Category Archives: Hansard

My Lords, I was rather hoping that we might have a consultation for our summer reading, but we will await the consultation and subsequent Bill. The Government have said that they will take a domain-specific approach to the legislation and regulation of AI, rather than cross-sector. To that end, how will consistency be assured through such an approach?

Similarly, what about areas that currently do not have any competent regulator, such as hiring and recruitment? People find themselves not being shortlisted for roles because AI has made that decision, without even knowing that AI was in the mix. Even if they knew that AI was in the mix, there would be no place to seek redress. Surely, clarity, certainty and consistency are what anyone in the country requires when it comes to AI, whether they are an investor, innovator, consumer or creative. How will a domain-specific approach, with no guiding mind, ensure that clarity, consistency and certainty?

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who, in his single Nelsonian amendment, has covered a lot of the material in my more spread-out set of amendments. I support his Amendment 111ZA and will speak to my Amendments 168 to 176. I declare my interests in the register, particularly my technology interests, not least as a member of the advisory board of Endava plc and as a member of the technology and science advisory committee of the Crown Estate.

I will take one brief step backwards. From the outset, we have heard that the Government do not want to undertake cross-sector AI legislation and regulation. Rather, they want to take a domain-specific approach. That is fine; it is clearly the stated position, although it would not be my choice. But it is simultaneously interesting to ask how, if that choice is adopted, consistency across our economy and society is ensured so that, wherever an individual citizen comes up against AI, they can be assured of a consistent approach to the treatment of the challenges and opportunities of that AI. Similarly, what happens where there is no competent regulator or authority in that domain?

At the moment, largely, neither approach seems to be being adopted. Whenever I and colleagues have raised amendments around AI in what we might call domain-specific areas, such as the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, the data Bill and now the Employment Rights Bill, we are told, “This is not the legislation for AI”. I ask the Minister for clarity as to whether, if a cross-sector approach to AI is not being taken, a domain-specific approach is, as opportunities are not being taken up when appropriate legislation comes before your Lordships’ House.

I turn to the amendments in my name. Amendment 168 goes to the very heart of the issue around employers’ use of AI. Very good, if not excellent, principles were set out in the then Government’s White Paper of 2023. I have transposed many of these into my Amendment 168. Would it not be beneficial to have these principles set in statute for the benefit of workers, in this instance, wherever they come across employers deploying AI in their workplace?

Amendment 169 lifts a clause largely from my Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Private Member’s Bill and suggests that an AI responsible officer in all organisations that develop, deploy and use AI would be a positive thing for workers, employees and employers alike. This would not be seen as burdensome, compliant or a mere question of audit but as a positive, vibrant, dynamic role, so that the benefits of AI could be felt by workers right across their employment experience. It would be proportionate and right touch, with reporting requirements easily recognised as mirroring similar requirements set out for other obligations under the Companies Act. If we had AI responsible officers across our economy, across businesses and organisations deploying and using AI right now, this would be positive, dynamic and beneficial for workers, employees, employers, our economy and wider society.

Amendment 170 goes to the issue of IP copyright and labelling. It would put a responsibility on workers who are using AI to report to the relevant government department on the genesis of that IP and copyrighted material, and the data used in that AI deployment, by which means there would be clarity not only on where that IP copyright and data had emanated from but that it had been got through informed consent and that all IP and copyright obligations had been respected and adhered to.

Amendments 171 and 172 similarly look at where workers’ data may be ingested right now by employers’ use of AI. These are such rich, useful and economically beneficial sources of data for employers and businesses. Amendment 171 simply suggests that there should be informed consent from those workers before any of their data can be used, ingested and deployed.

I would like to take a little time on Amendment 174, around the whole area of AI in recruitment and employment. This goes back to one of my points at the beginning of this speech: for recruitment, there currently exists no competent authority or regulator. If the Government continue with their domain-specific approach, recruitment remains a gap, because there is no domain-specific competent authority or regulator that could be held responsible for the deployment and development of AI in that sector. If, for example, somebody finds themselves not making a shortlist, they may not know that AI has been involved in making that decision. Even if they were aware, they would find themselves with no redress and no competent authority to take their claim to.

