AI & Technology

Lord C-J at OECD : Mixed evidence on UK AI Governance

I recently attended a meeting of the OECD Global Parliamentary Network Group on Artificial Intelligence and spoke on UK developments during a session on Innovating in AI Legislation

It seems a long time since we all got together in person-what a pleasure! And such a pleasure to follow Eva. I am a huge admirer of what the EU have done in the AI space. I think we are all now beginning to be aware of the importance of digital media and the importance of AI and algorithms in our lives both positive and negative.Inevitably what I say is mainly focused on what we are doing in the UK but I hope it will have relevance in other jurisdictions. 

The good news is that despite ( just a few!) changes in government or the pandemic UK government action on  AI governance has been moving forward.

The UK’s National AI strategy - A ten-year plan for UK investment in and support of AI-was published in September 2021. It promised an AI Governance White Paper this year. In an AI policy paper and Action Plan published this July the Government then set out its emerging proposals for regulating AI in a policy consultation paper in which it committed to develop “a pro-innovation national position on governing and regulating AI.”  This will be used to develop the White paper which may yet emerge this year.

Their approach would be “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.” Fine words but we now have some more detailed clues as to the future of regulation of AI in the UK.

As regards categorising AI rather than working to a clear definition of AI determining what falls within scope, which is the approach taken by the EU Regulation, 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 a surprising admission the policy paper does acknowledge 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 the regime of multiple regulators as well as the measures required to be taken to deal with extra-territorial regimes, such as the EU Regulation. 

To facilitate its ‘pro-innovation’ approach, the UK Government however has proposed several early cross-sectoral and overarching principles which build on the OECD ‘Principles on Artificial Intelligence’ . These principles will be interpreted and implemented by regulators within the context of the environment they oversee and would therefore be flexible to interpretation. This call for views and evidence closed on 26 September so we shall see what emerges in the White paper probably not this year!!

As a result of this context-driven approach  the regulators in different sectors are going to take centre stage. So it is timely that  4 of our key regulators the ICO OFCOM  CMA FCA  have got together under a new Digital Regulators Cooperation Forum to pool expertise in this field. This includes sandboxing and  input from a variety of expert institutes such as the Alan Turing Institute on areas such as risk assessment, AI, audit, digital design frameworks and standards digital advertising and horizon scanning

The policy paper in turn has led to the launch this October of the interactive hub platform AI Standards Hub led  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. 

All this represents action but while the National AI strategy paper of last September does talk about public trust and the need for trustworthy AI,my view is that it needs to be reflected in how we regulate. In the face of the need to retain public trust we need to be clear, above all, 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 risks.

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. One of my regrets is that the UK government unlike our technical experts doesn’t devote enough attention to positive collaboration in a number of international AI fora such as the Council of Europe, UNESCO And the OECD 

But the UK IS playing an active part in GPAI serviced by the OECD  which is beginning to deliver some interesting output particularly in respect of the workplace. I hope too that when the White Paper does emerge that there is recognition that we need a considerable degree of convergence between ourselves the EU, members of the COE and the OECD in particular, for the benefit of our developers and cross border business  that recognizes that a risk based form of horizontal rather than purely sectoral regulation is required.

Above all this means agreeing on standards for risk and impact assessments alongside tools for audit and continuous monitoring for higher risk applications..That way I believe we can draw the US into the fold as well.

Other aspects of policy where I  do NOT believe we are heading in the right direction however are 

Data :The government’s “Data A New Direction”  consultation has led to a new Data Protection bill. Despite little appetite in the business or the research communities they are proposing major changes to the GDPR post Brexit including not requiring firms to have a DPO or DPIA.  All this is likely to impact on the precious EU Adequacy Decision which was made in June 21 and is meant to last for 4 years. 

IP:  Our Intellectual Property Office too is currently grappling with issues relating to IP created by AI .  Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: copyright and patents consultation closed January 2022 and now has recommended changes to text and data mining exemption which has been very widely criticised by the creative industries, publishers etc. 

In addition although the UK Government has recognized the need for any amount of guidance for public sector organizations there is no central and local government compliance mechanism and  little transparency in the form of a public register of use of automated decision making. 

We also, despite the efforts of Parliamentarians and organisations such as the Ada Lovelace Institute, have no recognition at all that regulation for intrusive AI technology such as live facial recognition is needed. 

We are still having a major debate on the deployment over live facial recognition technology -the use of biometrics and AI - in policing, schools and in criminal justice recently. Many of us have real concern that we are approaching the surveillance state. 

In addition there is little appetite in government to ensure that our employment laws protect the increasing number of workers in the gig economy whose lives can be ruled by algorithm without redress.

So our government is engaged in a great deal of activity, the question as ever is whether it is fast or focused enough and whether the objectives such as achieving trustworthy AI and harmonized international standards are going to be achieved through the actions being taken so far. As you’ve heard today, I believe the evidence of success is still mixed! I still have quite a political shopping list! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

by Tim Clement-Jones

How to Make the UK the Best Place in the World for Artificial Intelligence.

I recently gave a talk at a meeting of members of The Entrepreneurs Network. This is slightly expanded version.

It's pleasure to be in Entrepreneurial company tonight 

The Truss/Kwarteng paradise of  Britannia Unchained to unleash growth, growth growth has been showed up for what it it was. It didn’t outlast a lettuce.  I hope that with Rishi Sunak as PM we are at the end of the magical thinking era. 

I am always an optimist but I look forward to hearing whether you agree with Guy Hands who thinks we’re going to be the sick man of Europe. 

So I’m not going to talk at you too long and I’m certainly not going to get into detailed expenditure or taxation proposals!  That would be bound to get me into trouble.

And the first thing to remember is that policy is all very well but its results that matter and government can be the graveyard for good ideas, innovation and enterprise. You only have to read Kate Bingham’s recent book Long Shot  to understand how bureaucratic process can so easily be a killer of good intentions and effective outcomes.

The second is that we are in my view fighting a combination of factors including the effects of COVID Brexit, Austerity, and political instability to put it mildly. Mathew Syed in his Sunday Times column headlined that an “Irrational faith in the providence of Brexit has trapped adherents in cognitive dissonance and denial” . We need a frank appraisal of the impact of Brexit and fix the consequences where we can.

So our economic circumstances really do require prioritisation and clear thinking. 

What I would like to do is throw out a few thoughts for discussion on where the focus of government policy should be in order to grow our tech sector in general and AI development and adoption in particular.

