Tim Clement-Jones, Author at Lord Clement-Jones | Speaker AI and Creative Industries

Liberal Democrats Say No to Compulsory Digital ID

Tim Clement-Jones — Sun, 19 Oct 2025 15:49:12 +0000

The Government recently announced the introduction of a mandatory requirement for Digital Identity to be used in right to work checks.

The introduction of compulsory digital ID represents another fundamental error by this Government. The Liberal Democrats strongly oppose this proposal, which is a serious threat to privacy, civil liberties and social inclusion. We thank the Minister for bringing the Secretary of State’s Statement to this House today, but my disappointment and opposition to the Government’s plan more than mirrors that of my honourable friend Victoria Collins in the Commons yesterday.

The core issue here is not technology but freedom. The Government insist this scheme is non-compulsory, yet concurrently confirm that it will be mandatory for right-to-work checks by the end of this Parliament. This is mandatory digital ID in all but name, especially for working-age people. As my party leader Sir Ed Davey has stated, we cannot and will not support a system where citizens are forced to hand over private data simply to participate in everyday life. This is state overreach, plain and simple.

The Secretary of State quoted Finland and the ability of parents to register for daycare, but I think the Secretary of State needs to do a bit more research. That is a voluntary scheme, not a compulsory one. We have already seen the clear danger of mission creep. My honourable friend Victoria Collins rightly warned that the mere discussion of extending this scheme to 13 to 16 year-olds is sinister, unnecessary and a clear step towards state overreach. Where does this stop?

The Secretary of State sought to frame this as merely a digital key to unlock better services. This dangerously conflates genuine and desirable public service reform with a highly intrusive mandate. First, the claim that this will deliver fairness and security by tackling illegal migration is nothing more than a multibillion-pound gimmick. The Secretary of State suggests that it will deter illegal working, yet, as my colleagues have pointed out, rogue employers who operate cash-in-hand schemes will not look at ID on a phone. Mandatory digital ID for British citizens will not stop illegal migrants working in the black economy.

Secondly, the claim that the system will be free is disingenuous. As my honourable friend Max Wilkinson, our home affairs spokesman, demanded, the Government must come clean on the costs and publish a full impact assessment. Estimates suggest that creating this system will cost between £1 billion and £2 billion, with annual running costs of £100 million pounds. This is completely the wrong priority at a time when public services are crumbling.

Thirdly, the promise of inclusion rings hollow. This mandatory system risks entrenching discrimination against the millions of vulnerable people, such as older people and those on low incomes, who lack foundational digital skills, a smartphone or internet access.

The greatest concern is the Government’s insistence on building this mandatory system on GOV.UK’s One Login, a platform with security failures that have been repeatedly and publicly criticised, including in my own correspondence and meetings with government. There are significant concerns about One Login’s security. The Government claim that One Login adheres to the highest security standards. Despite this commitment, as of late 2024 and early 2025, the system was still not fully compliant. A GovAssure assessment found that One Login was meeting only about 21 of the 39 required outcomes in the NCSC cyber assessment framework. The GOV.UK One Login programme has told me that it is committed to achieving full compliance with the cyber assessment framework by 21 March 2026, yet officials have informed me that 500 services across 87 departments are already currently in scope for the One Login project.

There are other criticisms that I could make, but essentially the foundations of the digital ID scheme are extremely unsafe, to say the least. To press ahead with a mandatory digital ID system, described as a honeypot for hackers, based on a platform exhibiting such systemic vulnerabilities is not only reckless but risks catastrophic data breaches, identity theft and mass impersonation fraud. Concentrating the data of the entire population fundamentally concentrates the risk.

The Secretary of State must listen to the millions of citizens who have signed the petition against this policy. We on these Benches urge the Government to scrap this costly, intrusive and technologically unreliable scheme and instead focus on delivering voluntary, privacy-preserving digital public services that earn the public’s trust rather than demanding compliance.

The post Liberal Democrats Say No to Compulsory Digital ID appeared first on Lord Clement-Jones | Speaker AI and Creative Industries.

A Defence of the Online Safety Act: Protecting Children While Ensuring Effective Implementation

Tim Clement-Jones — Mon, 08 Sep 2025 08:18:06 +0000

Some recent commentary on the Online Safety Act seems to treat child protection online as an abstract policy preference. The evidence reveals something far more urgent. By age 11, 27% of children have already been exposed to pornography, with the average age of first exposure at just 13. Twitter (X) alone accounts for 41% of children’s pornography exposure, followed by dedicated sites at 37%.

