both aspects in my speech an edited version of which is below

The Government's AI Governance White Paper : A Pro Innovation to AI Regulation came out in late March . This is my take on it published by Politics Home.

Business needs a clear central oversight and compliance mechanism, not a patchwork of regulation

I recently attended and spoke at the inaugural Piccaso Data Privacy awards celebrating the contribution of businessers and organisations innovating in data privacy .

This is what I said.

We recently debated the recommendations of the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report Technology rules? The advent of new technologies in the justice system

This is what I said on welcoming the $eport.

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has launched an inquiry into the governance of artificial intelligence (AI).

This is the written evidence to the Committee from myself and Coran Darling, a Trainee Solicitor and member of the global tech and life sciences sectors at DLA Piper

STAY CONNECTED

ABOUT LORD CLEMENT-JONES