Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 61. In doing a little background on this, I looked at the Law Society’s response to the MoJ call for evidence, which it produced last April. I wish to read two brief excerpts, because I think they are both particularly pertinent to what we are talking about. The first says: “But given the increasing complexity of computational systems, computers should not be assumed to be operating correctly. Instead”— this is important, because this is what other jurisdictions outside the UK systematically do— “it should be evidenced and demonstrated through assurance, regular review, and disclosure of the technical standards applied by the system”. That is what happens in Germany. That is what happens in France. That is what mostly happens in the United States. Secondly, returning to the issue of artificial intelligence, the Law Society has been thinking about this and is clearly very worried about it. I quote again: “Careful consideration needs to be given to emerging AI technologies that overlap with but go beyond the scope of this call for evidence. For AI, an additional layer of certification for meeting internationally recognised standards is important to ensure accountability and transparency, especially if they were designed and developed”— which they mostly are— “outside of the jurisdiction … Attention must be given to the ability for domestic regulation and requirements to be adhered to for computer systems and AI tools that are built outside of the jurisdiction”.