Digital and Technology Policy: National Sovereignty

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this important debate, and I thank all those who participated. It has been fascinating throughout and brilliant points have been made from all sides. I welcome the return of the Minister to her place. As ever, the reward for hard work turns out to be more hard work, but I certainly welcome the continuity and wish her well for the future. I add my own thanks and comments to those of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. My dealings with him have always been a pleasure and he has shown true leadership on the subject of AI, in bringing the ethical dimension to our deliberations. He will be greatly missed.

I am delighted that we all recognise the growing importance of and the complex dynamics behind this debate. The risk of the erosion of Britain’s strategic position in digital technologies is real. The capacity of most nation states to shape their own digital future is far lower than we might imagine or wish. From critical national infrastructure to our public services, the need to strengthen our sovereign capability is both acute and growing in urgency.

The British Government need to be working towards a coherent holistic sovereignty strategy—one that assesses our strengths and weaknesses relative to the full range of sovereignty risks and that sets out a path to fortify our position. But, in a quandary familiar to noble Lords who take an interest in the cyber security Bill, we are trying to assess Britain’s digital sovereignty policy without the Government having first published a comprehensive digital sovereignty strategy. As of this week, we do not even know which ministry to ask for such a strategy.

I fully accept that Ministers have set out various measures, including the sovereign AI fund, the compute road map and some industrial strategy initiatives, but where is that overarching programme? Where is the White Paper that brings all these elements together? Where is the strategy and where is the explanation of how these disparate powers and initiatives fit within a broader holistic approach to protecting our digital economy and strategic resilience?

I turn now to the nature of the risk and some of the boundaries of our actions. I will not try to repeat or outdo the brilliant summary of those risks by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, but I offer a further refinement. The risks to sovereignty come in different forms but public discussion often focuses on the extreme end of the risk spectrum: the catastrophic loss of access to or control of our digital systems as a result of decisions made in other countries, which we have heard about from a number of noble Lords. But while we must constantly bear that risk in mind, there are a range of more probable, if lower-impact, risks that deserve more attention than they often receive.

We may find that, even while our systems continue to function, we lose access to the most advanced capabilities or cede control of our data. When our hospitals, energy systems, financial infrastructure and Armed Forces depend on technologies to which we lack genuine alternatives, we face the risk of strategic disadvantage. Of course, the further we fall behind, the more we risk depending on others for the innovations that confer competitive advantage.

I worry that we are edging towards strategic drift. We need clear answers to essential questions. Where is sovereignty genuinely essential, perhaps starting with defence and cyber, and how do we retain it? Where sovereignty is not achievable, how do we become indispensable? Where neither sovereignty nor indispensability are possible, how do we develop resilience? Perhaps when the Minister responds, she can explain how the Government intend to answer these questions, in addition to the excellent point about measuring the results of their intervention, made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Maybe the inquiry brilliantly proposed by my noble friend Lady Shields is the right step forward as we develop a holistic strategy.

I am sure many noble Lords will agree that the stakes are highest in artificial intelligence. The noble Baroness, Lady Berger, set that out clearly and well. At a certain level of artificial superintelligence, at which it becomes impossible to control, our species is in mortal danger. There is universal agreement that we must collaborate to protect ourselves against this. However, there is a level of AI beneath that, at which its developer attains permanently unassailable strategic, commercial and military advantage—the “winner takes all” model. We heard the leaders of the AI labs, and indeed the People’s Republic of China, earlier this month, calling for international safety collaboration and regulation while, behind closed doors, remaining in hot pursuit of those sovereign AI models that confer on them unprecedented power. The “winner takes all” dynamic in AI means that public commitments to safety measures, even if made sincerely, are systematically subordinated to the strategic imperative of technical advance.

This raises troubling questions about the adequacy of a strategy that relies primarily on inward investment from large, foreign, technology companies. As the previous Prime Minister’s approach prioritised short-term inward investment over long-term sovereign capability, will the new Government alter that calculus?