The consequences are profound and measurable. Research shows that 79% of 18-21 year olds have seen content involving sexual violence before turning 18, and young people aged 16-21 are now more likely to assume that girls expect or enjoy physical aggression during sex. Close to half (47%) of all respondents aged 18-21 had experienced a violent sex act, with girls the most impacted.

When we know that childrens’ accounts on TikTok are shown harmful content every 39 seconds, with suicide content appearing within 2.6 minutes and eating disorder content within 8 minutes, the question is not whether we should act, but how we can act most effectively.

This is not “micromanaging” people’s rights – this is responding to a public health emergency that is reshaping an entire generation’s understanding of relationships, consent, and self-worth.

Abstract arguments about civil liberties need to be set against the voices of bereaved families who fought for the Online Safety Act . The parents of Molly Russell, Frankie Thomas, Olly Stephens, Archie Battersbee, Breck Bednar, and twenty other children who died following exposure to harmful online content did not campaign for theoretical freedoms – they campaigned for their children’s right to life itself.

These families faced years of stonewalling from tech companies who refused to provide basic information about the content their children had viewed before their deaths. The Act now requires platforms to support coroner investigations and provide clear processes for bereaved families to obtain answers. This is not authoritarianism – it is basic accountability

To repeal the Online Safety Act would indeed be a massive own-goal and a win for Elon Musk and the other tech giants who care nothing for our children’s safety. The protections of the Act were too hard won, and are simply too important, to turn our back on.

The conflation of regulating pornographic content with censoring legitimate information is neither accurate nor helpful, but we must remain vigilant against mission creep. As Victoria Collins MP and I have highlighted in our recent letter to the Secretary of State, supporting the Act’s core mission does not mean we should ignore legitimate concerns about its implementation. Parliament must retain its vital role in scrutinising how this legislation is being rolled out to ensure it achieves its intended purpose without unintended consequences.

There are significant issues emerging that Parliament must address:

Age Assurance Challenges: The concern that children may use VPNs to sidestep age verification systems is real, though it should not invalidate the protection provided to the majority who do not circumvent these measures. We need robust oversight to ensure age assurance measures are both effective and proportionate.

Overreach in Content Moderation: The age-gating of political content and categorisation of educational resources like Wikipedia represents a concerning drift from the Act’s original intent. The legislation was designed to protect children from harmful content, not to restrict access to legitimate political discourse or educational materials. Wikimedia’s legal challenge regarding its categorisation illustrates this. While Wikipedia’s concerns about volunteer safety and editorial integrity are legitimate, their challenge does not oppose the Online Safety Act as a whole, but rather seeks clarity about how its unique structure should be treated under the regulations.

Protecting Vulnerable Communities: When important forums dealing with LGBTQ+ rights, sexual health, or other sensitive support topics are inappropriately age-gated, we risk cutting off vital lifelines for young people who need them most. This contradicts the Act’s protective purpose.

Privacy and Data Protection: While the Act contains explicit privacy safeguards, ongoing vigilance is needed to ensure age assurance systems truly operate on privacy-preserving principles with robust data minimisation and security measures.

The solution to these implementation challenges is not repeal, but proper parliamentary oversight. Parliament needs the opportunity to review the Act’s implementation through post-legislative scrutiny and the chance to examine whether Ofcom is interpreting the legislation in line with its original intent and whether further legislative refinements may be necessary.

A cross-party Committee from both Houses, would provide the essential scrutiny needed to ensure the Act fulfils its central aim of keeping children safe online without unintended consequences.

Fundamentally and importantly, this approach aligns with core liberal principles. John Stuart Mill’s harm principle explicitly recognises that individual liberty must be constrained when it causes harm to others.

The post A Defence of the Online Safety Act: Protecting Children While Ensuring Effective Implementation appeared first on Lord Clement-Jones | Speaker AI and Creative Industries.