Would the Minister not agree that this makes the case for at least the consideration of a recruitment and employment-specific regulator to be brought about through this Bill? If not, I would certainly prefer to have a light-touch, cross-sector AI authority which would ensure that, wherever individuals, workers, employees and citizens come across AI, they can have clarity, certainty and consistency in its application. In this instance, it would be in the area of recruitment, but the AI authority—agile, light-touch and, crucially, horizontally focused—would ensure clarity, certainty and consistency across all sectors of employment, our economy and society.

I will touch briefly on Amendment 176 and the algorithmic allocation of work. Again, this is already happening, often without employees even being aware that that is the case. What is the Government’s position on the algorithmic allocation of work? If this amendment is not to be considered and adopted, what is the Government’s approach to how this is currently occurring in our economy to workers right now, often with an extremely discriminatory and detrimental impact on those workers?

AI has such potential to transform employment for the benefit of workers, employers, businesses and our economy. It has the potential, if it is human-led AI, to drive productivity in a way that no other element of our economy is currently likely to do. Similarly, if we do nothing and continue with this wait-and-see approach to legislation and regulation, it is most likely that workers may often find themselves at the sharp end of the algorithmic allocation of work, AI in the workplace taking their data and numerous other issues, unable to avail themselves of the benefits.

This situation could be wholly averted if some of these amendments were considered and incorporated into the Employment Rights Bill. Better still, the Government should reconsider bringing forward a cross-sector AI regulation Bill. What we know fundamentally is that regulation is right: right for workers, right for employees, and right for all aspects of our economy and society. When I say that regulation is right, I mean the right size regulation. What we know from history, not least from recent history, is that right-size regulation is good for innovation, investment, citizens, creativity and our country. Would the Government be good enough to agree?

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they will publish their consultation on their plans for artificial intelligence legislation and when they expect any subsequent bill to be introduced.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my technology interests, as set out in the register. They include being a member of the global advisory board at Endava plc and a member of the science and technology advisory committee of the Crown Estate.

My Lords, I was rather hoping that we might have a consultation for our summer reading, but we will await the consultation and subsequent Bill. The Government have said that they will take a domain-specific approach to the legislation and regulation of AI, rather than cross-sector. To that end, how will consistency be assured through such an approach?

Similarly, what about areas that currently do not have any competent regulator, such as hiring and recruitment? People find themselves not being shortlisted for roles because AI has made that decision, without even knowing that AI was in the mix. Even if they knew that AI was in the mix, there would be no place to seek redress. Surely, clarity, certainty and consistency are what anyone in the country requires when it comes to AI, whether they are an investor, innovator, consumer or creative. How will a domain-specific approach, with no guiding mind, ensure that clarity, consistency and certainty?

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they will publish their consultation on their plans for artificial intelligence legislation and when they expect any subsequent bill to be introduced.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my technology interests, as set out in the register. They include being a member of the global advisory board at Endava plc and a member of the science and technology advisory committee of the Crown Estate.

My Lords, I was rather hoping that we might have a consultation for our summer reading, but we will await the consultation and subsequent Bill. The Government have said that they will take a domain-specific approach to the legislation and regulation of AI, rather than cross-sector. To that end, how will consistency be assured through such an approach?

Similarly, what about areas that currently do not have any competent regulator, such as hiring and recruitment? People find themselves not being shortlisted for roles because AI has made that decision, without even knowing that AI was in the mix. Even if they knew that AI was in the mix, there would be no place to seek redress. Surely, clarity, certainty and consistency are what anyone in the country requires when it comes to AI, whether they are an investor, innovator, consumer or creative. How will a domain-specific approach, with no guiding mind, ensure that clarity, consistency and certainty?

