Digital and Technology Policy: National Sovereignty
Lord Ranger of Northwood Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Drayson. We share our views on the Science and Technology Committee. I know his passion and commitment for British technology. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this debate at this crucial time, and declare my interests in supporting British tech businesses VE3, Great Wave AI and Automated Analytics and as a co-founder of the Business AI Alliance.
Future generations will look back at this period of the 21st century as the moment we unlocked the next stage of human potential. Through our advancements in science and technology, we stand on the cusp of dramatically accelerating change in our lives, our societies and perhaps even our politics. In a relatively short time, we will see legions of driverless vehicles, flocks of flying taxis, oodles of agentic digital money, armies of personal robots, precision preventive medicine, and wearable and even bionic enhancements. I believe we shall solve some of the greatest challenges of our age. We shall redefine what we mean by work and leisure. We shall create, discover and travel further than we have ever travelled before, even to the stars.
This is all to come but at this still early stage of our technological evolution, we must think carefully about the foundations upon which these extraordinary achievements will be built. Beneath the excitement lies a rather traditional contest between nation states for technological supremacy. That brings me to the question before us today. What do we mean by national sovereignty in the digital age? For decades, we assumed that globalisation would diminish the importance of borders. That era is changing. We are witnessing the fragmentation of that globalised settlement. Economic security has become national security. Data has become a strategic asset. Artificial intelligence has become an instrument of geopolitical competition. Increasingly, political influence is exercised not only through Governments but through globally significant businesses that carry the strategic interests of their home nations. The United States has made its choice. China has made its choice. The question before us today is whether Britain is prepared to make ours.
Having spent much of my career working with some of the world’s largest tech businesses across multiple continents, I have seen first-hand that the relationship between Governments and global technology companies has become one of the defining features of modern statecraft. Their influence on investment, standards, infrastructure, talent and, increasingly, national resilience cannot be ignored. We know that sovereignty in the digital age is no longer simply about where our borders lie but about whether Britain possesses the capability and confidence to shape our own technological destiny rather than merely consume technologies designed elsewhere.
The choice is where our sensitive data resides, who builds critical infrastructure and how emerging technologies reflect our values and serve our national interests. Against this backdrop, I confess to finding it regrettable that at precisely the moment technology is becoming central to every aspect of government the Government have chosen to abolish the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Departments matter. Priorities matter. Institutional structures signal intent. Sovereignty is not achieved through talking about technology but by making clear strategic choices about where Britain will lead and where we will compete.
Are we truly prepared to back our world-leading universities and research institutions to provide the innovations that will define tomorrow’s economy? Are we prepared to ensure that our entrepreneurs and start-ups and scale-ups secure the investment they need to scale globally while remaining proudly British? Are we determined that the City of London will remain the world’s leading international financial centre in the age of digital assets, digital money and tokenised finance? Are we prepared to invest in sovereign capabilities that will determine our competitiveness for generations to come?
Digital sovereignty is not simply about artificial intelligence but about ensuring that British ideas become British industries and that British innovation creates British prosperity. Then British values will continue to shape the technologies that will shape the world. I do not believe that the nations that prosper in this century will have to invent and scale every technology. There will be those with the confidence and strategic clarity to decide which capabilities matter most to their national interest and then back those choices with conviction.
Britain has led great technological revolutions before, and history teaches us that success is never accidental. It requires clear political vision and enduring partnerships and structures between government, academia and industry. Above all, it requires the resolve to stay the course until the job is done. So let us be clear about the choices we make. I ask the Minister and the Government to define with confidence and ambition what British digital sovereignty means, not only to ourselves but to the rest of the world. Then we can measure and manage our sovereignty posture. If we can do that, Britain will not simply adapt to the technological age, we will play our full part in defining it.
Artificial Intelligence: Global Governance
Lord Ranger of Northwood Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The convention on AI is flexible and does not create new human rights obligations. Contracting states are given broad discretion when it comes to selecting the appropriate form of implementation, including sector-led regulation. That fits with our mission to highlight the benefits of AI for working people in a way that recognises that regulation largely is based on a sector-based approach.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, as we know, and as I have said quite often in this House, the UK AI sector for SMEs is booming. Thousands of new businesses have set up in the UK over the last few years, and the UK can be proud of that on the global stage. With the last Prime Minister, and maybe the new Prime Minister, searching for growth, when will the Government meet organisations such as SMEs, particularly around the challenges of procurement into government? I declare my interest as a co-founder of the Business AI Alliance, a not-for-profit organisation that champions 300 UK AI businesses.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to pay testament to the strength of the UK economy and sector in both AI adoption and in new businesses taking opportunities, whether in law tech, fintech, or health and life sciences, to name a few. I am sure that colleagues in the department will be happy to meet the organisations he mentions. We meet other alliances such as those who represent start-ups and scale-ups in the UK. As he mentions, they are a source of growth and employment here.
Open Artificial Intelligence Service
Lord Ranger of Northwood Excerpts(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interests and my interest in supporting AI businesses. The Government’s view on sovereign AI must be adjusted with the view that sovereign AI will be designed by the available data and the Government’s data. What is the Government’s view about how that data will be made accessible to private industry? Secondly, how are the Government proceeding on the AI growth zones, which will help different parts of the country significantly? When can we hear about that?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: data is fundamental. People often think of this as being just about the algorithms, but you need the data, the algorithms, the hardware and the skills to come together. The National Data Library is being formed. The Health Data Research Service, which will get health data in the right place, is now advertising for the CEO and chair and is designed to bring together data in a much more accessible and usable way, ultimately for the benefit of patients and the NHS, in that instance. The short-listing on AI growth zones has taken place. We already know that one will be in Culham; the others will be announced shortly.
