Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

I will give one quick example. For years, card payment machines were accessible and able to be used independently by all members of the community; then, flat screen card payment machines came out, which are inaccessible and unusable for me and for huge swathes of our community. What redress has there been? Nothing. It would be on us to bring a case under equalities legislation. Why should it be the person on the wrong end of exclusion who has to suffer that and then to bring the case themselves? What a great thing this Government could do—through consultation and a national conversation—by bringing about an “inclusive by design” standard. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 34, 35, 36 and 37, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes, and Amendment 43, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that I am not doing so from the Front Bench on this occasion.

On my noble friend Lord Holmes’s amendments, I will address two key issues: first, the labelling of AI-generated content, including music; and, secondly, the promotion of inclusive design in AI products.

On labelling AI-generated content, the Government’s Explanatory Notes rightly highlight the need to adapt to new technologies such as AI. This amendment supports that goal in, I think, a sustainable and sensible way. During the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, I spoke about the importance of digital watermarking, and particularly the development of internationally accepted technical standards to support this. These labelling amendments are an excellent illustrative pair of use cases where such watermarks can and should be applied. The noble Lord, Lord Vallance, at the time expressed his positive views towards such standards. I hope that, on the back of the Government’s consultation, they will pursue this energetically.

Consumers have to be able to distinguish between human-generated and AI-generated content—for their own sanity, among other reasons. This is particularly important in sectors such as music, where the line between human creativity and AI involvement may not always be clear. My noble friend has proposed a characteristically sensible way to bring this about, but if the Government have an even better idea then I look forward to hearing it.

Next, I will address my noble friend’s amendment on inclusive by design. This principle is vital in ensuring that the products developed and marketed in the UK, especially those leveraging advanced technologies such as AI, are accessible to all, regardless of disability or other factors. This improves designs not just for those who would otherwise be excluded but for everyone. My noble friend rightly emphasised the importance of acknowledging accessibility and inclusivity at the design stage, and this amendment will create a framework for that.

There is a story—I do not know whether it is true—that the first seat belt design teams had no women in them, to the enormous detriment of all their eventual users. In fact, early seat belts did not work at all not only for women but for men. By making inclusive design a key part of the development of AI technologies in particular, we have the opportunity to ensure that the benefits of AI are shared more widely.

Before I turn to my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s excellent amendment, I will make a broader point about AI in the Bill. The Minister said earlier that this is not an AI Bill. That is fine, but where is the AI Bill? The party opposite, both in opposition and in government, have told us we will have an AI Bill, but I am sad to say that we still know next to nothing about it. We do not know its scope, its timing or its purpose, let alone any of its contents. This uncertainty is a real problem for everyone involved in AI in this country. If the plan is to distribute AI laws across different Bills, that is fine, but we need to know. Either way, I urge the Government to share their thinking on AI regulation, because we urgently need to understand at least the direction of travel.

I strongly support my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s Amendment 43. We need to address the gaps that he rightly identifies, to ensure that we are setting clear expectations for the development and regulation of AI technologies. Without such clarity, we risk stifling innovation rather than promoting it, and creating unnecessary regulatory burdens for businesses, especially SMEs, working in this sector.

Finally, as we look to develop the technical standards and regulations for AI, we must consider the risks posed by foreign actors who may seek to manipulate AI systems or to exploit them for their own malicious purposes, whether for economic advantage or geopolitical leverage. The security and sovereignty of our AI systems must be paramount. The establishment of the robust regulatory framework set out in these amendments should include safeguards to prevent undue foreign influence, ensuring that UK businesses and consumers are protected.