Digital and Technology Policy: National Sovereignty
Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts(4 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Oxford (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, it is a real honour to take part in this debate, and I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her penetrating analysis.
In the words of our new Prime Minister on the steps of Downing Street a few days ago:
“Britain needs to show the world that we can regain our stability once again”.
Stability is a deeply Christian virtue, as well as in many other world faiths. The psalms speak of God as a rock, our refuge and strength, and our very present help in times of trouble. The rule of Benedict, with his emphasis on stability and faithfulness, underpins many of our institutions, from schools, hospitals and universities to our great cathedrals.
In recent years, new technology has become one of the many factors at work in undermining our stability as a nation. There are many gains from technology, but as we know there are existential risks to mental health, our climate, cohesion, truth, relationships, community, patterns of work, the distribution of power—which affects every part of society—and the international order. The risks inherent in AI are, in part, a product of its accelerating speed of development. Many speak now, and the language has been properly used this afternoon, of a race to artificial general intelligence and frontier AI.
The speed of change and the significant power unleashed make this revolution distinct from other technical developments in the past, because there is a risk that the speed of change will itself undermine the very benefits that change brings. There is simply no time for public trust and confidence to grow, and we have heard of the growing public awareness of risk and the desire that something be done. Debate consistently lags behind the deployment of technology and public awareness. Institutions that give stability to society are undermined. New markets and new jobs have no time to grow where existing ones are superseded so rapidly. There is little time to build capacity in industry, local authorities and Governments internationally.
The acceleration we see at the moment is not inevitable but is almost entirely driven by commercial factors. The huge investment required to develop AI demands massive returns in a very short and contracting space of time. Every example of future scenario planning I have read identifies growing existential risk. We can identify the accelerators, but where are the brakes on AI development globally? Where are the constraints and the restraints for responsible AI which ensure that harms are mitigated, trust is built and benefits justly shared?
A responsible, balancing slowing down can and needs to come only from two sources. The first is the assertion of sovereignty by individual nations, and that assertion of sovereignty needs to be clear, ethically shaped and in the interests of our whole society. Sovereignty will always be a basket of different things—there are no absolutes—but sovereignty must be clearly expressed as a standard by which to measure each new development and each new investment, as others have clearly argued this afternoon. The United Kingdom does not yet have that clear standard and statement of intent. We need it urgently. What steps are the Government taking to make clear our position and our willingness to slow development to a manageable pace? The second source is the combined and collective power of nation states acting in concert. Again, the United Kingdom has a major role to play in drawing together a common approach. What steps are the Government taking to draw such a coalition together for the good of all?
I have been immensely grateful for the opportunity to serve in this house. From beginning to end, the experience has been a sharp learning curve. I have learned so much from colleagues in debate, including today, in APPGs and, in particular, in the Select Committee on AI and the Environment and Climate Change Committee. I am immensely grateful to the staff of the House, the doorkeepers and those who keep us safe. I record my thanks to my researcher, Simon Cross, and to Simon Stanley and Richard Chapman, of the Church of England’s parliamentary unit, for their expertise and wisdom.
The most important part of a building is its foundation. The most vital part of a boat in a storm is the keel, giving stability in the water. As the world navigates the transition to the age of artificial intelligence, we will need more than ever before the values and ethics of our common tradition, rooted in centuries of Christian faith and practice. AI can be a tool for the common good and a source of great benefit, but only if Governments remain sovereign. Does the Minister agree?
Data Centres: Energy and Water Consumption
Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have (1) to measure, and (2) to regulate, the amount of (a) energy, and (b) water, consumed by data centres in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
The Government are actively monitoring the data centre sector and published the first government estimate of data centre capacity on 1 May, including measures indicating energy use. As part of the Government’s commitment to reduce the use of the public water supply by 20% by 2037-38, Defra is examining how the efficiency of water use in data centres can be improved and the Environment Agency is working to improve the understanding of water and resilience needs.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
I thank the Minister for his Answer. As he is aware, the Government have a dedicated energy council, but there is, as yet, no similar provision for water, no formal record of all the current data centres or the water they use and no public criteria for assessing new proposals such as the one in Culham in Oxfordshire. Does the Minister agree that water demand and supply in AI growth zones is a pressing problem? Do the Government have any plans to establish an AI and water task force and will it have representation from local communities?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is right that water is a very large issue for data centres, as they consume large amounts of it. There are now technologies that reduce that use, such as recirculation of water. The AI growth zone proposals are required to set out water use—the volume of water required, the availability of that volume, the timeline of delivery and any wider infrastructure requirements or constraints—and they must work with the water provider to do that. Applications must confirm the above from the relevant water supplier and include any other associated impacts. A working group on sustainability has also been set up under the AI Energy Council.
