My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 27, 34 to 37 and 40, also in my name. In a Bill that is completely absent of AI and silent on technology, how fortunate it is that we have a group of amendments dedicated almost exclusively to the subject of artificial intelligence. In measure of the hour, I will speak in depth only to three of the amendments, but the themes run through all of them—the sense of consumer protection through consumer awareness, and clarity for consumer, investor and innovator. Products are currently on the market that have been developed using AI, contain it and are controlled by it but with no ability for consumer or citizen to know that that is the case, nor is there any labelling or protection.
I shall speak particularly to Amendment 34, which would not in any sense cut across any of the Government’s plans for their AI journey and their potential AI Bill. It simply suggests that it would make sense that where AI is in a product, there is a label on that product to say that that is the case. Further, it says that a QR code should be deployed to give the consumer more detail on the power used in the AI in that product, and the energy and other natural resources used. It is simply a case of labelling a product so that consumers, citizens and all of us can be in the know that AI has been used.
On Amendments 36 and 37, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House when we come to them next week. Amendment 36 is critical, as was demonstrated by the actions of musicians at the end of the Government’s consultation on IP and copyright. Musicians on Tuesday released a completely silent album to demonstrate the impact that AI is having and can have on music and all creative products. On tracks 1 and 2, there was complete silence, making the point that our creatives are currently having their works taken by AI with no remuneration, consent or respect.
This amendment would not offend the Government’s approach to AI. It does not even suggest changing anything from this Bill per se. It would just put a simple change into the Consumer Rights Act 2015. There is a wonderful symmetry. If you are a betting person, you would have to say that this is a good sign. My relevant amendment has been numbered 36, and it would amend Section 36 of that statute, simply to say that digital products created using AI would have to make it clear that this was the case—nothing more, nothing less, and certainly not cutting across anything that the Government may have in mind for AI. It is a simple approach, so that people can know whether, for example, music has been created solely using AI. The consumer—the citizen—can then know that and determine how or whether they want to interact with or purchase that product.
Amendment 37 goes to a critical question of inclusion. Currently, products can be brought on to the market which exclude small sections or huge sections of our community—not just disabled people but older people and people from different geographies and backgrounds, and who speak different languages. Currently, there is very little redress or ability to see how inclusive or accessible a product is. Amendment 37 simply asks the Government to launch a consultation to bring about an “inclusive by design” mark. What a great standard it would be for the UK to have an “inclusive by design” mark, physically or electronically, on every product in the UK market? If any product that is currently accessible is then made inaccessible through an upgrade or change, that would trigger immediate action and potential sanctions through regulations.
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.