Public Authority Algorithmic and Automated Decision-Making Systems Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Earl of Effingham

3rd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill is part of a wider debate that, as was the case with the previous Private Member’s Bill today, from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, we had as part of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Government have now published their vision for digital public service and their State of Digital Government Review. For the Government Digital Service, we are now told that a new chapter begins. All this is, apparently, designed to improve productivity and services in the public sector. But how citizen-centred will the new technology be? How transparent and accountable will it be? To improve algorithmic and automated decision-making in the public sector, there needs to be an increase in transparency, fairness, accountability and the implementation of robust safeguards and human oversight mechanisms.

We obviously welcome the promise of an ICO code of conduct for automated decisions in the public and private sectors, as well as the algorithmic transparency recording standard of course. But that in itself lacks a number of elements: a human oversight requirement; impact assessments; a transparency register; and the prohibition of non-scrutinisable systems. There are considerable gaps in that standard. It does not cover local authorities, police forces and other public services. I simply predict that this will become a bigger issue as government starts to implement its plans for the adoption of AI in the public sector. The Government will find themselves well behind the curve of public opinion on this.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on the Bill, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who brought it forward. In an era increasingly shaped by the decisions of automated systems, it is the responsibility of all those using algorithmic and automated decision-making systems to safeguard individuals from the potential harm caused by them. We understand the goals of the Bill: namely, to ensure trustworthy artificial intelligence that garners public confidence, fosters innovation and contributes to economic growth. But His Majesty’s Official Opposition also see certain aspects of the Bill that we believe risk its effectiveness.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, pointed out at Second Reading, we suggest the Bill may be prescriptive. The definition of “algorithmic systems” in Clause 2(1) is broad, encompassing any process, even those unrelated to digital or computational systems. While the exemptions in Clause 2(2) and (4) are noted, we believe that adopting our White Paper definitions to focus on autonomous and adaptive systems would provide clarity and align the scope with the Bill’s purpose.

The Bill may also benefit from an alternative approach to addressing the blistering pace of artificial intelligence development. Requiring ongoing assessments for every update under Clause 3(3) could be challenging, given that systems often change daily. We may also find that unintended administrative burdens are created from the Bill. For example, Clause 2(1) requires a detailed assessment even before a system is purchased, which may be unworkable, particularly for pilot projects that may not yet operate in test environments, as described in Clause 2(2)(b). These requirements could risk dampening exploration and innovation within the public sector.

Finally, we might suggest that in order to avoid potentially large amounts of bureaucracy, a more effective approach would be to require public bodies to have due regard for the five principles of artificial intelligence as evidenced in our White Paper, those five principles being: safety, security and robustness; appropriate transparency and explainability; fairness; accountability and governance; and contestability and redress. His Majesty’s Official Opposition do of course value the importance of automated algorithmic tools in the public sector.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing the important issue of public sector algorithmic transparency for debate, both today and through the Data (Use and Access) Bill, and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his contribution.

The algorithmic transparency recording standard, or ATRS, is now mandatory for government departments. It is focused, first, on the 16 largest departments, including HMRC; some 85 ALBs; and local authorities. It has also now been endorsed by the Welsh Government. While visible progress on enforcing this mandate was slow for some time, new records are now being added to the online repository at pace. The first batch of 14 was added in December and a second batch of 10 was added just last week. I am assured that many more will follow shortly.

The blueprint for modern digital government, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was published on 21 January, promising explicitly to commit to transparency and accountability by building on the ATRS. The blueprint also makes it clear that part of the new Government Digital Service role will be to offer specialist assurance support, including a service to rigorously test models and products before release.

The Government share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to see algorithmic tools used in the public sector safely and transparently, and they are taking active steps to ensure that that happens. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, and I look forward to continuing to engage with him on this important issue.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Earl of Effingham

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pity that this debate is taking place so late. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for his kind remarks, but my work ethic feels under considerable pressure at this time of night.

All I will say is that this is a much better amendment than the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, put forward for the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, and I very strongly support it. Not only is this horrifying in the context of the past Horizon cases, but I read a report about the Capture software, which is likely to have created shortfalls that led to sub-postmasters being prosecuted as well. This is an ongoing issue. The Criminal Cases Review Commission is reviewing five Post Office convictions in which the Capture IT system could be a factor, so we cannot say that this is about just Horizon, as there are the many other cases that the noble Baroness cited.

We need to change this common law presumption even more in the face of a world in which AI use, with all its flaws and hallucinations, is becoming ever present, and we need to do it urgently.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for tabling her amendment. We understand its great intentions, which we believe are to prevent another scandal similar to that of Horizon and to protect innocent people from having to endure what thousands of postmasters have undergone and suffered.