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who, in his single Nelsonian amendment, has covered a lot of the material in my more spread-out set of amendments. I support his Amendment 111ZA and will speak to my Amendments 168 to 176. I declare my interests in the register, particularly my technology interests, not least as a member of the advisory board of Endava plc and as a member of the technology and science advisory committee of the Crown Estate.

I will take one brief step backwards. From the outset, we have heard that the Government do not want to undertake cross-sector AI legislation and regulation. Rather, they want to take a domain-specific approach. That is fine; it is clearly the stated position, although it would not be my choice. But it is simultaneously interesting to ask how, if that choice is adopted, consistency across our economy and society is ensured so that, wherever an individual citizen comes up against AI, they can be assured of a consistent approach to the treatment of the challenges and opportunities of that AI. Similarly, what happens where there is no competent regulator or authority in that domain?

At the moment, largely, neither approach seems to be being adopted. Whenever I and colleagues have raised amendments around AI in what we might call domain-specific areas, such as the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, the data Bill and now the Employment Rights Bill, we are told, “This is not the legislation for AI”. I ask the Minister for clarity as to whether, if a cross-sector approach to AI is not being taken, a domain-specific approach is, as opportunities are not being taken up when appropriate legislation comes before your Lordships’ House.

I turn to the amendments in my name. Amendment 168 goes to the very heart of the issue around employers’ use of AI. Very good, if not excellent, principles were set out in the then Government’s White Paper of 2023. I have transposed many of these into my Amendment 168. Would it not be beneficial to have these principles set in statute for the benefit of workers, in this instance, wherever they come across employers deploying AI in their workplace?

Amendment 169 lifts a clause largely from my Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Private Member’s Bill and suggests that an AI responsible officer in all organisations that develop, deploy and use AI would be a positive thing for workers, employees and employers alike. This would not be seen as burdensome, compliant or a mere question of audit but as a positive, vibrant, dynamic role, so that the benefits of AI could be felt by workers right across their employment experience. It would be proportionate and right touch, with reporting requirements easily recognised as mirroring similar requirements set out for other obligations under the Companies Act. If we had AI responsible officers across our economy, across businesses and organisations deploying and using AI right now, this would be positive, dynamic and beneficial for workers, employees, employers, our economy and wider society.

Amendment 170 goes to the issue of IP copyright and labelling. It would put a responsibility on workers who are using AI to report to the relevant government department on the genesis of that IP and copyrighted material, and the data used in that AI deployment, by which means there would be clarity not only on where that IP copyright and data had emanated from but that it had been got through informed consent and that all IP and copyright obligations had been respected and adhered to.

Amendments 171 and 172 similarly look at where workers’ data may be ingested right now by employers’ use of AI. These are such rich, useful and economically beneficial sources of data for employers and businesses. Amendment 171 simply suggests that there should be informed consent from those workers before any of their data can be used, ingested and deployed.

I would like to take a little time on Amendment 174, around the whole area of AI in recruitment and employment. This goes back to one of my points at the beginning of this speech: for recruitment, there currently exists no competent authority or regulator. If the Government continue with their domain-specific approach, recruitment remains a gap, because there is no domain-specific competent authority or regulator that could be held responsible for the deployment and development of AI in that sector. If, for example, somebody finds themselves not making a shortlist, they may not know that AI has been involved in making that decision. Even if they were aware, they would find themselves with no redress and no competent authority to take their claim to.

Would the Minister not agree that this makes the case for at least the consideration of a recruitment and employment-specific regulator to be brought about through this Bill? If not, I would certainly prefer to have a light-touch, cross-sector AI authority which would ensure that, wherever individuals, workers, employees and citizens come across AI, they can have clarity, certainty and consistency in its application. In this instance, it would be in the area of recruitment, but the AI authority—agile, light-touch and, crucially, horizontally focused—would ensure clarity, certainty and consistency across all sectors of employment, our economy and society.

I will touch briefly on Amendment 176 and the algorithmic allocation of work. Again, this is already happening, often without employees even being aware that that is the case. What is the Government’s position on the algorithmic allocation of work? If this amendment is not to be considered and adopted, what is the Government’s approach to how this is currently occurring in our economy to workers right now, often with an extremely discriminatory and detrimental impact on those workers?

