AI & Technology

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:

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

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