Artificial Intelligence: Emissions
Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to measure the emissions associated with artificial intelligence in relation to the United Kingdom’s net zero target.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for the Question. The Climate Change Act, as noble Lords know, made the UK the first country to introduce legally binding long-term emissions reductions targets. This sets in law our commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and means that the Government must address emissions across the whole economy to reach our targets. This includes consideration of increased electricity demand from new and growing sectors, including AI, to ensure that we are compliant with our carbon budgets.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. He will be aware—I was not, until I researched this—that, in Ireland, data centres now account for over 20% of electricity use and the largest data centres under construction consume as much energy potentially as 2 million households, according to some estimates. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for more joined-up thinking between the Government’s energy policy and the rising energy demands of AI and data centres? As a first step, are the Government ready to accept the recommendations of the Royal Academy of Engineering for mandatory reporting for data centres on energy consumption, water consumption, carbon emissions and e-waste recycling?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Recent estimates from 2022 show that data centres, including those for AI, account for about 4% of UK electricity consumption. The recently formed AI Energy Council, which is co-chaired by the Secretaries of State for DSIT and DESNZ, is set up to do exactly what the right reverend Prelate is suggesting, which is to ensure that we have a joined-up approach between energy and AI.
Artificial Intelligence: Regulation
Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord may find that not all rights holders have the same views, so I do not think it is possible to give the assurance he asked for, but I am very clear that we need a workable solution, and that means for creators as well as for access.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, according to the Government’s own recent survey, 43% of the public trust that the impact of AI will be positive, but 33% believe it will be negative. Given this very narrow gap and the critical importance of building trust in embracing new technologies, what specific steps are the Government planning to take to improve that public trust as they embed AI in the nation’s most trusted institutions, not least in the NHS?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that important question. Trust is key to all this, and it is why we are committed to maintaining high standards of data protection in whichever context the AI system is deployed. The right reverend Prelate is quite right to raise the question of the NHS, where already AI is being used to read scans, to improve performance in terms of missed appointments and to advance pathology services, many of which are narrow AI uses which are extremely important.
Advanced Artificial Intelligence
Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of two recent select and scrutiny committees on AI, and as a founding board member of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation.
Together with others, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on this debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton.
We are at a pivotal moment in the development of AI. As others have said, there is immense potential for good and immense potential for harm in the new technologies. The question before us is not primarily one of assessing risk and developing regulation. Risk and regulation must both rest on the foundation of ethics. My fundamental question is: what is the Government’s view on the place of ethics within these debates, and the place of the humanities and civil society in the development and translation of ethics?
In 1979, Pope John Paul II published the first public document of his papacy, the encyclical Redemptor Hominis. He drew attention to humanity’s growing fear of what humanity itself produces—a fear revealed in much recent coverage of AI. Humanity is rightly afraid that technology can become the means and instrument for self-destruction and harm, compared with which all the cataclysms and catastrophes of history known to us seem to fade away. Pope John Paul II goes on to argue that the development of technology demands a proportional development of morals and ethics. He argues that this last development seems, unfortunately, to be always left behind.
Professor Shoshana Zuboff made a similar point on this time lag more recently, in her book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. She wrote:
“We have yet to invent the politics and new forms of collaborative action … that effectively assert the people’s right to a human future”.
These new structures must be developed not by engineers alone but in rich dialogue across society. Society together must ask the big ethical questions. Will these new technologies lead us into a more deeply humane future and towards greater equality, dignity of the person and the creative flourishing of all? Or will they lead us instead to a future of human enslavement to algorithms, unchallenged bias, still greater inequalities, concentration of wealth and power, less fulfilling work and a passive consumerism?
Five years ago the Government established the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation to explore these questions. The centre began well but was never established on an independent legal footing and seems to have slipped ever further from the centre of the Government’s thinking and reflection. One of the hopes of the CDEI was that it would provide an authoritative overview of sector-led innovation, have a co-ordinating and oversight role, and be a place for bringing together public engagement, civil society, good governance and technology. I therefore ask the Minister: what are the Government’s plans for the CDEI in the current landscape? What are the plans for the engagement of civil society with AI regulation and ethics, including with the international conference planned for the autumn? Will the Government underline their commitment to the precautionary principle as a counterweight to the unrestrained development of technology, because of the risks of harm? Will we mind the widening gap between technology and ethics for the sake of human flourishing into the future?