I suggest that there are available to us at least three levers to address the sovereignty problem. The first is the use of open-source and open-weight models, as my noble friend Lady Stowell set out so well and clearly, to build AI tools and, in so doing, to develop sovereign capability around building our applications from their foundations. This would not just reduce the costs of and time for development but also reduce the “winner takes all” incentives of the AI labs that are driving the AI industry towards what I might call a Darwinian oligopoly—and, eventually, monopoly—of sovereign solutions. Can the Minister confirm what proportion of the sovereign AI unit’s funding is directed towards open-source components of the AI stack?

The second lever is government procurement, as others have observed, both central and local. Here I should declare my interests, as set out in the register, in early-stage tech ventures. The state continues to be the largest technology buyer in the United Kingdom. We are very fortunate here in the range and technical accomplishment of our start-ups, but the state does not buy enough from our early-stage tech ventures. We often worry here, as my noble friend Lord Vaizey described, about how to convert more of our start-ups to scale-ups. A large part of the answer is for the state to be more open to being their customer. The noble Lord, Lord Drayson, set this out brilliantly. This creates credibility and cashflow for the start-up, and it brings innovation and productivity to the state. As they show us every day in the United States, it creates the sovereign technologies of the future. I refer noble Lords to Oracle, Palantir, SpaceX and many others, all of which started out through government procurement in the United States.

Will the Minister outline what proportion of government procurement in digital technologies is currently directed towards early-stage British tech ventures? What benchmark are the Government using to assess whether procurement is being deployed effectively in the service of sovereignty? I am going to accelerate to the end of my speech, otherwise the Whip will need to hurry me along. I have written too much, but I say briefly that better use of the digital markets Act is going to be the third lever, and I feel we should make more and greater use of that.

In conclusion, I ask the Government to provide as soon as possible a comprehensive digital sovereignty strategy, clear criteria for determining where Britain invests in direct sovereignty versus strategic leverage, a coherent procurement strategy aligned with sovereign and capability objectives, an explanation of how digital competition policy serves sovereignty rather than undermining it, and clarity on the data and copyright policy that preserves our strategic leverage. These seem to be critical and urgent questions. I, too, deeply regret that we no longer have a single front door to a ministry that can answer them all, and that those civil servants who could be focused on answering them will instead spend the coming months in a complex reorganisation.

Artificial Intelligence: Legislation

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that AI technology is with us today. It is absolutely right that, as he mentioned, we support all parts of society—children, students, workers—to understand this, discern it and use it wisely. That is why we are also developing our digital skills programme and ensuring that everybody can benefit from this transformative technology.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, we understand the Government’s policy of placing most of the burden of AI regulation on to existing sectoral regulators, but the cyber security and resilience Bill will create new burdens for those regulators. The Minister will accept that this is collectively an extremely significant expansion of those regulators’ powers and workload. First, are any further additions planned? Secondly, are the Government taking steps to ensure those regulators have the necessary skills and resources? Thirdly, is the new Prime Minister aware of and supportive of this approach?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Viscount is right that the cyber security and resilience Bill will indeed place new obligations on regulators, but that goes hand in hand with the support and the changes in funding and fee recovery that they will be able, after consultation, to enact. They are also supported by the technical authority of the NCSC, which provides them with advice on this. It is obviously the nature of all regulatory activities that they must take into account developments in society and the economy, and the transformative impact of AI. The Regulatory Innovation Office supports regulators to look at how they can adopt AI themselves to improve their regulatory efficiency, as well as looking at developments in their own sectors.

Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and, of course, to the Minister for her introduction. It has been a really thoughtful, compelling and persuasive debate. It is clear that, on all sides of the House, there is a shared recognition of the scale of the threat that this legislation seeks to address and the importance of doing so effectively.

As my noble friend Lord Effingham said, we on these Benches support the objectives of the Bill. Indeed, much of what is in it has its origins in work begun by the previous Government, following the 2022 consultation, and we applaud the continuity. We do not intend to try to make the perfect the enemy of the good, although I wholly endorse the cyber insurance argument set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Paul of Shepherd’s Bush, my noble friend Lord Ashcombe and others.

Listening to the debate has only reinforced for me the central question with which we began: where is the strategy? Ministers have described the Bill as one part of a wider programme, yet the national cyber action plan that was promised before the end of last year, and then promised again for this summer, remains unpublished. I observe as an aside that, as with the defence investment plan, we are in danger of creating the perception, which we must avoid, that there is a pattern of delay and avoidance when it comes to defending ourselves. Noble Lords across the House have, in their own ways, returned again and again to that same point.