AI has such potential to transform employment for the benefit of workers, employers, businesses and our economy. It has the potential, if it is human-led AI, to drive productivity in a way that no other element of our economy is currently likely to do. Similarly, if we do nothing and continue with this wait-and-see approach to legislation and regulation, it is most likely that workers may often find themselves at the sharp end of the algorithmic allocation of work, AI in the workplace taking their data and numerous other issues, unable to avail themselves of the benefits.

This situation could be wholly averted if some of these amendments were considered and incorporated into the Employment Rights Bill. Better still, the Government should reconsider bringing forward a cross-sector AI regulation Bill. What we know fundamentally is that regulation is right: right for workers, right for employees, and right for all aspects of our economy and society. When I say that regulation is right, I mean the right size regulation. What we know from history, not least from recent history, is that right-size regulation is good for innovation, investment, citizens, creativity and our country. Would the Government be good enough to agree?

My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 103 in my name. As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill on Report, I declare my relevant interests as set out in the register as a member of the global advisory board of Endeavour plc and of the science and technology advisory committee of the Crown Estate, and I had a speaking engagement with the FCSA earlier this year.

Amendment 103 is incredibly simple and extraordinarily important for all those young people who have the most appalling start to their career through finding themselves on the wrong end of an unpaid internship. This has been going for decades and it goes on in some of our smartest industries in the 21st century.

The amendment is a reincarnation of a Private Member’s Bill that I brought forward in 2017. I am delighted to say that when I brought that Bill, which is now Amendment 103 to this Bill, it received full-throated support from the Labour Opposition, whom I thank. It also received full-throated support from the TUC and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, whom I thank.

The amendment simply seeks to give young people the right to have a positive experience—often their first—of entering the labour market. Unpaid internships are already illegal under the National Minimum Wage Regulations, but this amendment further clarifies and specifies what work experience is and, crucially, what it is not. It stops work experience being used as a cover for unpaid internships.

When I drafted the amendment, my first inclination was to have work experience paid from day one. But after wide consultation with businesses and trade unions and across civil society, it was clear that four weeks was the right point to suggest that young people—indeed, any person—could do genuine work experience, overseeing, learning and replicating tasks. If that person is brought on board and is doing work from day one, they are protected by the National Minimum Wage Regulations and are entitled to pay. Work experience has a vital role to play in our society and, as the results of my consultation underpin, four weeks is the right point at which to set the limit.

When the amendment was debated in Committee, when sadly I could not be present, a number of views were put forward that suggested there were difficulties with it because unscrupulous employers could simply have numerous rounds of four-week or part-of-four-week periods, but that is not accurate. The wording describes it as a

“continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks”,

so the drafting already caters for employers who might seek to get around it by having continuous periods of unpaid work experience.

As one young person put it to me, you cannot pay the rent or pay for food with a glowing CV. Ultimately, it is just a question of talent. Why would we want businesses and organisations not to be able to take from the widest, broadest and most diverse talent pool to go into these roles? Some of these roles are at the classier end of the labour market, but it goes through all strata of the labour market. Surely these positions should be open to all on a fair and equitable basis. That is what this amendment would allow for.

We have the ideal opportunity with this Bill to put this right. It seems more than extraordinary, with so many of the other issues that are covered in this not unsizeable Bill, that there is nothing on unpaid internships, nothing to protect those people who find themselves being exploited at the beginning of their career. I ask the Minister: if not this Bill, what Bill? If not this amendment, will the Government not bring forward some wording to end this pernicious practice, which still prevails in 21st-century Britain—a desperate, dispiriting, Dickensian practice that still goes on across our labour market? Why would the Government, alongside all their other measures, not take this opportunity to close this loophole? It would allow young people, or any person seeking to get their first foothold in the labour market, to have a positive, supportive work experience into paid employment. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.