Procedural Flexibility: Scrutiny of AI and Emerging Technology
Lord Nagaraju
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what consideration the Procedure and Privileges Committee has given to introducing greater procedural flexibility to ensure that the House is able to undertake effective scrutiny of significant and fast-moving policy areas, such as AI and emerging technology.
Lord Nagaraju (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw attention to my AI and digital interests set out in the register.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede)
My Lords, our procedures allow flexibility, including topical Oral Questions, Private Notice Questions and Questions for Written Answer. The Government also offer regular statements, and Urgent Questions asked in the House of Commons are often repeated in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord himself has used a number of these avenues to raise matters related to AI. The Procedure and Privileges Committee has not discussed scrutiny of AI and emerging technology. However, it is open to considering any proposals.
Lord Nagaraju (Lab)
My Lords, September brought UN findings, the Prime Minister’s G20 AI pledge, international warnings and an AI agent breaching Australia’s Medicare statistics portal days apart. My balloted options were weeks away. Taking up the committee’s invitation for proposals, will the Senior Deputy Speaker help the UK set the global standard for parliamentary scrutiny of AI by proposing at its next meeting a pilot for one sitting term to have a protected weekly AI session of up to 30 minutes with cross-government updates and questions on opportunities, risks and delivery on commitments?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
I will ensure that this proposal is drawn to the attention of the Procedure and Privileges Committee. As noble Lords will be aware, the Committee needs to balance a range of demands on the House’s time, and any proposal for dedicated scrutiny arrangements on one policy topic must be considered against other important policy areas. Artificial intelligence is clearly of great importance. Noble Lords will have an opportunity to debate one aspect of this issue—the impact of AI on children—later today during the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, it is incumbent on us all to try to understand artificial intelligence and use our own intelligence to get around it. Will the Senior Deputy Speaker do all he can to draw to the attention of other Members of your Lordships’ House the availability of digital training on AI and the way in which the House provides those facilities for all to take advantage of?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
I thank the noble Lord for raising that and pointing it out to the House, which he did extremely effectively. I think many Members of the House, if not all, have at least dabbled—if I can put it that way—in AI. Last week, I was in Rome at the Council of Europe’s European Conference of Presidents of Parliament, which addressed AI. It is true that parliaments across Europe and the world are using AI in different ways. We are all finding our way in this; it is an ongoing learning experience. I thank the noble Lord for drawing that training to the House’s attention.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, effective scrutiny of future-facing risks and opportunities is not just about time but the full range and diversity of our membership. While I appreciate this falls outside the scope of the committee that is the subject of the Question, does the Senior Deputy Speaker agree that the House, and those people who make the decisions about membership, must do their best to ensure that we are fully equipped to face the future in the expertise we bring to the issues that we debate?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That is an easy proposition to agree with. The noble Lord, Lord Nagaraju, brings his own expertise, which he demonstrated through this Question. In a sense, this House justifies itself by its expertise; I am sure that all the political parties and the Cross Benches are very conscious of that and want to maintain high standards within this House.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Does the Senior Deputy Speaker agree that we could have far better consideration of a number of issues, including AI, if the House started sitting at a more sensible time? Has he seen the views—I am sorry to see them, because they are the views of very senior Members—of the Procedure and Privileges Committee? It simply suggested two options: do nothing or do as little as possible. Does the Senior Deputy Speaker agree that we would be far better off if we started most days—not Monday, but the rest of the week—at 11 am?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
As the noble Lord may know, a debate on that very subject will be held at 12 pm in the Moses Room. The proposition before the House is that we should start at 1 pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. To date, there have been 360 responses to that proposition, which is a great improvement on the last time this matter was considered, about four years ago. I encourage all noble Lords to respond. The consultation closes at 5 pm on 13 November. If there is to be change, it will be for the House to decide whether that change is enacted.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Nagaraju, is about procedural flexibility, which the House will use shortly in the PNQ on whether the Government have successfully responded to the PHP security threat. Can I use a bit of procedural flexibility and ask the Senior Deputy Speaker to assure noble Lords that the House responded swiftly, that its information technology systems have been patched, and that that security flaw has been fixed?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The answer to that question is yes. I say that because the Clerk of the Parliaments nodded at me while the noble Lord asked his question.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Senior Deputy Speaker will be aware that, in September, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a 94-page report on AI and human rights, which was unanimous. It has not yet been listed for debate in your Lordships’ House, because it cannot be until the Government respond. Will the Senior Deputy Speaker look at that procedure so that, when Select Committees publish reports, the House can be informed at the earliest possible time? Please can he also encourage the Government to respond, so that such a debate can take place?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
I recognise the noble Lord’s point and the very important nature of that report. When reports should be tabled for debate is a matter for the usual channels. I note that some committees debate before the Government have responded; that might be something that the noble Lord wishes to consider. Nevertheless, I see that the Chief Whip is here, and I am sure that the noble Lord’s point is well understood.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that international agreement and regulation is needed? We need that as quickly as possible, given the pace of this matter.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The noble Lord is absolutely right. As I said, I was at a debate about this in Rome, where every speaker made that point. It is also true that the rate of change is happening so fast that we need to be cautious and think about the way we need to regulate this matter. A point made a number of times last week is that, internationally, we regulate air travel, and drugs and pharmacy. This issue is of equal importance, so I absolutely take the noble Lord’s point.
Baroness Harman (Lab)
Picking up on the question the noble Lord just asked, does the Senior Deputy Speaker agree that we need to look at overhauling the procedure of how we legislate on AI, because AI moves so fast? Even when agreement is reached about what needs to happen, the legislative process is so slow that, by the time the legislation has come into force, new problems have arisen. Does the Senior Deputy Speaker agree that there could be a joint committee of this House and the House of Commons that could have delegated powers to legislate on AI? That way, we would keep up with the speed of AI, which is currently bringing this legislature into disrepute, because we always seem to be behind the game.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. This issue is not limited to AI; it affects many other areas. In my previous area of justice, there was a constant frustration that the legislative process was proceeding very slowly. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness makes a specific recommendation about creating a joint committee to look at AI, and I will bring it to the attention of the PPC.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Will the noble Lord assure us that our staff, not just ourselves, are able to use AI where appropriate, particularly in dealing with, for example, responses to consultations and Select Committee inquiries?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Yes, I can give that assurance. The staff within the House use AI in a number of ways and there is ongoing training, I understand. There is also training for Members of this House.