I started off the debate diligently writing down everybody who called for a change to the scope but that turned out to be everybody, which makes our task today far harder. I absolutely accept that this is a Bill designed to have a narrow scope, but we have no way to understand the broader context in which that narrow scope sits. It is like trying to judge an orchestra but being allowed to hear only the woodwind section.

It is inevitable that we will have questions, concerns and suggestions that go beyond the narrow scope and intent of the Bill. How will SMEs learn to protect themselves better? Many people have raised that. A great many noble Lords—again, almost everybody—mentioned AI, but what response overall is envisaged to the threats of emerging technologies of which as yet we know little, such as new AI models at the frontier, quantum cracking and so on? How will we reduce the number of vacancies for cyber roles? By the way, it is not a new problem, by any means, that there are too many vacancies for cyber roles. We were wrestling with it when we were in government. It is an intractable problem that we need to find better ways to address.

How will we address the growing prevalence and effectiveness of weaponised disinformation that does so much harm to our society every day, right now? More fundamentally, what are our strengths and weaknesses relative to those of our assailants and our allies? Let me express the hope—I will return to this point—that, during the Bill’s passage, and ideally before Committee, we have the national cyber action plan to answer these and no doubt many other questions. This could make the passage of the Bill considerably easier for all of us, in particular for the Minister, and indeed help bring about the wish of my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones that we get through the Bill quickly in order to get these measures on to the statute book as soon as possible.

Even the National Cyber Security Centre itself has publicly called on government to set out a clearer strategic policy agenda. If GCHQ’s own technical authority feels moved to say so, that ought to give the Minister and the Government pause.

In the other place, my honourable friend Dr Ben Spencer made precisely this point, warning that the National Audit Office had found

“inconsistent, and in some cases glacial, progress”,—[Official Report, Commons, 6/1/26; col. 223.]

in cyber resilience, and that the Bill risked becoming “yet another missed opportunity”. My honourable friend Julia Lopez for her part reminded the Commons that, if the pandemic had accelerated the adoption of digital technology, artificial intelligence would embed it further still. Yet, as she noted, and as noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot, have echoed this evening—in fact, as everybody has said this evening—the Bill is silent on AI. It is silent on the Computer Misuse Act. These omissions go to the heart of whether this legislation will still be fit for purpose in five years’ time, given how disappointingly rarely Parliament revisits this ground.

On the question of regulatory burden, I was also struck by how many noble Lords share our concern for smaller businesses. I hope that the Minister agrees that this is not a party-political point. It was raised by members of the party opposite in the other place too, who rightly noted that SMEs are disproportionately targeted by cyber crime, yet are the least equipped to absorb new compliance obligations. In fact, techUK, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, has warned that leaving so much of the detail of this regime to secondary legislation, as well as using some of the rather woolly language that was commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, risks creating exactly the kinds of legal uncertainty and cost that fall hardest on smallest firms.

Again, I am trying to make not a political point—we urgently need this Bill—but a practical point. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Harding’s account of attempting to communicate while managing the crisis caused by an attack was absolutely salutary and I hope the Minister will take note of it.

So, as we move towards Committee after the Summer Recess—I think Committee promises to be a very productive activity—I hope the Minister will reflect carefully on the questions raised today and, in her closing, perhaps answer the following questions. First, will the Government commit to a firm date for publishing the strategy within which this legislation is meant to sit? Secondly, how will the effectiveness or otherwise of the Bill’s measures be assessed, and how will that assessment be reported to Parliament—we hope not every five years? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the cumulative reporting burden facing businesses of all sizes already subject to data protection and sector-specific obligations? Fourthly, what confidence can the Minister offer the House that the 12 regulators tasked with enforcing this regime, which we have heard a great deal about, will have and will continue to have the resources and expertise to do so effectively?