The Great AI Copyright Battle: Why Transparency Matters

Tim Clement-Jones — Thu, 19 Jun 2025 07:58:33 +0000

We have recently had unprecedented “ping pong” between the Lords and Commons on whether to incorporate provisions in the Data Use and Access Bill ( now Act) which would ensure that AI developers would be required to be transparent about the copyright content used to train their models. Liberal Democrats in both the Lords and Commons consistently supported this change throughout. This is why.

As Co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence and now Chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS), I find myself at the epicentre of one of the most significant intellectual property debates of our time.

The UK’s creative industries are economic powerhouses, contributing £126 billion annually while safeguarding our cultural identity. Yet they face an existential challenge: the wholesale scraping of copyrighted works from the web to train AI systems without permission or payment.

The statistics are stark. A recent ALCS survey revealed that 77% of writers don’t even know if their work has been used to train AI systems. Meanwhile, 91% believe their permission should be required, and 96% want compensation for use of their work. This isn’t anti-technology sentiment – it’s about basic fairness.

From Sir Paul McCartney to Sir Elton John, hundreds of prominent creatives have demanded action. They’re not opposing AI innovation; many already use AI in their work. They simply want their intellectual property rights respected so they can continue making a living.

December’s government consultation on Copyright and AI proposed a text and data mining exception with an opt-out mechanism for rights holders. This approach fundamentally misunderstands the problem. It places the burden on creators to police the internet, protecting their own works – an impossible task given the scale and opacity of AI training.

The creative sector’s opposition has been overwhelming. The proposed framework would undermine existing copyright law while making enforcement practically impossible. As I’ve consistently argued, existing copyright law is sufficient if properly enforced – what we need is mandatory transparency.

During debates on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, Baroness Kidron championed amendments requiring AI developers to disclose copyrighted material used in training data. These amendments received consistent support from all Liberal Democrat MP’s and peers, crossbench peers, and many Labour and Conservative backbench peers.

The government’s resistance has been remarkable. Despite inserting a requirement for an econimic impact assessment and a report on copyright use in AI development, they have opposed mandatory transparency, leading to an unprecedented “ping-pong” debate between the Houses.

Transparency isn’t about stifling innovation – it’s about enabling legitimate licensing. How can creators license their work if they don’t know who’s using it? How can fair compensation mechanisms develop without basic disclosure of what’s being used?

The current system allows AI companies to harvest vast quantities of creative content while claiming ignorance about specific sources. This creates a fundamental power imbalance where billion-dollar tech companies benefit from the work of individual creators who remain entirely in the dark.

The solution isn’t complex. Mandatory transparency requirements would enable:

Creators to understand how their work is being used
Development of fair licensing mechanisms
Preservation of existing copyright frameworks
Continued AI innovation within legal boundaries

This debate reflects deeper concerns about AI innovation coming at the expense of human creativity. The government talks about supporting creative industries while simultaneously weakening the intellectual property protections that sustain them.

We need policies that recognize the symbiotic relationship between human creativity and technological advancement. AI systems trained on creative works should provide some return to those creators, just as streaming platforms pay royalties for music usage.

The government has so far failed to rise to this challenge. But with continued parliamentary pressure and overwhelming creative sector support, we can still achieve a framework that protects both innovation and creativity.

The question isn’t whether AI will transform creative industries – it’s whether that transformation will be fair, transparent, and sustainable for the human creators whose work makes it all possible.

The post The Great AI Copyright Battle: Why Transparency Matters appeared first on Lord Clement-Jones | Speaker AI and Creative Industries.

Less Talk More Action on Scale Ups

Tim Clement-Jones — Sat, 14 Jun 2025 09:59:38 +0000

The House of Lords recently debated the conclusions and recommendations of the Report from the Communications and Digital Committee AI and creative technology scaleups: less talk, more action

This is an edited version what I said in winding up the debate or the Liberal Democrats

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, mentioned the holistic nature of the report—the fact that it was both AI and creative tech. That is really powerful and has enabled us to have an excellent debate today. I agree that this debate should be required reading. We have covered a huge amount of ground.

The phrase “incubator economy” really has stuck. It has helped to guide us through today’s debate and made the contributions that much sharper and more relevant. We are great at hatching ideas but also at watching them fly away to mature elsewhere. We can illustrate this with a number of examples, as noble Lords have done. When ARM chose to list in New York rather than London, we lost what would now be Britain’s fifth-biggest company. When companies such as Wise follow the same path, which it recently has done, the pattern becomes clear. This was epitomised by a City AM headline on Tuesday:

“Ouch: Three tech firms bail out of the UK in a single day”.