Artificial Intelligence: Regulation
Lord Ranger of Northwood Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We are clearly in the middle of a consultation. It is due to read out on 25 February. We are accumulating evidence both on how this would work and on the technologies necessary to make it work. It would be inappropriate to jump to a conclusion before we hear all that.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my interests as declared in the register and as vice-chair of the APPG on AI. I have a simple question about the AI Opportunities Action Plan. I have been speaking to many AI SMEs in the UK—UK businesses that are booming and growing—and they feel that the conversation about regulation and safety drowns out their success stories. What activities are the Government pursuing to hear from those SMEs and how can the Government help them? Those businesses are so successful that they are being drawn into other markets, such as the US, via investment and taken away from the growth opportunities in the UK.
Large Language Models and Generative AI (Communications and Digital Committee Report)
Lord Ranger of Northwood Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, it is truly an honour to follow my noble friend Lord Kamall. I begin by acknowledging the excellent work of the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, led with great dedication by my noble friend Lady Stowell, in producing this thorough report on large language models and generative AI.
I note my entry in the register of interests, especially my last role at Atos, where over six years ago I led a thought leadership campaign on the digital vision for AI. Six years is an exceptionally long time in the world of tech. Since then, we have accelerated into the early adoption and application era of AI. Now, as a Member of your Lordships’ House, I am delighted to be vice-chair of the AI APPG.
The pace of both development and adoption in the last 24 months has been breathtaking, and a key moment for the AI industry was obviously the launch of ChatGPT on 30 November 2022. That date will no doubt go down in history, not just for technologists but because of how it transformed the awareness and accessibility of LLM-based gen AI services to the public. It was the AI users’ big bang moment. It is because of the pace of commercial and technological change that I have been meeting with businesses and AI organisations during the past six months to hear at first hand what they see as the main issues and opportunities, as well as taking part in the evidence sessions that the AI APPG has held.
It has become clear to me that the UK’s AI market and particularly native AI businesses—those that develop and directly deliver AI capabilities and services—are seeing their growth turbocharged. They are recruiting, expanding and developing a skilled workforce, receiving investment and harnessing opportunities locally and internationally faster than they can think. This is an exciting time for our AI industry.
What do they want from Government? It is a case not of what we can do for them but of what these native artificial intelligence businesses can do for us. They want to be able to inform, influence and raise awareness of the key factors impacting them and their industry: how they are witnessing at first hand the adoption and implementation of AI systems and services; the investment landscape and growth opportunities that are available and how government policy can further support them; and the need to support investment in industry skills and academic research to ensure medium to long-term sustainability of their workforce and capabilities. As part of the development programme for the much-anticipated government AI action plan, what engagement has there been with the industry on these specific topics?
There are also various macro factors that the industry is clear on and that must be part of any AI plan or growth strategy for the UK. First, the availability of large datasets, as has been mentioned in this debate, is critical to the development of LLMs. Secondly, increasing the national availability of compute power will be directly proportionate to the advancement of generative AI. Thirdly, energy requirements to support compute must be considered as part of the investment landscape and even as part of national critical infrastructure. That is why there was such disappointment at the decision by this Government to cancel the investment into delivering the exascale computer in Edinburgh. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and ask the Minister how the Government will mitigate the impact of the loss of this compute power in the UK.
There is one other major consideration that has been mentioned already, and that businesses all raised—regulation. The AI industry is desperately keen to input into any development of regulatory considerations and is looking for signals from this Government as to their approach.
In July the Secretary of State for DSIT, Mr Kyle, said in a Written Statement that in line with the Labour Party’s manifesto, some AI companies will be regulated. Legislation would be
“highly targeted and will support growth and innovation by ending regulatory uncertainty”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/7/24; col. 34WS.]
Four months later, on 6 November at the Future of AI Summit, the Secretary of State said that legislation would be introduced “next year”—that is a large 12-month window. In August, Mr Kyle said that legislation would focus on the most advanced LLM models and would not regulate the entire industry. It feels a bit like a trail of breadcrumbs being laid, with the industry not knowing when or where the next crumb indicating a sense of regulatory direction will be found.
As I mentioned, every AI business and sector partner I have met has requested both clarity and the opportunity to input into regulatory development, but has felt uncertain about how the Government are developing their thinking. The industry has been clear on the need for any regulation to be proportionate, to avoid duplication with existing technology-neutral rules and to minimise regulatory fragmentation. For example, this is key to the UK financial services industry’s international competitiveness and its role as an enabler of economic growth across the UK. For a leading tech-enabled industry that has been using advanced technologies safely and effectively for years, disproportionate legislation would create unnecessary regulatory burdens and stifle operations and trade, slowing innovation and productivity, and putting our firms at a global competitive disadvantage. Have the Government established a series of clear principles that will be used in the development of targeted and proportionate regulation?
As my noble friend Lady Stowell highlighted, I am also aware, through discussions with major investors, that the development of the regulatory environment in the UK is being closely viewed to assess how attractive our industry is and how much international investment may flow into it. Global investors clearly see an opportunity for the UK to learn from the US light-touch approach but also from what appears to be the vice-like grip approach the EU has taken with the development of its landmark AI Act.
By the way, I do not take this view on EU regulation as my own without input from others. Notably, I attended the AI CogX summit in London at the beginning of October, where an MEP who had worked on the Act stated that he believed the EU had
“created a barrier to entry”
and established a law that had such a high cost that it was creating compliance problems. It appears that there is a sense that the EU AI Act has taken a wrong turn and is already diminishing both innovation and the flow of investment into the region. What assessment are the Government making of the Act, and has its early impact on the region been discussed with EU counterparts?
To conclude, I have a few quick-fire questions. The previous Government had committed to a pro-innovation regulatory approach—will this Government too? Will the Government’s AI action plan include a suggested regulatory approach for the UK? When will it be published?