In Committee, we on these Benches will continue to press the Government on precisely these questions because, as with any regulation, it must be built on a foundation of strategic clarity rather than being asked to substitute for it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Employment: Artificial Intelligence

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

We are supporting young people to get into work. We are supporting youth employment through the changes to the youth guarantee and to the growth and skills levy, so that we can provide work and training places in jobs. We can support businesses hiring those young people, so that they get the opportunity of the experience of work and of the changing labour force, and can be supported through that.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I welcome the Government providing a great deal of skills education, but I do not see how the Government know what skills the marketplace is looking for in AI, particularly in the situation in which we find ourselves, where the recruitment marketplace has been so badly damaged by the misapplication of AI that the market signals on what skills are actually required are not getting through. What does the AI Economics Institute think about this and how will the incoming Prime Minister take this forward?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The Government have set up the future of work unit and have built on that with the AI Economics Institute precisely to examine the changes in the labour market and the changes to jobs—whether that is sector-specific changes or changes to particular cohorts, such as if women are particularly affected—and to then determine what action should be taken in that resolve. That is exactly what we are doing; we are being very active in understanding the technological change coming.

The Space Economy (UK Engagement with Space Committee Report)

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I too begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, and every member of the committee for this powerful and timely report, although I must say that my principal reaction is one of envy—I rather wish I had been on the committee. The report makes the genuinely compelling case that space policy is central both to our national security and to our future prosperity. The space economy does not get the attention it deserves, either in this House, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has pointed out, or with the public more generally, so I am delighted that, through this report and in this excellent debate, we have some small chance to address that.

The report reminds us that much of modern life depends on space technologies. Many of us enjoy these technologies without even realising this. From satellite navigation, banking systems and weather forecasting to logistics, these capabilities underpin a significant portion of our economy. I was really struck by the estimate that some 18% of UK GDP relies on satellite services alone. The committee is right to argue that Britain possesses many strengths and great potential in this area. We boast world-class universities, innovative companies, growing launch capability, and internationally respected scientific expertise.

But the question before us today is whether we have the strategic focus needed to realise and unleash our collective vast potential. We on these Benches welcome the Government’s recognition that space forms part of our critical national infrastructure and represents an important opportunity for economic growth. We also acknowledge the steps that have been taken to support skills development and improve strategic co-ordination across government. However, as the committee concluded, ambition alone is not enough. Businesses require certainty, investors require confidence and researchers require long-term support. Without clear priorities and more consistent delivery, there is a risk, as many noble Lords have pointed out, that innovative British companies may simply choose to scale elsewhere.

Many of the committee’s recommendations deserve serious consideration. The call for clearer strategic direction, better cross-government co-ordination, a funding model that helps firms scale beyond the research stage, greater support for skills and an agile regulatory framework all speak to the practical steps needed if we are to compete in an increasingly crowded global marketplace. Let us make no mistake—it really is increasingly crowded, as many noble Lords have pointed out.

There is also a critical national security dimension. As the committee and noble Lords have recognised, civil and defence capabilities are becoming ever more closely intertwined, and I was unsurprised to note the increasing use of “dual-use” terminology throughout the report and in our debate today. Investing in technologies with commercial and strategic applications both strengthens our resilience and creates opportunities for economic growth. The previous Government recognised this through the publication of the National Space Strategy in 2021, providing for the first time a comprehensive framework bringing together civil, commercial, defence and security objectives. That is an important foundation, but it has been some time since its publication and this Government have now been in power for two years. The challenge now is ensuring that that strategy continues to be translated into delivery.

With those thoughts in mind, I would be very grateful if the Minister could address the following questions. First, combined with some of the sums in the defence investment plan that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, brought up, how much government spending will be dedicated to R&D and manufacturing in the space economy? Secondly, what further steps are being taken to help innovative UK space companies access the capital they need to grow and remain headquartered in this country? Thirdly—I recognise this is a huge question that stretches far beyond space, but it is critical here—how can we improve government procurement to support our space industry participants of all sizes? I was particularly concerned by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Willetts that the National Wealth Fund is giving out that it does not want to invest in space. I urge the Minister to get to the bottom of that as soon as possible, because clearly that would be a very serious error. Fourthly, how do the Government intend to ensure that the UK remains internationally competitive in the space sector, particularly as we have heard other nations increase investment and develop their own capabilities?