Many noble Lords have of course mentioned Alphawave, Spectris and Oxford Ionics—at the beginning of London Tech Week too; what an appalling time to have that news. This is of long standing, in terms of DeepMind and Solexa as well. The consequences of this failure are significant: decreased global competitiveness, weaker economic prospects and a potential brain drain of talent..

The Government are putting great faith into AI adoption with the AI opportunities action plan and an industrial strategy with plans for eight growth-driving sectors, but, at the same time, we must break down a number of barriers that are holding us back. First, as we have heard from across the House, we have a significant funding gap for later-stage rounds compared to the US, which was called, very graphically, the “valley of death” by Lady Wheatcroft. As we have heard, UK pension funds manage over £3 trillion of assets yet invest barely a fraction of that in growing domestic companies.

We do have initiatives, such as the Long-term Investment for Technology and Science programme, and the British Business Bank has supported many UK unicorns. UKI2S, a public/private seed fund, has a proven track record, but the size of the funding gap remains immense. There is also a recognised lack of technology expertise among institutional investors and, probably among pension funds as well.

We are in a global technology race. Some 62% of UK AI firms identify skills shortages as a growth barrier. We are in fierce global competition for AI talent and our visa system is slow, laborious and costly. SMEs often cannot match big tech salaries and, although the scale-up visa exists, industry leaders say that it is not yet fast or cheap enough to meet the needs of rapidly growing businesses, especially in highly competitive fields like AI.

We have infrastructure issues too. As we heard from the committee, the withdrawal by this Government at the outset of £1.3 billion for AI infrastructure, including the Edinburgh supercomputer, sent exactly the wrong signal. As one witness to the committee put it, we have

“some really big gaps in infrastructure, compute and power”.

We also have the issue of regulation and procurement. Government procurement rules prevent smaller companies competing for government contracts despite government procurement being a potential driver of innovation. The committee heard that the Competition and Markets Authority is alleged to be harsh on internal roll-ups, where one British company proposes acquiring another British company.

What needs to happen now? Again, I thought the phrase “a manageable challenge” from Lord Willetts, was very useful. I also rather liked his “Hamiltonian” versus “Jeffersonian” approach. On capital, the National Wealth Fund’s £7.3 billion commitment is a start, but we need those resources deployed quickly and strategically. The Government are, it seems, taking action to unlock £75 billion through the Mansion House accord and have introduced pension fund reforms, but these will take several years to have meaningful impact.

I know that the Government listen to the Tony Blair Institute. Its recent report recommends giving the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund

“clear, complementary mandates to deliver on the … government’s industrial strategy”.

Specifically, it says that the British Business Bank should focus on crowding in capital for the scale-up phase—series B to C—with its maximum investment cap raised to £25 million. Meanwhile, the NWF should act as a more capital-intensive direct investor, with a minimum investment of £25 million for late-stage—series D+—strategic assets. Can the Minister comment on the progress being made in defining the roles of those two institutions? The discussion from Lord Massey, about capital gains tax in terms of AIM stocks was a very interesting suggestion.

The AI Opportunities Action Plan also stresses investment in talent. It explicitly recommends that the Government explore how best to address wider barriers, such as the cost and complexity of visas, which create obstacles for start-ups and deter overseas talent from relocating to the UK. We need a fast-track visa system for scale-ups now, not after another consultation. However, I accept the concerns of the Lord Tarassenko, that there is a falling number of UK entrants to courses.

On infrastructure, I welcome the £2 billion commitment in the spending review, and the Government’s promise to immediately double AI research capacity and launch AI growth zones for data centres. The compute strategy, promised for spring 2025, is already overdue and must deliver accessible resources to our universities, start-ups and scale-ups as soon as possible. However, I also accept the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko: we do not want to find ourselves investing in infrastructure when we can deliver what we need without the extent of that infrastructure, as DeepSeek demonstrated.

AI growth zones are being launched to accelerate data centre construction and infrastructure, with formal selection processes opening this spring, we understand. However, we need to tackle the environmental issues around them too. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—who is in his place, I notice—was absolutely right to raise that issue.