The challenges include.

• how can we convert academic success into entrepreneurship?
• How can we increase the speed of business adoption of AI tech in the UK?
• How can we best guard against future harms that AI could bring?

I am saying all this of course in the light of the Government’s grand 10 year plan “Make Britain a global AI superpower” published a year ago. 

Let’s briefly consider a number of key priority areas : 

• The need for quality data 
• Good regulation and standards which gain public trust
• Jobs and Skills
• International cooperation especially in R&D eg Horizon
• Investment incentives
• Infrastructure 

TechUk reported earlier this year at London Tech Week that UK start-up investment saw the biggest annual opening on record in 2022, with $11.3B raised by UKstart-ups in Q1, compared to $7.9b in Q1 2021.The UK is home to 122 unicorns, behind only the USand China for the creation of billion dollar tech companies, and first in Europe..

This is undoubtedly positive, especially considering the wider economic challenges the UK and the world face. However, with the UK economy forecasted to face a recession and an economic slowdown forecasted for 2023-2026, we cannot be complacent, 

Moreover as the Entrepreneurs Network point out in your recent paper making Britain the best place for AI Innovation, while the UK is a global leader in research, development and talent, the Tortoise Index ranks Government strategy - defined as financial and procedural investment into AI - only 13th internationally, which puts it behind Belgium. 

First of all if we are to have an AI growth Strategy there is  need for a quality data 

We need independent measures of platform business, their economic activity, growth rates, national and regional figures that can reveal hotspots of growth as well as cold spots for future investment and development.It seems that organisations such as the ONS don’t gather relevant data. It is difficult to develop a growth strategy for AI when the baseline from which to compare the growth isn't available. 

We also need data that cover different dimensions of growth –there need to be quality measures – quality of jobs, income, service, work/life balance etc.

Good regulation and standards

Then we have the importance of certainty for business of clear regulation.progress on AI governance and regulation is important as well to restore  and retain Public Trust.. 

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 AI and its adoption 

One of the main areas of focus of our original AI Select Committee was the need to develop an appropriate ethical framework for the development and application of AI and we were early advocates for international agreement on the principles to be adopted. It has become clear that voluntary ethical guidelines however much they are widely shared, are not enough to guarantee ethical AI and gain trust. 

Some of the institutions envisaged as the core of AI development really are working well. The Turing for example is coordinating effectively such as through the new AI Standards Hub But CDEI has lost its way and not been given enough independence and the Office for AI has lost impetus. The Digital Catapult has considerable expertise and great potential but is underresourced.

A key development in the last two years has been the work done at international level in the Council of Europe, OECD,  UNESCO and EU towards putting these principles into practice . The only international forum where the government seem to want to make a real contribution however is the global partnership on AI GPAI

 If at minimum  we could agree international standards for AI Risk Assessment and Audit that would represent realm progress and give our developers real certainty. 

The UK’s National AI strategy accepts the fact that we need to prepare for AGI 

On the other hand despite little appetite in the business or the research communities they have now introduced a new a really unhelpful Bill  on major changes to the GDPR post Brexit and as a result we may have a less independent ICO which will put at risk the precious Data Adequacy ruling by the EU.

And above all despite their commitment to trustworthy AI, we still await the Government’s proposals on AI Governance in the forthcoming White Paper but there is a strong prediction that it will be mainly sectoral;/contextual and not in line with our EU partners or even extraordinarily the US.

At the very least we also need to be mindful that the extraterritoriality of the EU AI Act means a level of regulatory conformity will be required for the benefit of our developers and cross border business  

Jobs and Skills

Then of course we have the potential impact of AI on jobs and employment . A  report by Microsoft quoted  by TEN found that the UK is facing an AI skills shortage: only 17% of UK employees are being re-skilled for AI

We need to ensure that people have the opportunity to reskill and retrain to be able to adapt to the evolving labour market caused by AI. Every child should leave school with a basic sense of how AI works.

But the pace, scale and ambition of government action does not match the challenge facing many people working in the UK. The Skills and post 16  Education Act with its introduction of a Lifelong Loan Entitlement is a step in the right direction.I  welcome the renewed emphasis on Further Education and the new institutes of Technology.. but this isn’t ambitious enough.

The government refer to AI apprenticeships but Apprentice Levy reform is long overdue. The work of Local Digital Skills Partnerships and Digital Boot camps  is welcome but they are greatly under-resourced and only a patchwork. Careers advice and Adult education need a total revamp

We also need to attract foreign talent. Immigration has a positive impact on innovation.The new Global Talent visa seeks to attract leaders or potential leaders in various fields including digital technology.   This and changes the changes to the Innovator visa are welcome.

Broader digital literacy is crucial. We need to learn how to live and work alongside AI and a specific training scheme should be designed to support people to work alongside AI and automation, and to be able to maximise its potential

Given the current and imminently greater disruption in the job market we need to modernise employment rights to make them fit for the age of the AI driven ‘gig economy’, in particular by establishing a new ‘dependent contractor’ employment status in between employment and self-employment, with entitlements to basic rights such as minimum earnings levels, sick pay and holiday entitlement. 

Alongside this we shared the priority of the AI Council Roadmap for more diversity and inclusion in the AI workforce and we still need to see more progress in this area.

R & D support including International cooperation eg Horizon

Any industrial policy for AI needs to discuss the R & D and innovation context in which it is designed to sit.

The UK has/had a long-term target for UK R&D to reach 2.4% of GDP by 2027. In 2020 we had the very well-intentioned R & D Roadmap. Since then we have had the UK Innovation Strategy with its Vision 2035, the AI Strategy, the Lifesciences Vision, the Fintech Strategic Review, all it seems informed by the Integrated Review’s determination that we will have secured our status as a science and tech superpower by 2030.

So there is no shortage of roadmaps, reviews and strategies which lay out government policy in this landscape!

Lord Hague wrote a wise piece in the Times a little time ago. he said

“But the officials working on so many new strategies should be running down the corridors by now and told to come back only when they have some detailed plans that go far beyond expressing our ambitions”

When we wrote our AI reports in 2018 and 2020 it was clear to us that the UK remained attractive to international research talent. I am still very enthusiastic about the future of UK research & development, innovation and their commercial translation in the UK and want them to thrive for all our benefit

University R&  D remains important.There are strong concerns about the availability of research visas available for  entrance to universities research programmes and the failure to agree and the lack of access to EU Horizon research Council funding could have a huge impact. Plan B by the sound of it won’t give us anything like the same benefits. A number of Russell group universities such as imperial UCL and my own Queen Mary are now with finance partners building spin out funds. 