Finally, while the Government have, as we have heard, rejected the committee’s recommendation for a dedicated Space Minister, how will they ensure that effective cross-government leadership and accountability are maintained across departments? Will we see a change of mind on that as the new Prime Minister steps in? Like other noble Lords, I echo the sentiment that the title Act Now or Lose Out is entirely appropriate. We have the talent in this country, the science, the potential and the industrial capability to succeed. The opportunity is there. The task now is to ensure that government policy matches that ambition. In that spirit, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her introduction. This is indeed a short and straightforward instrument, but certainly one worth a little bit of careful thought because of its real strategic importance. As we have heard, the Government propose to revoke the 2010 directions to Ofcom. The directions were originally issued to support the release of additional spectrum for next-gen mobile broadband. The directions have now served their purpose, and the Government, completely plausibly, argue that they are redundant.

Certainly, on the face of it, this revocation is sensible. The 2010 framework was designed for a very specific moment in the evolution of mobile networks. The market has moved on, Ofcom’s regulatory toolkit has matured, and spectrum management now operates under a more flexible and market-driven regime. Removing obsolete directions is, in principle, good housekeeping.

However, it is worth briefly pausing to consider and to put a couple of questions. Spectrum is a national strategic asset. The stability and predictability of the regulatory environment underpinned billions of pounds of private investment, and the balance of responsibility between Ministers and Ofcom must, of course, be handled with care.

I will put two questions to the Minister. First, how does this revocation sit within the Government’s wider spectrum strategy? The questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, were absolutely right in this respect. The UK faces increasing pressure on spectrum availability, from 5G and 6G deployment, satellite services, defence requirements and emerging industrial uses. Removing a set of directions is tidy, but more broadly, do the Government have a long-term strategic plan for spectrum allocation, resilience and competitiveness? If so, how does the instrument fit into that strategic plan?

Secondly, what assurances can the Minister give that revocation will not inadvertently reduce investment certainty? The 2010 directions were introduced precisely to give operators confidence during a period of rapid technological transition. We must ensure that today’s decision does not create ambiguity at a time when the UK needs sustained private investment in digital infrastructure.

Of course, we do not oppose the instrument, but we ask the Government to demonstrate that revocation is part of a coherent strategy, not simply administrative pruning. Ofcom must have the clarity it needs, operators must have the certainty they expect, and Parliament must have confidence that spectrum policy is being managed with foresight rather than drift. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords and the Committee for their support for this housekeeping measure to remove an obsolete direction. The direction was fully implemented and cast for its time. As noble Lords have indicated, technology has moved forward, as indeed has the state of mobile coverage and other investment.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, specifically asked, “Why now?” We want to ensure that obsolete regulations are not in place. We have heard from the market that there is a possibility that having active obsolete regulations could provide a lack of clarity and could potentially lead to legal challenge. That is why we want to make this move now. Ofcom last revised annual fees last year and new ones are envisaged in the next year, so we are doing it now to provide clarity before then.

On the framework for spectrum, I heartily agree with the points that the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made about the importance of spectrum. We designated an updated statement of strategic priorities in April this year; it set out our priorities across telecoms, the Post Office and, of course, spectrum, including the Government’s policy direction to Ofcom for spectrum. It touched on a number of the important matters that noble Lords have raised, including the importance of growth, innovation and the multiple uses of spectrum. This is very much a housekeeping matter in the context of that wider discussion, and it will have no impact other than that. It supports a clear and coherent framework for spectrum management, and it gives certainty to the regulators and the industry.

On certainty for investment, investment is currently at high levels. For example, the investments being made by mobile phone companies in stand-alone 5G are significant. It is being commercially led and there is committed investment in that area, such that Ofcom reports that, as of January 2026, stand-alone 5G was available outside 93% of premises across the UK—an increase of 10 percentage points since July 2025. The stability and certainty of that regulatory framework is indeed important. With that, I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Social Media: Substances Unfit for Human Consumption

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that the Online Safety Act already covers illegal content and child safety duties. Those duties are in force. Ofcom is now turning its focus to the additional duties for categorised services, which will include protections against fraudulent advertising. We are expecting Ofcom’s consultation on the additional duties next month, which should cover a number of the issues that the noble Lord raises.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, to pick up on the point that was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, sellers of unapproved SARMs routinely use labels in their advertising such as “not for human consumption”, while simultaneously promoting their physique-enhancing effects elsewhere on social media. Since sophisticated AI advertising tools allow sellers to target consumers with almost perfect precision, these tricks are actually no less effective than openly advertising illegal products. Can the Minister tell us who is responsible for enforcing against this and what progress they are making?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Where it is claimed that products are sold for research purposes only, that does not prevent regulatory action where the available evidence suggests that they are in fact unauthorised medicines intended for human use. If the product is classified as a medicine and is not appropriately authorised, the MHRA can take compliance and enforcement action.