In order to scale up, start-ups need to overcome the diffusion problem, which refers to the challenge of achieving widespread adoption and market penetration for their innovations. This is impacted by a lack of access to digital platforms, which have quasi-monopoly positions. I am glad to say that Google and Apple are now under investigation by the CMA, and the outcome will be the acid test for whether the new digital markets regime results in access remedies that allow our start-ups to scale more easily.

On regulation, the Regulatory Innovation Office, under its very welcome new chair, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is promising, as part of its mission, to reduce red tape and help companies bring new products to market faster, but it must have teeth. Given that the AI Opportunities Action Plan aims to accelerate the adoption of safe and trustworthy AI across the economy, clarity, certainty and consistency of AI regulation for business is crucial. The Government have kicked a future AI Bill into longer, if not wholly long, grass. They talk of a sector-led, outcomes-based approach to AI regulation, but many of us have seen no detail of any proposals and believe that the minimalist approach being adopted is simply inadequate in the face of AI risks and the need for public trust. Good, outcome-based regulation is not the enemy of innovation. In fact, it can be the creator of interoperability and the driver of innovation.

We have discussed constantly, for what seems like several months, a significant issue for creatives: the use of copyright content for training AI models. I do not intend to say too much about this, but the Minister is only too well aware of the arguments being made. Given the Government’s recent failure to deliver clarity to the creative industries, the consultation on AI and copyright, the associated economic impact assessment and the technology report must provide clarity quickly, as must the working parties. Our creative industries must have the transparency they need to ensure that they can thrive alongside the tech industries without being their victim. Where is the creative industries sector plan? Everything seems to be promised for late spring—I think we have a traffic jam somewhere in Whitehall. It will identify growth barriers, we understand, and outline commitments from the Government and industry to overcome them.

I have little time left. I share the reservations about the National Data Library, but also the promise associated with it, expressed by Lord Tarassenko, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. It could be a good sovereign asset vehicle, if it takes the right shape.

The committee’s report is entitled AI and Creative Technology Scaleups: Less Talk, More Action. It is not just a good title; it is an urgent instruction. Are the Government ready to match ambition with action? I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply but, as Lord Holmes, said, she has been given much to think about.

The post Less Talk More Action on Scale Ups appeared first on Lord Clement-Jones | Speaker AI and Creative Industries.

AI regulation does not stifle innovation

Tim Clement-Jones — Sat, 14 Jun 2025 09:30:11 +0000

This is a piece I wrote recently published in the New Statesman’s Spotlight on Technology Supplement

Achieving balance between human potential and machines isn’t just possible – it’s necessary.

Ever since co-founding the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AI nine years ago, still ably administered by the Big Innovation Centre, I’ve been deeply involved in debating and advising on the implications of artificial intelligence. My optimism about AI’s potential remains strong – from helping identify new Parkinson’s treatments to DeepMind’s protein structure predictions that could transform drug discovery and personalised medicine.

Yet this technology is unlike anything we’ve seen before. It’s potentially more autonomous, with greater impact on human creativity and employment, and more opaque in its decision-making processes.

The conventional wisdom that regulation stifles innovation needs turning on its head. As AI becomes more powerful and pervasive, appropriate regulation isn’t just about restricting harmful practices – it’s key to driving widespread adoption and sustainable growth. Many potential AI adopters are hesitating not due to technological limitations but to uncertainties about liability, ethical boundaries and public acceptance. Clear regulatory frameworks addressing algorithmic bias, data privacy and decision transparency can actually accelerate adoption by providing clarity and confidence.

Different jurisdictions are adopting varied approaches. The European Union’s AI Act, with its risk-based framework, started coming into effect this year. Singapore has established comprehensive AI governance through its model AI governance framework. Even China regulates public-facing generative AI models with fairly heavy inspection regimes.

The UK’s approach has been more cautious. The previous government held the AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park and established the AI Safety Institute (now inexplicably renamed the AI Security Institute), but with no regulatory teeth. The current government has committed to binding regulation for companies developing the most powerful AI models, though progress remains slower than hoped. Notably, 60 countries – including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, but not Britain or the US – signed the Paris AI Action Summit declaration in February this year, committing to ensuring AI is “open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy”.

Several critical issues demand urgent attention.