Additional funding could be provided to leading research universities to fund postgraduate scholarships in AI-related fields. .We should be seeking to make universities regional powerhouses tied in with the economic future of our city regions through university enterprise zones

We do nevertheless rank highly in the world of early-stage research and some late stage not least in AI, but it is in commercialisation- translational research and industrial R&D-where we continue to fall down.

The UK is a top nation in the global impact of its R&D, but not so effective at innovation, where it ranks 11th in the world in terms of knowledge diffusion and 27th for knowledge absorption, according to an October 2021 report by BEIS.

As Lord Willets is quoted as saying in a recent excellent HEPI paper (see how i quote tory peers!)  “Catching the wave: harnessing regional research and development to level up ‘We all know the problem– we have great universities and win Nobel Prizes, but we don’t do so well at commercialisation’.

Our research sponsoring bodies could be more generous in their funding, with less micromanagement, less keen digging up projects by the roots to see if they are growing. The creation of ARIA was an admission of the bureaucratic nature the current UKRI research funding system

 I welcome moves to extend R&D tax credits to investment in cloud computing infrastructure and data cost, but We need to bring in capital expenditure costs, such as those on plant and machinery for facilities engaging in R&D within scope as Tech UK have called for.I think we should now consider for AI investment something akin to the dedicated film tax credit for AI investment which has been so successful to date.

There needs to be more support for Catapults which have crucial roles as technology and innovation centre as the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Report this year recommended

We could also emulate America’s seed fund- the SBIR and STTR programs which are at much great scale than our albeit successful UK Innovation and Science Seed Fund (UKI2S). And we need to expand the role of our low profile British Business bank 

Infrastructure

There has been so much government bravado in this area but is clear that the much trumpeted £5 billion announced last year  for Project Gigabit bringing gigabit coverage to the hardest to reach areas has not even been fully allocated and barely a penny has been spent. 

But the Government is still not achieving its objectives.

The latest Ofcom figures show it seems  that 90% of houses are covered by superfast broadband but the urban rural gap is still wide.

While some parts of the country are benefiting from high internet speeds, others have been left behind, The UK has nearly 5mn houses with more than three choices of ultrafast fibre optic broadband, while 10mn homes do not have a single option. According to the latest government data, in January 2022, 70 per cent of urban premises across the UK had access to gigabit-capable broadband, compared with 30 per cent of rural ones.

In fact urban areas now risk being overbuilt with fibre. In many towns and cities, at least three companies are digging to lay broadband fibre cables all targeting the same households, with some areas predicted to have six or seven such lines by the end of the decade. 

So are we now into a wild west for the laying of fibre optic cable Is this going to be like the Energy market with great numbers of companies going bust. 

So sadly even our infrastructure rollout is not very coherent! 

 

. 

 

 

 

 

---

by Tim Clement-Jones

Creating the best framework for AI in the UK

This is a short piece I wrote earlier in the year for the Foundation of Science & Technology about the future of AI regulation in the UK which has now appeared in the FST Journal 

 

---

by Tim Clement-Jones

Lord C-J introduces new Public Authority Algorithm Bill

I recently introduced a  private members bill in the House of Lords designed to ensure that decisions made by public authorities-local and national -are fully transparent and propoerly assessed for the the impact they have on the rights of the individual citizen .

 It mandates the government to draw up a framework for an impact assessment which follows a set of principles laid out in the Bill  so that (a) decisions made in and by a public authority are responsible and comply with procedural fairness and due process requirements, and its duties under the Equality Act, (b) impacts of algorithms on administrative decisions are assessed and negative outcomes are minimized, and (c) data and information on the use of automated decision systems in public authorities are made available to the public. It will apply in general to  to any automated decision system developed or procured by a public authority other than the security services

 

 

---

by Tim Clement-Jones

Lord C-J calls for review of Policy Lethal Autonomous Weapons

The Debate on limitation of Lethal Autonomous weapons has hotted up, especially in the the light of the Government's new Defence AI sttategy.

This is what I said prior to the report being published last   when the Armed Forces Bill went thnrough  the House of Lords

 

We eagerly await the defence AI strategy coming down the track but, as the noble Lord said, the very real fear is that autonomous weapons will undermine the international laws of war, and the noble and gallant Lord made clear the dangers of that. In consequence, a great number of questions arise about liability and accountability, particularly in criminal law. Such questions are important enough in civil society, and we have an AI governance White Paper coming down the track, but in military operations it will be crucial that they are answered.

From the recent exchange that the Minister had with the House on 1 November during an Oral Question that I asked about the Government’s position on the control of lethal autonomous weapons, I believe that the amendment is required more than ever. The Minister, having said:

“The UK and our partners are unconvinced by the calls for a further binding instrument”

to limit lethal autonomous weapons, said further:

“At this time, the UK believes that it is actually more important to understand the characteristics of systems with autonomy that would or would not enable them to be used in compliance with”

international human rights law,

“using this to set our potential norms of use and positive obligations.”

That seems to me to be a direct invitation to pass this amendment. Any review of this kind should be conducted in the light of day, as we suggest in the amendment, in a fully accountable manner.

However, later in the same short debate, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, the Minister reassured us, as my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham noted in Committee, that:

“UK Armed Forces do not use systems that employ lethal force without context-appropriate human involvement.”

Later, the Minister said:

“It is not possible to transfer accountability to a machine. Human responsibility for the use of a system to achieve an effect cannot be removed, irrespective of the level of autonomy in that system or the use of enabling technologies such as AI.”—[Official Report, 1/11/21; col. 994-95.]

The question is there. Does that mean that there will always be a human in the loop and there will never be a fully autonomous weapon deployed? If the legal duties are to remain the same for our Armed Forces, these weapons must surely at all times remain under human control and there will never be autonomous deployment.

However, that has recently directly been contradicted. The noble Lord, Lord Browne has described the rather chilling Times podcast interview with General Sir Richard Barrons, the former Commander Joint Forces Command. He contrasted the military role of what he called “soft-body humans”—I must admit, a phrase I had not encountered before—with that of autonomous weapons, and confirmed that weapons can now apply lethal force without any human intervention. He said that we cannot afford not to invest in these weapons. New technologies are changing how military operations are conducted. As we know, autonomous drone warfare is already a fact of life: Turkish autonomous drones have been deployed in Libya. Why are we not facing up to that in this Bill?