However, while this amendment would make it easier to challenge evidence derived from, or produced by, a computer or computer system, we are concerned that, should it become law, this amendment could be misused by defendants to challenge good evidence. Our fear is that, in determining the reliability of such evidence, we may create a battle of the expert witnesses. This will not only substantially slow down trials but result in higher costs. Litigation is already expensive, and we would aim not to introduce additional costs to an already costly process unless absolutely necessary.

From our perspective, the underlying problem in the Horizon scandal was not that computer systems were critically wrong or that people were wrong, but that the two in combination drove the terrible outcomes that we have unfortunately seen. For many industries, regulations require firms to conduct formal systems validation, with serious repercussions and penalties should companies fail to do so. It seems to us that the disciplines of systems validation, if required for other industries, would be both a powerful protection and considerably less disruptive than potentially far-reaching changes to the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I have far too little time to do justice to this subject. We on these Benches welcome this amendment. It is entirely consistent with the sovereign health fund proposed by Future Care Capital and, indeed, with the proposals from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change on a similar concept called the national data trust. Indeed, this concept formed part of our Liberal Democrat manifesto at the last general election, so of course I support the amendment.

It would be very useful to hear more about the national data library, including on its purpose and operation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said. I entirely agree with her that there is a great need for a sovereign cloud service or services. Indeed, the inability to guarantee that data on the cloud is held in this country is a real issue that has not yet been properly addressed.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for moving this amendment. As she rightly identified, the UK has a number of publicly held data assets, many of which contain extremely valuable information. This data—I flag, by way of an example, NHS data specifically—could be extremely valuable to certain organisations, such as pharmaceutical companies.

We are drawn to the idea of licensing such data—indeed, we believe that we could charge an extremely good price—but we have a number of concerns. Most notably, what additional safeguards would be required, given its sensitivity? What would be the limits and extent of the licensing agreement? Would this status close off other routes to monetising the data? Would other public sector bodies be able to use the data for free? Can this not already be done without the amendment?

Although His Majesty’s Official Opposition of course recognise the wish to ensure that the UK taxpayer gets a fair return on our information assets held by public bodies and arm’s-length organisations, and we certainly agree that we need to look at licensing, we are not yet sure that this amendment is either necessary or sufficient. We once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for moving it. We look forward to hearing both her and the Minister’s thoughts on the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be #even shorter. Data centres and their energy consumption are important issues. I agree that at a suitable moment—probably not now—it would be very interesting to hear the Government’s views on that. Reports from UK parliamentary committees and the Government have consistently emphasised the critical importance of maintaining public trust in data use and AI, but sometimes, the actions of the Government seem to go contrary to that. I support the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in his call for essentially realising the benefits of AI while making sure that we maintain public trust.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for tabling this amendment. As we all appreciate, taking stock of the effects of legislation is critical, as it allows us to see what has worked and what has not. Amendment 221B would require the Secretary of State to launch a consultation into the implications of the provisions of the Bill on the power usage and energy efficiency of data centres. His Majesty’s Official Opposition have no objection to the amendment’s aims but we wonder to what extent it is actually possible. By what means or benchmark can we identify whether a spike in energy usage is specifically due to a provision from this legislation, rather than as a result of some other factor? I should be most grateful if my noble friend could provide further detail on this matter in his closing speech.

Regarding Amendment 211C, we understand that much could be learned from a review of all data regulations and standards pertaining to the supply chains for financial, trade, and legal documents and products, although we wonder if this needs to happen the moment this Bill passes. Could this review not happen at any stage? By all means, let us do it sooner rather than later, but is it necessary to set a date in statute?

Moving on to Amendment 221D, we should certainly look to regulate the AI large language model sector to ensure that there are standards for the input and output of data for LLMs. However, this must be done in a way that does not stifle growth in this emerging industry.

Finally, we have some concerns about Amendment 211E. A national consultation on the use of individuals’ data is perhaps just too broad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is often an education, and today is no exception. I had no idea what local environmental records centres were, so I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for tabling Amendment 211F and all noble Lords for their brief contributions to this group.

Amendment 211F ensures that all the biodiversity data collected by or in connection with government is collected in local environment records centres to ensure that records are as good as possible. That data is then used by or in connection with government, so it is put to the best possible use.

The importance of sufficient and high-quality record collection cannot and must not be understated. With this in mind, His Majesty’s Official Opposition support the sentiment of the amendment in my noble friend’s name. These Benches will always champion matters related to biodiversity and nature recovery. In fact, many of my noble friends have raised concerns about biodiversity in Committee debates in your Lordships’ House on the Crown Estate Bill, the Water (Special Measures) Bill and the Great British Energy Bill. Indeed, they have tabled amendments that ensure that matters related to biodiversity appear at the forefront of draft legislation.

With that in mind, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for introducing provisions, via Amendment 211F, which would require any planning application involving biodiversity net gain to include a data search report from the relevant local environmental records centre. I trust that the Minister has listened to the concerns raised collaboratively in the debate on this brief group. We must recognise the importance of good data collection and ensure that such data is used in the best possible way.