Open Artificial Intelligence Service

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The Alan Turing Institute is of course an independent institution. In 2023, a quinquennial review determined that it needed significant changes, and those changes have been taking place. They will be ongoing and there is indeed a plan to make sure that the institute is able to deliver AI for missions that are important for the Government, whether that is defence, which has been mentioned, or climate and healthcare. I am confident that the institute will get to a place where it is much more able to have the engineering expertise to deliver products that will be of value.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, to build on the excellent question of my noble friend Lord Holmes, I was concerned this morning to be presented with some research to the effect that Britons are among the most nervous about AI of any population. To what does the Minister attribute this falling off in our level of confidence about AI, and what steps do the Government envisage taking to address it going forward?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I am tempted to refer back to surveys I used to see when I worked in a global company, which always came out worse for the UK than anywhere else in the world. But this is a very real issue, and there are major concerns about some aspects of AI. My worry is that we do not concentrate enough on the benefits and articulate those. We have work to do to make it clear that this is going to benefit people and is not just something to worry about; it is going to be beneficial right across the sectors, including in health. We have work to do to get that message out and to ensure that it is understood and believed.

Civil Service: Artificial Intelligence Productivity Gains

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Viscount Camrose]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of productivity gains across the Civil Service resulting from the deployment of artificial intelligence; and how they are measuring and evaluating these gains.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in so doing, draw noble Lords’ attention to my technology interests as set out in the register.

[The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)]

The Government have assessed the potential productivity gains from AI across the Civil Service, identifying which solutions are most effective and that will scale. We conducted the world’s largest trial of general-purpose AI tools, such as Copilot, to measure their impact and benefit. These evaluations inform which technologies deliver which outcomes and will enable us to prioritise adoption. Our assessment indicates significant economic benefits from widespread, well-targeted AI deployment across His Majesty’s Government.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, in May, the Government announced a rightly ambitious plan to drive tens of billions of pounds per year in Civil Service productivity savings through AI. In June, they estimated that use of AI tools was saving civil servants 26 minutes a day. Even if that is true, the Minister will agree that time savings, however welcome, do not equate to productivity. Now that the Government have spent £573 million on AI tools and consulting for the Civil Service, how will they measure productivity gains to rapidly build on successes and shut down failures?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The figure of £573 million is, of course, forward spend, so that is not what has been spent; it is a commitment over the next few years. It is important that we measure this. Guidance on how to measure the impact of AI tools was issued last year; there is a rigorous process for doing that. On the 26 minutes that has been picked up by the Copilot study, it is of course a general AI tool. Much greater savings come with specific uses in specific areas, which will not be general across the Civil Service.

The noble Lord is quite right to point out that time saving is not productivity, but what we do know from studies elsewhere and across business is that, when you get those time savings, about half of it goes on core tasks, about a quarter is on other strategic and creative work and about 25% goes on enhanced well-being. That is what we might expect as a result. There is a lot to do to make sure that we implement this properly across the Civil Service.

Artificial Intelligence: Legislation

Viscount Camrose Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. I gave quite an extensive Answer on water and AI last week. There are specific requirements for places that could host the new AI growth zones, including for the power supply but also, importantly, the ability to look at how water is used, the use of technologies to reduce water use, including recirculation and the types of chips that allow you to generate less heat during processing, and an obligation to work with water companies to come up with a clear, credible plan.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, on 3 July, over 150 major EU businesses wrote to the European Commission seeking a pause on the rollout of the EU’s AI Act. They objected, among other things, to its rigidity, complexity, overregulation and threat to competitiveness. What do the Government make of these objections? Do they remain as keen as they were in opposition on close alignment with the EU on AI regulation?