I sometimes get the feeling that the Minister believes that, if only we read our briefs from the MoD diligently enough and listened hard enough, we would accept what she is telling us about the Government’s position on lethal autonomous weapons. But there are fundamental questions at stake here which remain as yet unanswered. A review of the kind suggested in this amendment would be instrumental in answering them.

 

---

by Tim Clement-Jones

Coordination of Digital Regulation Crucial

The House of Lords recently debated the report  of its Select Committee on Communications and Digital entitled "Digital regulation: joined-up and accountable" 

This is what I said about the shape digital regulation should take and how it could best be coordinated 

In their digital regulation plan, first published last July and updated last month, the Government acknowledged that

“Digital technologies … demand a distinct regulatory approach … because they have distinctive features which make digital businesses and applications unique and innovative, but may also challenge how we address risks to consumers and wider society.”

I entirely agree, but I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that we need to do this

without the kind of delays in introducing regulation that we are already experiencing.

The plan for digital regulation committed to ensuring a forward-looking and coherent regulatory approach for digital technologies. The stress throughout the plan and the digital strategy is on a light-touch and pro-innovation regulatory regime, in the belief that this will stimulate innovation. The key principles stated are “Actively promote innovation”, achieve “forward-looking and coherent outcomes” and

“Exploit opportunities and address challenges in the international arena”.

This is all very laudable and reinforced by much of what the Select Committee said in its previous report, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. But one of the key reasons why the design of digital governance and regulation is important is to ensure that public trust is developed and retained in an area where there is often confusion and misunderstanding.

With the Online Safety Bill arriving in this House soon, we know only too well that the power of social media algorithms needs taming. Retention of public trust has not been helped by confusion over the use of algorithms to take over exam assessment during the pandemic and poor communication about the use of data on things like the Covid tracing app, the GP data opt-out and initiatives such as the Government’s single-ID identifier “One Login” project, which, together with the growth of automated decision-making, live facial recognition and use of biometric data, is a real cause for concern for many of us.

The fragility of trust in government use and sharing of personal data was demonstrated when Professor Ben Goldacre recently gave evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, explaining that, despite being the Government’s lead adviser on the use of health data, he had opted out of giving permission for his GP health data to be shared.

As an optimist, I believe that new technology can potentially lead to greater productivity and more efficient use of resources. But, as the title of Stephanie Hare’s new book puts it, Technology Is Not Neutral. We should be clear about the purpose and implications of new technology when we adopt it, which means regulation which has the public’s trust. For example, freedom from bias is essential in AI systems and in large part depends on the databases we use to train AI. The UK’s national AI strategy of last September does talk about public trust and the need for trustworthy AI, but this needs to be reflected in our regulatory landscape and how we regulate. In the face of the need to retain public trust, we need to be clear, above all, that regulation is not necessarily the enemy of innovation; in fact, it can be the stimulus and key to gaining and retaining public trust around digital technology and its adoption.

We may not need to go full fig as with the EU artificial intelligence Act, but the fact is that AI is a very different animal from previous technology. For instance, not everything is covered by existing equalities or data protection legislation, particularly in terms of accountability, transparency and explainability. A considerable degree of horizontality across government, business and society is needed to embed the OECD principles.

 

As the UK digital strategy published this month makes clear, there is a great deal of future regulation in the legislative pipeline, although, as the noble Baroness mentioned, we are lagging behind the EU. As a number of noble Lords mentioned, we are expecting a draft digital competition Bill in the autumn which will usher in the DMU in statutory form and a new pro-competition regime for digital markets. Just this week, we saw the publication of the new Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, with new powers for the ICO. We have also seen the publication of the national AI strategy, AI action plan and AI policy statement.

In the context of increased digital regulation and the need for co-ordination across regulators, the Select Committee welcomed the formation of the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum by the ICO, CMA, Ofcom and FCA, and so do I, alongside the work plan which the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, mentioned. I believe that this will make a considerable contribution to public trust in regulation. It has already made great strides in building a centre of excellence in AI and algorithm audit.

UK Digital Strategy elaborates on the creation of the DRCF:

“We are also taking steps to make sure the regulatory landscape is fully coherent, well-coordinated and that our regulators have the capabilities they need … Through the DRCF’s joint programme of work, it has a unique role to play in developing our pro-innovation approach to regulation.”

Like the Select Committee in one of its key recommendations, I believe we can go further in ensuring a co-ordinated approach to digital regulation, horizon scanning—which has been mentioned by all noble Lords—and adapting to future regulatory needs and oversight of fitness for purpose, particularly the desirability of a statutory duty to co-operate and consult with one another. It is a proposal which the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, of which I was a member, took up with enthusiasm. We also agreed with the Select Committee that it should be put on a statutory footing, with the power to resolve conflicts by directing its members. I was extremely interested to hear from noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about the circumstances in which those conflicts need to be resolved. It is notable that the Government think that that is a bridge too far.

This very week, the Alan Turing Institute published a very interesting report entitled Common Regulatory Capacity for AI. As it says, the use of artificial intelligence is increasing across all sectors of the economy, which raises important and pressing questions for regulators. Its very timely report presents the results of research into how regulators can meet the challenge of regulating activities transformed by AI and maximise the potential of AI for regulatory innovation.

It takes the arguments of the Select Committee a bit further and goes into some detail on the capabilities required for the regulation of AI. Regulators need to be able to ensure that regulatory regimes are fit for AI and that they are able to address AI-related risks and maintain an environment that encourages innovation. It stresses the need for certainty about regulatory expectations, public trust in AI technologies and the avoidance of undue regulatory obstacles.

 

Regulators also need to understand how to use AI for regulation. The institute also believes that there is an urgent need for an increased and sustainable form of co-ordination on AI-related questions across the regulatory landscape. It highlights the need for access to new sources of shared AI expertise, such as the proposed AI and regulation common capacity hub, which

“would have its home at a politically independent institution, established as a centre of excellence in AI, drawing on multidisciplinary knowledge and expertise from across the national and international research community.”

It sets out a number of different roles for the newly created hub.

To my mind, these recommendations emphasise the need for the DRCF to take statutory form in the way suggested by the Select Committee. But, like the Select Committee, I believe that it is important that other regulators can come on board the DRCF. Some of them are statutory, such as the Gambling Commission, the Electoral Commission and the IPO, and I think it would be extremely valuable to have them on board. However, some of them are non-statutory, such the BBFC and the ASA. They could have a place at the table and join in benefiting from the digital centre of excellence being created.

