Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to
ensure citizens are not excluded from accessing AI-generated
public services.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office () (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point, because
the shift online and the use of AI are irreversible. They offer
substantial opportunities, but problems could arise for some
disadvantaged groups. That is why departments are required, by
the Government’s service standard, to provide support via
alternative channels for all their online services. Our road map
for digital and data, updated on 29 November, focuses on enabling
the confident and responsible use of AI to improve efficiency and
services.
(Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that, but the latest Ofcom study
of internet use in the UK showed that 7% of people have no access
at all and 18% have access solely via their smartphone. That is
fine for most tasks, but less helpful when filling out complex
forms or seeking support. The ambition of providing better public
services through a digital revolution is a good one; however,
what works for most people will not work for everybody, so what
is being done to ensure that this small but important group, who
are being left behind when attempting to access essential public
services, can access them in the future? If they cannot, we will
not have a universal service.
(Con)
This of course is why the Government are committed to ensuring
that everyone has affordable access to public services, whether
online or offline. Departments are required, by the service
standard, to provide support via alternative channels for all
their online services to all users, including the disabled. That
can be by phone, through face-to-face meetings, by letter or via
web chat, which is important for the unsighted. The system of
assessments is co-ordinated by the CDDO in the Cabinet Office,
and these requirements cannot go on to GOV.UK without assurance
secured.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare my technology interests, as set out in the
register. Does my noble friend agree that, wherever AI is used in
public services, it should be labelled as such, so that everybody
is aware of that fact? Similarly, wherever public citizen data is
used, we should decide whether that is through opt-in or opt-out
means. Further, public trust is essential to all deployments of
new technology, including AI. Does my noble friend agree that one
of the best ways to deliver public trust is to ensure that
services are accessible and inclusive by design?
(Con)
I very much agree that, to ensure public trust, you want services
that are accessible by design. Coming from the retail sector, I
have a slightly less rosy view of labelling. Like earlier data
changes, AI is part of a continuum of technological change. The
key thing is to have proper arrangements, such as, for example,
the AI Safety Institute, which we have now set up following the
Prime Minister’s AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park with
international partners. This is to make sure that we are aware of
what is happening, because there are opportunities as well as
risks to AI. I have a whole list of opportunities, which we can
go through, but I would like to hear some more questions.
(LD)
My Lords, I will follow up the Minister’s previous answer. The
public sector can benefit from many kinds of artificial
intelligence that are a long way from the image of a killer robot
threat to mankind, which often features heavily in the public
debate. AI can improve hospital bed management, care worker
rostering, public procurement and many other dull but very
valuable tasks. Does the Minister share my concern that the
killer robot narrative may overshadow the adoption of these much
less controversial AI systems? What are the Government doing to
encourage and accelerate their deployment?
(Con)
I do not think that list is dull. I have other examples, such as
the world-leading child abuse image database, which the Home
Office is working on. My son, as a detective in the Met, thinks
it will be a marvellous opportunity to make the police’s job
easier and less awful. The noble Lord is right that the robot
vision has to be moderated by an understanding of the usefulness
of AI on many things, such as conversational front ends to public
services on GOV.UK. These things will make life easier and more
accessible, which is why it is good that we are debating them and
can reassure people. Of course there are fears, which is one of
the reasons why we are working on guidance on frontier AI—that is
in the pipeline.
(Lab)
My Lords, we know from the Post Office Horizon scandal that the
Post Office itself, the prosecuting authorities, the courts and
God knows how many hundreds of lawyers were, for years, unable to
identify failure, including in the computer system. What
confidence can we have that the Department for Work and Pensions
has people able to tell if the data that informed AI had a bias
in it which caused it constantly to be making mistakes? Do we
have people trained to do that? I am not confident that they even
exist. I am just picking this example out of the sky.
(Con)
I agree that the Post Office scandal was one of the most awful.
It is good that we now have a proper process for moving forward
on it, even if it is far too late. To deal with the point raised
by the noble Lord, I can say that we are setting up the AI Safety
Institute and a hub in the Cabinet Office, bringing in experts
from outside. The idea is that they can help across the board
with these issues. Some of the uses of AI, such as with fraud at
Companies House and the DWP, can be very useful. The noble Lord
is right in that we need to look at the dangers as well. As the
noble Lord, Lord Allan, rightly said, we have to make sure that
we look at the opportunities. We think that, as regards public
sector productivity, costs could be reduced by about £5 billion a
year through the sensible use of AI on the kinds of things that
we have been debating.
(Con)
My Lords, I too am optimistic about AI, but I am also concerned
about leaving people behind. I refer my noble friend to the
report about digital exclusion published earlier this year by the
Communications and Digital Select Committee, which I chair. It
painted quite a stark picture. It showed how much more complex
this challenge is becoming because of the way in which technology
is developing at pace. I am sad to report that we found that the
Government’s strategy for dealing with exclusion was not good
enough. Will my noble friend revisit that report? Will she also
explore one way forward—by looking at a joint venture with the
banking sector? It has long promised to have banking hubs in
towns. These could also become digital hubs where people could go
to learn, and for assistance and advice as to how to get on to
digital services in the way in which we need them to do.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for her report, which I have just picked
up for my Christmas reading. It has been rather influential
within the system. I do not know if my noble friend is aware of
the cross-Whitehall ministerial group chaired by the new Minister
for Technology, . It will certainly look at
how the digitally excluded can be helped in hubs in different
ways. The library network already exists. I have always thought
that this is very useful in communities. I have collaborated with
bank expertise on fraud—which is my area of responsibility. I am
grateful for the work of her committee. I will certainly take her
point away.
(Lab)
My Lords, was the noble Baroness briefed on a question which I
asked on the last occasion when this topic came up? I asked if
the Government were looking at developments with Paradot. The
Minister who was answering did not know anything about it.
Paradot is an online buddy. I have a therapist friend who
believes he will be out of business in five years’ time because
of the way in which this is developing. If this kind of change
takes place, it will have a massive impact on what will happen in
the public service.
(Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. The honest truth is that I was
not aware of his intervention. Perhaps I can go away and get back
to him on another occasion. This sounds a very interesting point
and issue.