Intellectual property: the use of copyrighted material for training large language models without licensing has sparked substantial litigation and, in the UK, unprecedented parliamentary debate. Governments need to act decisively to ensure creative works aren’t ingested into generative AI models without return to rights-holders, with transparency duties on developers.

Digital citizenship: we must equip citizens for the AI age, ensuring they understand how their data is used and AI’s ethical implications. Beyond the UAE, Finland and Estonia, few governments are taking this seriously enough.

International convergence: despite differing regulatory regimes, we need developers to collaborate and commercialise innovations globally while ensuring consumer trust in common international ethical and safety standards.

Well-designed regulation can be a catalyst for AI adoption and innovation. Just as environmental regulations spurred cleaner technologies, AI regulations focusing on explainability and fairness could push developers toward more sophisticated, responsible systems.

The goal isn’t whether to regulate AI, but how to regulate it promoting both innovation and responsibility. We need principles-based rather than overly prescriptive regulation, assessing risk and emphasising transparency and accountability without stifling creativity.

Achieving the balance between human potential and machine innovation isn’t just possible – it’s necessary as we step into an increasingly AI-driven world. That’s what we must make a reality.

The post AI regulation does not stifle innovation appeared first on Lord Clement-Jones | Speaker AI and Creative Industries.

The new Council of Europe AI Framework Convention demonstrates that the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights are still highly relevant after 75 years

Tim Clement-Jones — Sun, 25 May 2025 11:58:08 +0000

I recently took part in a debate in the House of Lords celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the European Convention on Human Right. This is what I said about the importance of the new Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law and how it links to the principles and objectives original Convention.

The new Council of Europe framework convention on artificial intelligence is another living demonstration that the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights are still highly relevant after 75 years. The AI framework convention does not seek to replace the ECHR but rather to extend its protections into the digital age. AI now permeates our daily lives, making decisions that affect our privacy, liberty and dignity. These systems can perpetuate discrimination, erode privacy and challenge fundamental freedoms in a way that demands new protections. Open for signature in September 2024, the AI framework convention is the first legally binding international instrument on AI, setting clear standards for risk assessment and impact management throughout the life cycle of AI systems.

The framework convention’s principles require transparency and oversight, ensuring that AI systems cannot operate as black boxes, making decisions that affect people’s lives without accountability. They require parties to adopt specific measures for identifying, assessing, preventing and mitigating risks posed by AI systems, and a specific human rights impact assessment has been developed. The convention recognises that, in the age of AI, protecting human rights requires more than individual remedies; it demands accessible and effective remedies for human rights violations resulting from AI systems. Rather than merely reacting to harms after they occur, the framework mandates consideration of society-scale effects before AI systems are deployed. I only wish, having heard what its director had to say on Tuesday, that our AI Security Institute had the same approach.

The framework convention was achieved through unprecedented consultation, involving not just the 46 member states of the Council of Europe but observer states, civil society, academia and industry representatives. Beyond European nations, it has attracted signatories including Israel, the United States—albeit under the previous Administration—and, most recently, Japan and Canada, in February this year.

However, a framework is only as good as its implementation, and this brings me to my central question to the Government. What is their plan? The Ministry of Justice’s Report to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Government’s Response to Human Rights Judgments 2023-24 said:

“Once the treaty is ratified and brought into effect in the UK, existing laws and measures to safeguard human rights from the risks of AI will be enhanced”.

How will existing UK law be amended to align with the framework convention? What additional resources and powers will be given to our regulatory bodies? What mechanisms will be put in place to monitor and assess the impact of AI systems on vulnerable groups? The convention offers us tools to prevent such problems, but only if we implement it effectively.

As we mark 75 years of the European Convention on Human Rights, we should remember that its enduring strength lies not just in its principles but in how nations have given those principles practical effect through domestic law and institutions. The UK has long been a leader in both human rights and technological innovation. I urge the Government to present a comprehensive implementation plan for the AI framework convention. Our response to this challenge will determine whether the digital age enhances or erodes our fundamental rights. I do not need to emphasise the immense power of big tech currently. We need to see this as a time when we are rising to meet new challenges with the same vision and commitment that created the European Convention on Human Rights, 75 years ago.

The post The new Council of Europe AI Framework Convention demonstrates that the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights are still highly relevant after 75 years appeared first on Lord Clement-Jones | Speaker AI and Creative Industries.