Our Joint Committee also thoroughly agreed with the Communications and Digital Committee that a new Joint Committee on digital regulation is needed in the context of the Online Safety Bill. Indeed the Secretary of State herself has expressed support. As the Select Committee recommended, this could cover the broader digital landscape to partly oversee the work of the DRCF and also importantly address other objectives such as scrutiny of the Secretary of State, looking across the digital regulation landscape and horizon scanning—looking at evolving challenges, which was considered very important by our Joint Committee and the Select Committee.

The Government are engaged in a great deal of activity. The question, as ever, is whether the objectives, such as achieving trustworthy AI, digital upskilling and powers for regulators, are going to be achieved through the actions being taken so far. I believe that the recommendations of the Select Committee set out in this report would make a major contribution to ensuring effective and trustworthy regulation and should be supported.

---

by Tim Clement-Jones

Broadband and 5G rollout strategy needs review

During the passage of the Product and Security Bill it has become clear that the Government's rollout strategy keeps being changed and is unlikely to achieve its objectives, especially in rural areas. This is what I said when supporting a review. 

We all seem to be trapped in a time loop on telecoms, with continual consultations and changes to the ECC and continual retreat by the Government on their 1 gigabit per second broadband rollout pledge. In the Explanatory Notes, we were at 85% by 2025; this now seems to have shifted to 2026. There has been much government bravado in this area, but it is clear that the much-trumpeted £5 billion announced last year for project gigabit, to bring gigabit coverage to the hardest-to-reach areas, has not yet been fully allocated and that barely a penny has been spent.

Then, we have all the access and evaluation amendments to the Electronic Communications Code and the Digital Economy Act 2017. Changes to the ECC were meant to do the trick; then, the Electronic Communications and Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) (European Electronic Communications Code and EU Exit) Regulations were heralded as enabling a stronger emphasis on incentivising investment in very high capacity networks, promoting the efficient use of spectrum, ensuring effective consumer protection and engagement and supporting the Government’s digital ambitions and plans to deliver nationwide gigabit-capable connectivity. 

Then we had the Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review. We had the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act—engraved on all our hearts, I am sure. We argued about the definition of tenants, rights of requiring installation and rights of entry, and had some success. Sadly, we were not able to insert a clause that would have required a review of the Government’s progress on rollout. Now we know why. Even while that Bill was going through in 2021, we had Access to Land: Consultation on Changes to the Electronic Communications Code. We knew then, from the representations made, that the operators were calling for other changes not included in the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act or the consultation. From the schedule the Minister has sent us, we know that he has been an extremely busy bee with yet further discussions and consultations.

I will quote from a couple of recent Financial Times pieces demonstrating that, with all these changes, the Government are still not achieving their objectives. The first is headed: “Broadband market inequalities test Westminster’s hopes of levelling up: Disparity in access to fast internet sets back rural and poorer areas, data analysis shows”. It starts:

“The UK has nearly 5mn houses with more than three choices of ultrafast fibre-optic broadband, while 10mn homes do not have a single option, according to analysis that points to the inequality in internet infrastructure across Britain.

While some parts of the country are benefiting from high internet speeds, others have been left behind, according to research conducted by data group Point Topic with the Financial Times, leading to disparities in people’s ability to work, communicate and play.”

A more recent FT piece from the same correspondent, Anna Gross, is headed: “UK ‘altnets’ risk digging themselves into a hole: Overbuilding poses threat to business model of fibre broadband groups challenging the big incumbents”. It starts:

“Underneath the UK’s streets, a billion-pound race is taking place. In many towns and cities, at least three companies are digging to lay broadband fibre cables all targeting the same households, with some areas predicted to have six or seven such lines by the end of the decade.

But only some of them will cross the finishing line … When the dust settles, will there be just two network operators—with Openreach and Virgin Media O2 dominating the landscape—or is there space for a sparky challenger with significant market share stolen from the incumbents?”

Are we now in a wild west for the laying of fibre-optic cable? Will this be like the energy market, with great numbers of companies going bust?

By contrast, INCA, the Independent Networks Cooperative Association, reports in its latest update:

“The ‘AltNets’ have more than doubled their footprint year on year since 2019”—

I think my noble friend Lord Fox quoted these figures—

“now reaching 5.5m premises and expected to reach 11.5m premises by the end of this year. Investment remains buoyant with an additional £5.7bn committed during 2021 bringing total estimated investment in the independent sector to £17.7bn for the period to 2025.”

We have two very different stories there. What contingencies have the Government made? Who will pick up the tab if the former scenario is correct—the poor old consumer? In any event, will rural communities get any service in the end?

What of rural broadband rollout? It appears that DCMS is currently assessing policy options on the means of best addressing the shortfall. I was interested to hear the very pointed question that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked about what working groups were examining some of these issues, following a call for evidence on improving broadband for very hard-to-reach areas. What is the department actually doing? Can we expect more changes to the ECC?

The policy justification for the 2017 reforms was that rent savings by operators would be reinvested in networks, with the then Minister saying that the Government would hold operators’ feet to the fire to ensure that they delivered, noting that to

“have real impact, savings must be invested in expanding network infrastructure”.—[Official Report, 31/1/17; col. 1157.]

and saying that the revised code secured real investment. This was supported by confirmation, in the impact assessment accompanying the reforms to the ECC in 2017, that the Government would review the impact of the policy by June 2022. But this has not been met, despite the Government’s future infrastructure review confirming that they were already considering undertaking a formal review of the code reforms to assess their impact in 2019. The Government’s decision to introduce new legislation proves that the 2017 reforms have not actually achieved their aims.

Instead of leading to faster and easier deployment, as we have heard today, changes to the rights given to operators under the code have stopped the market working as it should and led to delays in digital rollout, as well as eroding private property rights. This has resulted in small businesses facing demands for rent reductions of over 90%; a spike in mobile network operators bringing protracted litigation; failure by mobile operators to reinvest their savings in mobile infrastructure; and delayed 5G access for up to 9 million people, at a cost of over £6 billion to the UK economy. The Government’s legislation and their subsidies now show they know the reforms have failed. That is why they are passing new legislation to revise the code, as well as announcing £500 million in new subsidies for operators through the shared rural network.

