Liberal Democrat peer Lord Clement-Jones has introduced a private members ‘ bill to regulate the use of artificial intelligence ( AI), algorithms, and automated decision-making technologies by public authorities, citing the need to avoid another Post Office scandal.
If a” computer says no” to a benefit decision, immigration decision, or anything else, a citizen would have a right to know the reasons behind it so they can challenge it in the proposals made by Lord Clement-Jones on September 9th.
The Public Authority Algorithmic and Automated Decision-Making Systems Bill, according to Clement-Jones, would even require the government to provide an independent dispute resolution service in cases where a citizen does so.
Public authorities would even be required to publish impact assessments of any AI or automated decision-making algorithms, including a mandated bias analysis to ensure compliance with the Equality Act and Human Rights Act, as well as maintain a transparency register to provide more detailed information about how each system is being used to the general public.  ,  ,
The Post Office/Horizon scandal highlights the terrible human costs associated with inadequate controls in place to challenge these computerized systems. Public authorities are currently not required to be open about when and how they use these algorithms in a legitimate way. I urge the government to support these changes”, said Lord Clement-Jones.
” To frequently in the UK, we pass laws when the harm has already been done. We need to be vigilant, not reactive, when it comes to protecting citizens and their interactions with new technologies. When it comes to regulating AI, we must be ahead of the curve. We just cannot take the chance of another Horizon scandal.
The Bill includes provisions that make it easier to understand how to interpret automated decisions into open authorities ‘ systems so that its operation can be regularly monitored and interrogated.
Further provisions are included that prohibit the procurement of systems that are capable of being scrutinized, such as where people authorities are hampered by legal or professional measures in monitoring efforts and suppliers ‘ intellectual property interests.
Other Parliamentarians have previously brought similar AI-related private members bills, including Lord Christopher Holmes, who introduced the Artificial Intelligence] Regulation ] Bill , in November 2023 on the basis that the then-government’s “wait and see” approach to AI legislation would do more harm than good, and backbench Labour MP Mick Whitley, who introduced his , worker-centric AI bill in May 2023 to deal with harmful uses of AI in the workplace.
In April 2024, the Trades Union Congress ( TUC) also published a “ready-to-go” law for regulating AI in the workplace, which set out a range of new legal rights and protections to manage the adverse effects of automated decision-making on workers.
Since the past Conservative government published its , AI whitepaper , in March 2023, there has been considerable debate over whether the “agile, pro-innovation” framework it outlined for regulating AI technology is the correct approach.
Under those proposals, the government would have relied on existing regulators to create tailored, context-specific rules that suit the ways the technology is being used in the sectors they scrutinise.
Following the release of the whitepaper, the government made a significant argument about the need for AI safety, arguing that businesses wo n’t adopt AI until they are confident that the risks, including bias and discrimination, are being effectively reduced.
While the previous government spent its last months doubling down on this total approach in its , official response to the whitepaper consultation , from January 2024,  , claiming it will not legislate on AI until the time is right, it afterward said in February 2024 that there , could be bound rules introduced down the line , for the most high-risk AI systems.
There are no plans for AI-specific legislation, despite the most recent King’s Speech declaring that the new Labour government” will seek to establish the appropriate legislation to impose requirements on those working to develop the most effective artificial intelligence models.”
The only time AI was mentioned in the background briefing of the speech was in reference to a Bill aimed at “inviting the UK to keep up with technological advances, like as AI,” which is intended to address.
Although private members ‘ bills are often passed into law, they are frequently used as a forum for debates on crucial issues and public opinion in Parliament.