Empowering Our Communities with Data Intermediaries

Tim Clement-Jones — Sat, 24 May 2025 16:39:47 +0000

I recently responded to the Government’s Call for Evidence on Data Intermediaries. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important call for evidence which centres around unlocking the value of data whilst exploring mechanisms that facilitate responsible data sharing and at the same time empowering individuals.

Data is increasingly integral to people’s lives and fuels most modern business. Citizen data holds tremendous potential for economic and societal benefit through innovative products, improved public services, and research advancements. However, cumulative failures, such as the backlash to both Care.Data and subsequently the General Practice Data for Planning and Research programme, and the response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, have resulted in tenuous public trust in data sharing. Data misuses, breaches, and sharing scandals highlight the need for models of data stewardship that safeguard privacy while enabling innovation guided by public input. Increased legitimacy and trustworthiness of data and AI use are needed to reverse this trend.

Data intermediaries are broadly defined as entities facilitating data sharing or access between data holders (including individuals exercising their rights) and data users. They act on behalf of or for the benefit of data subjects when dealing with personal data. They can potentially empower individuals to exercise their data subject rights more easily and enable responsible and straightforward sharing of quality data. Data Communities represent a specific proposed model within this landscape, focused on empowering individuals by enabling them to collectively exercise their data rights.

Defining Data Communities and Their Purpose

Attempts were made during the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill to define a “data community” as an entity established to activate data subjects’ data rights under Chapters III and VIII of the UK GDPR on their behalf. This concept was part of a proposed set of amendments intended to establish the ability for data subjects to assign their personal data rights to a third party. This would have expressly enabled data subjects to mandate a community to exercise specific rights over designated data, for defined purposes and durations, with respect to specified data controllers—all while retaining ultimate control.

Relationship to Other Data Intermediary Models

Data Communities need to be understood as a specific type of data intermediary or data institution. While related to concepts like data trusts and data cooperatives, Data Communities need to be specifically defined by their function of exercising the individual data subject rights granted under the UK GDPR on behalf of their members They are distinct from, for example, a data trust that might hold legal rights over data assets themselves, or a data cooperative focused on collective ownership or bargaining. The OECD’s concept of ‘community-based data sharing agreements’ appears conceptually related to the aims of Data Communities.

Potential Benefits of Data Communities

The establishment and effective operation of Data Communities will in my view yield many benefits:

•Empowering Data Subjects: Data intermediaries, including Data Communities, have the potential to empower individuals to exercise their data subject rights more easily. This is particularly relevant for rights like data portability, which are currently under-exercised. The collective exercise of rights can provide greater leverage in the data ecosystem.

•Rebalancing Power Asymmetries: By enabling collective action and representation, Data Communities can help rebalance asymmetries of power between individuals and large data controllers, and between technology companies, government and the public.

•Increasing Public Confidence: Involving people through mechanisms like Data Communities can contribute towards increased public confidence in the use of data. This is crucial given the current low levels of public trust.

•Facilitating Responsible Data Sharing: They can facilitate responsible and straightforward sharing of quality data, potentially enabling data use for wider societal gains or public benefit as specified by the community members. Data communities can enable analysis through data access and sharing, supporting areas like public health, innovation in commercially sensitive environments, quality assurance of data/AI, matching skills to jobs, and achieving Net Zero targets. They can absorb some of the costs and risks associated with data processing activities and provide assurances around data quality. Data communities may also go beyond legal requirements around data protection and apply additional measures to protect against unethical use of data and ensure it is only used for agreed purposes.

•Supporting Collective Action: The Data Communities model allows for collective action on data issues, as seen in the example of UK Uber drivers attempting to establish a data trust (related concept) for collective bargaining purposes. This is a practical application for achieving economic benefit that is difficult for an individual data subject to achieve alone.

•Enhancing Transparency and Accountability: Regulatory requirements can ensure that Data Communities operate transparently and are subject to regulatory oversight.

Key Considerations and Regulatory Framework

Implementing Data Communities effectively requires careful consideration of practical challenges and a robust regulatory framework:

•Establishing and Operating Data Communities: There is a need for practical guidance on how individuals can establish, operate, and join Data Communities. Making complex issues transparent and understandable requires considerable time, resources, and skills.