In Committee in the other place, the Minister, Julia Lopez, claimed:

“If a review takes place, stakeholders will likely delay entering into agreements to enable the deployment of infrastructure. Only when the review has concluded and it is clear whether further changes are to be made to the code will parties be prepared to make investment or financial commitments”.—[Official Report, Commons, Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill Committee, 22/3/22; col. 122.]

In addition to there being no evidence for this claim, this extraordinary line of reasoning would allow the Government to escape scrutiny and commitments in a wide variety of policy areas, were it applied more broadly. To maintain public faith in policy-making, it is vital that there is an accessible evidence base on which decisions are made. The Government’s decisions in this Bill do not meet the standard.

Moreover, I know that Ministers are sceptical about the Centre for Economics and Business Research’s report. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has said that it oversimplifies the issue, but I do not believe that the Government have properly addressed some of the issues raised in it. The CEBR is an extremely reputable organisation and although the research was commissioned by Protect and Connect, the Government need to engage in that respect.

Our amendment would insert a new clause obliging the Government to commission an independent review of the impact of the legislation and prior reforms within 18 months. The review would assess the legislation’s impact on the rate of additional investment in mobile networks and infrastructure deployment, the costs borne by property owners and the wider benefit or costs of the legislation. It would also oblige the Government to publish a response to the review within 12 weeks of its publication and lay that before Parliament, to ensure parliamentary accountability for the Government’s action and to allow debate.

Another amendment would insert a new clause placing obligations on operators to report certain information to Ofcom each year. Operators would have to report on such information as their overall investment in mobile networks, the rent paid to site providers, the number of new mobile sites built within the UK, and upgrades and renewals.

It is the final group in Committee, so where in all this—as my noble friend Lord Fox and I have been asking each time we debate these issues—are the interests of the consumer, especially the rural consumer? How are they being promoted, especially now that market review is only once every five years? That is why we need these reviews in these amendments. We tried in the last Bill to make the Government justify their strategy. Now it is clear that changes to the ECC are not fit for purpose and we will try again to make the Government come clean on their strategy.

---

by Tim Clement-Jones

Government AI Procurement needs ethical and data compliance obligation

The Procurement Bill lacks any kinds of obligation on Government to ensure that AI systems procred comply with ethical and data protection principles despite numerous guidelines bering issed. This is what I said when proposing a new clause designed to ensure this.

In our report AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able?, our AI Lords Select Committee, which I chaired, expressed its strong belief in the value of procurement by the public sector of AI applications. However, as a recent research post put it:

“Public sector bodies in several countries are using algorithms, AI, and similar methods in their administrative functions that have sometimes led to bad outcomes that could have been avoided.”

The solution is:

“In most parliamentary democracies, a variety of laws and standards for public administration combine to set enough rules to guide their proper use in the public sector.”

The challenge is to work out what is lawful, safe and effective to use.

The Government clearly understand this, yet one of the baffling and disappointing aspects of the Bill is the lack of connection to the many government guidelines applying to the procurement and use of tech, such as artificial intelligence and the use and sharing of data by those contracting with government. It is unbelievable, but it is almost as if the Government wanted to be able to issue guidance on the ethical aspects of AI and data without at the same time being accountable if those guidelines are breached and without any duty to ensure compliance.

There is no shortage of guidance available. In June 2020, the UK Government published guidelines for artificial intelligence procurement, which were developed by the UK Government’s Office for Artificial Intelligence in collaboration with the World Economic Forum, the Government Digital Service, the Government Commercial Function and the Crown Commercial Service. The UK was trumpeted as the first Government to pilot these procurement guidelines. Their purpose is to provide central government departments and other public sector bodies with a set of guiding principles for purchasing AI technology. They also cover guidance on tackling challenges that may occur during the procurement process. In connection with this project, the Office for AI also co-created the AI procurement toolkit, which provides a guide for the public sector globally to rethink the procurement of AI.

As the Government said on launch,

“Public procurement can be an enabler for the adoption of AI and could be used to improve public service delivery. Government’s purchasing power can drive this innovation and spur growth in AI technologies development in the UK.

As AI is an emerging technology, it can be more difficult to establish the best route to market for your requirements, to engage effectively with innovative suppliers or to develop the right AI-specific criteria and terms and conditions that allow effective and ethical deployment of AI technologies.”

The guidelines set out a number of AI-specific considerations within the procurement process:

“Include your procurement within a strategy for AI adoption … Conduct a data assessment before starting your procurement process … Develop a plan for governance and information assurance … Avoid Black Box algorithms and vendor lock in”,

to name just a few. The considerations in the guidelines and the toolkit are extremely useful and reassuring, although not as comprehensive or risk-based as some of us would like, but where does any duty to adhere to the principles reflecting them appear in the Bill?

There are many other sets of guidance applicable to the deployment of data and AI in the public sector, including the Technology Code of Practice, the Data Ethics Framework, the guide to using artificial intelligence in the public sector, the data open standards and the algorithmic transparency standard. There is the Ethics, Transparency and Accountability Framework, and this year we have the Digital, Data and Technology Playbook, which is the government guidance on sourcing and contracting for digital, data and technology projects and programmes. There are others in the health and defence sectors. It seems that all these are meant to be informed by the OECD’s and the G20’s ethical principles, but where is the duty to adhere to them?

It is instructive to read the recent government response to Technology Rules?, the excellent report from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. That response, despite some fine-sounding phrases about responsible, ethical, legitimate, necessary, proportionate and safe Al, displays a marked reluctance to be subject to specific regulation in this area. Procurement and contract guidelines are practical instruments to ensure that public sector authorities deploy AI-enabled systems that comply with fundamental rights and democratic values, but without any legal duty backing up the various guidelines, how will they add up to a row of beans beyond fine aspirations? It is quite clear that the missing link in the chain is the lack of a legal duty to adhere to these guidelines.

My amendment is formulated in general terms to allow for guidance to change from time to time, but the intention is clear: to make sure that the Government turn aspiration into action and to prompt them to adopt a legal duty and a compliance mechanism, whether centrally via the CDDO, or otherwise.

 

---

by Tim Clement-Jones

Debate on AI in the UK: No Room For Complacency report

Recently the House of Lords belatedly debated the follow Report to the the original House of Lords AI Committee Report  AI Report No Room for Complacency . This is how I introduced it:

My Lords, the Liaison Committee report No Room for Complacency was published in December 2020, as a follow-up to our AI Select Committee report, AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able?, published in April 2018. Throughout both inquiries and right up until today, the pace of development here and abroad in AI technology, and the discussion of AI governance and regulation, has been extremely fast moving. Today, just as then, I know that I am attempting to hit a moving target. Just take, for instance, the announcement a couple of weeks ago about the new Gato—the multipurpose AI which can do 604 functions —or perhaps less optimistically, the Clearview fine. Both have relevance to what we have to say today.

First, however, I say a big thank you to the then Liaison Committee for the new procedure which allowed our follow-up report and to the current Lord Speaker, Lord McFall, in particular and those members of our original committee who took part. I give special thanks to the Liaison Committee team of Philippa Tudor, Michael Collon, Lucy Molloy and Heather Fuller, and to Luke Hussey and Hannah Murdoch from our original committee team who more than helped bring the band, and our messages, back together.

So what were the main conclusions of our follow-up report? What was the government response, and where are we now? I shall tackle this under five main headings. The first is trust and understanding. The adoption of AI has made huge strides since we started our first report, but the trust issue still looms large. Nearly all our witnesses in the follow-up inquiry said that engagement continued to be essential across business and society in particular to ensure that there is greater understanding of how data is used in AI and that government must lead the way. We said that the development of data trusts must speed up. They were the brainchild of the Hall-Pesenti report back in 2017 as a mechanism for giving assurance about the use and sharing of personal data, but we now needed to focus on developing the legal and ethical frameworks. The Government acknowledged that the AI Council’s roadmap took the same view and pointed to the ODI work and the national data strategy. However, there has been too little recent progress on data trusts. The ODI has done some good work, together with the Ada Lovelace Institute, but this needs taking forward as a matter of urgency, particularly guidance on the legal structures. If anything, the proposals in Data: A New Direction, presaging a new data reform Bill in the autumn, which propose watering down data protection, are a backward step.

More needs to be done generally on digital understanding. The digital literacy strategy needs to be much broader than digital media, and a strong digital competition framework has yet to be put in place. Public trust has not been helped by confusion and poor communication about the use of data during the pandemic, and initiatives such as the Government’s single identifier project, together with automated decision-making and live facial recognition, are a real cause for concern that we are approaching an all-seeing state.

My second heading is ethics and regulation. One of the main areas of focus of our committee throughout has been the need to develop an appropriate ethical framework for the development and application of AI, and we were early advocates for international agreement on the principles to be adopted. Back in 2018, the committee took the view that blanket regulation would be inappropriate, and we recommended an approach to identify gaps in the regulatory framework where existing regulation might not be adequate. We also placed emphasis on the importance of regulators having the necessary expertise.

In our follow-up report, we took the view that it was now high time to move on to agreement on the mechanisms on how to instil what are now commonly accepted ethical principles—I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate for coming up with the idea in the first place—and to establish national standards for AI development and AI use and application. We referred to the work that was being undertaken by the EU and the Council of Europe, with their risk-based approaches, and also made recommendations focused on development of expertise and better understanding of risk of AI systems by regulators. We highlighted an important advisory role for the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation and urged that it be placed on a statutory footing.

We welcomed the formation of the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum. It is clear that all the regulators involved—I apologise for the initials in advance—the ICO, CMA, Ofcom and the FCA, have made great strides in building a centre of excellence in AI and algorithm audit and making this public. However, despite the publication of the National AI Strategy and its commitment to trustworthy AI, we still await the Government’s proposals on AI governance in the forthcoming White Paper.

It seems that the debate within government about whether to have a horizontal or vertical sectoral framework for regulation still continues. However, it seems clear to me, particularly for accountability and transparency, that some horizontality across government, business and society is needed to embed the OECD principles. At the very least, we need to be mindful that the extraterritoriality of the EU AI Act means a level of regulatory conformity will be required and that there is a strong need for standards of impact, as well as risk assessment, audit and monitoring, to be enshrined in regulation to ensure, as techUK urges, that we consider the entire AI lifecycle.

We need to consider particularly what regulation is appropriate for those applications which are genuinely high risk and high impact. I hope that, through the recently created AI standards hub, the Alan Turing Institute will take this forward at pace. All this has been emphasised by the debate on the deployment of live facial recognition technology, the use of biometrics in policing and schools, and the use of AI in criminal justice, recently examined by our own Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

My third heading is government co-ordination and strategy. Throughout our reports we have stressed the need for co-ordination between a very wide range of bodies, including the Office for Artificial Intelligence, the AI Council, the CDEI and the Alan Turing Institute. On our follow-up inquiry, we still believed that more should be done to ensure that this was effective, so we recommended a Cabinet committee which would commission and approve a five-year national AI strategy, as did the AI road map.

In response, the Government did not agree to create a committee but they did commit to the publication of a cross-government national AI strategy. I pay tribute to the Office for AI, in particular its outgoing director Sana Khareghani, for its work on this. The objectives of the strategy are absolutely spot on, and I look forward to seeing the national AI strategy action plan, which it seems will show how cross-government engagement is fostered. However, the Committee on Standards in Public Life—I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, will speak today—report on AI and public standards made the deficiencies in common standards in the public sector clear.

Subsequently, we now have an ethics, transparency and accountability framework for automated decision-making in the public sector, and more recently the CDDO-CDEI public sector algorithmic transparency standard, but there appears to be no central and local government compliance mechanism and little transparency in the form of a public register, and the Home Office appears to be still a law unto itself. We have AI procurement guidelines based on the World Economic Forum model but nothing relevant to them in the Procurement Bill, which is being debated as we speak. I believe we still need a government mechanism for co-ordination and compliance at the highest level.

The fourth heading is impact on jobs and skills. Opinions differ over the potential impact of AI but, whatever the chosen prognosis, we said there was little evidence that the Government had taken a really strategic view about this issue and the pressing need for digital upskilling and reskilling. Although the Government agreed that this was critical and cited a number of initiatives, I am not convinced that the pace, scale and ambition of government action really matches the challenge facing many people working in the UK.

The Skills and Post-16 Education Act, with its introduction of a lifelong loan entitlement, is a step in the right direction and I welcome the renewed emphasis on further education and the new institutes of technology. The Government refer to AI apprenticeships, but apprentice levy reform is long overdue. The work of local digital skills partnerships and digital boot camps is welcome, but they are greatly underresourced and only a patchwork. The recent Youth Unemployment Select Committee report Skills for Every Young Person noted the severe lack of digital skills and the need to embed digital education in the curriculum, as did the AI road map. Alongside this, we shared the priority of the AI Council road map for more diversity and inclusion in the AI workforce and wanted to see more progress.

At the less rarefied end, although there are many useful initiatives on foot, not least from techUK and Global Tech Advocates, it is imperative that the Government move much more swiftly and strategically. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Diversity and Inclusion in STEM recommended in a recent report a STEM diversity decade of action. As mentioned earlier, broader digital literacy is crucial too. We need to learn how to live and work alongside AI.

The fifth heading is the UK as a world leader. It was clear to us that the UK needs to remain attractive to international research talent, and we welcomed the Global Partnership on AI initiative. The Government in response cited the new fast-track visa, but there are still strong concerns about the availability of research visas for entrance to university research programmes. The failure to agree and lack of access to EU Horizon research funding could have a huge impact on our ability to punch our weight internationally.

How the national AI strategy is delivered in terms of increased R&D and innovation funding will be highly significant. Of course, who knows what ARIA may deliver? In my view, key weaknesses remain in the commercialisation and translation of AI R&D. The recent debate on the Science and Technology Committee’s report on catapults reminded us that this aspect is still a work in progress.

Recent Cambridge round tables have confirmed to me that we have a strong R&D base and a growing number of potentially successful spin-outs from universities, with the help of their dedicated investment funds, but when it comes to broader venture capital culture and investment in the later rounds of funding, we are not yet on a par with Silicon Valley in terms of risk appetite. For AI investment, we should now consider something akin to the dedicated film tax credit which has been so successful to date.

Finally, we had, and have, the vexed question of lethal autonomous weapons, which we raised in the original Select Committee report and in the follow-up, particularly in the light of the announcement at the time of the creation of the autonomy development centre in the MoD. Professor Stuart Russell, who has long campaigned on this subject, cogently raised the limitation of these weapons in his second Reith Lecture. In both our reports we said that one of the big disappointments was the lack of definition of “autonomous weapons”. That position subsequently changed, and we were told in the Government’s response to the follow-up report that NATO had agreed a definition of “autonomous” and “automated”, but there is still no comprehensive definition of lethal autonomous weapons, despite evidence that they have clearly already been deployed in theatres such as Libya, and the UK has firmly set its face against laws limitation in international fora such as the CCW.

For a short report, our follow-up report covered a great deal of ground, which I have tried to cover at some speed today. AI lies at the intersection of computer science, moral philosophy, industrial education and regulatory policy, which makes how we approach the risks and opportunities inherent in this technology vital and difficult. The Government are engaged in a great deal of activity. The question, as ever, is whether it is focused enough and whether the objectives, such as achieving trustworthy AI and digital upskilling, are going to be achieved through the actions taken so far. The evidence of success is clearly mixed. Certainly there is still no room for complacency. I very much look forward to hearing the debate today and to what the Minister has to say in response. I beg to move.

---

by Tim Clement-Jones

Government should use procurement process to secure good work

Recently in the context of its duties under  the Procurement Bill I argued for an obligation on Government to ensure that it had regard to the need to secure good work for those carrying out contracts under its procurement activities. This is what I said: 

My own interests, and indeed concerns, in this area go back to the House of Lords Select Committee on AI. I chaired this ad hoc inquiry, which produced two reports: AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able? and a follow-up report via the Liaison Committee, AI in the UK: No Room for Complacency, which I mentioned in the debate on a previous group.

The issue of the adoption of AI and its relationship to the augmentation of human employment or substitution is key. We were very mindful of the Frey and Osborne predictions in 2013, which estimated that 47% of US jobs are at risk of automation—since watered down—relating to the sheer potential scale of automation over the next few years through the adoption of new technology. The IPPR in 2017 was equally pessimistic. Others, such as the OECD, have been more optimistic about the job-creation potential of these new technologies, but it is notable that the former chief economist of the Bank of England, Andrew Haldane, entered the prediction game not long ago with a rather pessimistic outlook.

Whatever the actual outcome, we said in our report that we need to prepare for major disruption in the workplace. We emphasised that public procurement has a major role in terms of the consequences of AI adoption on jobs and that risk and impact assessments need to be embedded in the tender process.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, mentioned the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Future of Work, which, alongside the Institute for the Future of Work, has produced some valuable reports and recommendations in the whole area of the impact of new technology on the workplace. In their reports—the APPG’s The New Frontier and the institute’s Mind the Gap—they recommend that public authorities be obliged to conduct algorithmic impact assessments as a systematic approach to and framework for accountability and as a regulatory tool to enhance the accountability and transparency of algorithmic systems. I tried to introduce in the last Session a Private Member’s Bill that would have obliged public authorities to complete an algorithmic impact assessment where they procure or develop an automated 

decision-making system, based on the Canadian directive on artificial intelligence’s impact assessments and the 2022 US Algorithmic Accountability Act.

In particular, we need to consider the consequences for work and working people, as well as the impact of AI on the quality of employment. We also need to ensure that people have the opportunity to reskill and retrain so that they can adapt to the evolving labour market caused by AI. The all-party group said:

“The principles of Good Work should be recognised as fundamental values … to guide development and application of a human-centred AI Strategy. This will ensure that the AI Strategy works to serve the public interest in vision and practice, and that its remit extends to consider the automation of work.”

The Institute for the Future of Work’s Good Work Charter is a useful checklist of AI impacts for risk and impact assessments—for instance, in a workplace context, issues relating to

“access … fair pay … fair conditions … equality … dignity … autonomy … wellbeing … support”

and participation. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have said that these amendments would ensure that impacts on the creation of good, local jobs and other impacts in terms of access to, terms of and quality of work are taken into account in the course of undertaking public procurement.

As the Work Foundation put it in a recent report,

“In many senses, insecure work has become an accepted part of the UK’s labour market over the last 20 years. Successive governments have prioritised raising employment and lowering unemployment, while paying far less attention to the quality and security of the jobs available.”

The Taylor review of modern working practices, Good Work—an independent report commissioned by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that remains largely unimplemented—concluded that there is a need to provide a framework that better reflects the realities of the modern economy and the spectrum of work carried out.

The Government have failed to legislate to ensure that we do not move even further down the track towards a preponderantly gig economy. It is crucial that they use their procurement muscle to ensure, as in Good Work, that these measures are taken on every major public procurement involving AI and automated decision-making.

---

by Tim Clement-Jones