•Interaction with Data Controllers/Processors: Clear guidance is needed for data controllers and processors on how to respond to requests made by Data Communities exercising rights on behalf of their members. This includes defining “good practice” in engaging with Data Communities

•Transparency and Oversight: The proposed requirement for the Information Commissioner to maintain a public register and establish complaints mechanisms for both data subjects and Data Community controllers is essential for ensuring accountability and addressing potential issues.

•Effective Data Portability: The viability of Data Communities heavily relies on the effective and technically feasible portability of data. Challenges in exercising the right to data portability need to be addressed. There is a need to monitor reasons for refusal of portability requests. Technical infrastructure can enhance interoperability and data portability. Users might prefer controller-to-controller transfer, which should be made simple.

•Ensuring Inclusivity and Uptake: Careful consideration is needed to encourage uptake beyond the most engaged or digitally literate groups. A bottom-up approach relying solely on citizen demand might be skewed. Achieving a viable market requires a sufficient number of participants.

•Avoiding Risks: Mechanisms must be in place to mitigate risks associated with data intermediaries generally, such as distrust, the creation of dominant entities or new data monopolies, conflicts of interest, and increased demands on regulatory oversight.

Crucial Role of Appropriate Legal Frameworks

The identification and clarification of appropriate legal frameworks are fundamental for the effective operation and trustworthiness of Data Communities, regardless of their specific scope. Regulatory and legal opacity and uncertainty are significant barriers for data intermediaries generally.

•Building Trust and Accountability: A clear legal framework is a necessary foundation for building trust and accountability around data intermediation models like Data Communities It ensures that these entities operate transparently and are subject to regulatory oversight.

•Clarifying Roles and Obligations: Legal frameworks need to define the roles and obligations of Data Communities (e.g., whether they act as controllers or processors) and their relationship with data holders, data users, and regulators. This clarity is essential for the legal certainty needed by all parties involved.

•Enabling the Exercise of Rights: we need to clarify explicitly the ability of data subjects to legally mandate a Data Community to exercise their data rights on their behalf and address current legal ambiguities that hinder intermediaries from acting effectively on behalf of an individual.

•Ensuring Responsible Stewardship: Legal frameworks can incorporate requirements for good practice and responsible data management. This should go beyond mere compliance with existing data protection laws and could help ensure data is used only for agreed and ethical purposes.

•Providing Regulatory Oversight and Complaints Mechanisms: There should be a requirement for the Information Commissioner to maintain a public register of Data Communities and establish complaints mechanisms.

•Interfacing with Existing Law: Data Communities need to operate within the existing legal landscape, including comprehensive frameworks like the UK GDPR. The legal framework for Data Communities needs to clearly articulate how they interact with and build upon these existing frameworks.

Conclusion

In summary, Data Communities, represent a promising mechanism for empowering individuals and fostering more responsible data stewardship by enabling collective exercise of data subject rights. This model aligns with the broader goals of increasing participation and rebalancing power in the data landscape. Integrating the Data Community concept into the broader data intermediary landscape, supported by the proposed regulatory measures, is a valuable step towards a more trustworthy and equitable data ecosystem in the UK. Realizing the potential of Data Communities will depend on developing clear practical guidance and ensuring robust regulatory oversight. Addressing challenges related to effective data portability and ensuring inclusive access will be key to their success. Further exploration and piloting of this model, alongside other forms of data intermediaries, should be encouraged and facilitated to understand their full potential and identify contexts where they are most impactful.

The post Empowering Our Communities with Data Intermediaries appeared first on Lord Clement-Jones | Speaker AI and Creative Industries.

Digital Inclusion Action Plan: No One Should Be Left Behind in Digital Britain

Tim Clement-Jones — Sat, 24 May 2025 16:20:15 +0000

I recently responded to a Call for Evidence on the government’s Digital Inclusion Action Plan: First Steps. It represents a tentative first step, but we need transformative action to ensure no one is left behind in our increasingly digital society. As Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Science, Innovation and Technology, I’ve responded to the government with concrete proposals for systemic change.

Digital Access is a Fundamental Right

In modern Britain, digital inclusion isn’t optional – it’s essential for full participation in society. Whether accessing Universal Credit, booking GP appointments, or helping children with homework, being online has become as vital as having running water or electricity. Yet millions remain excluded from our digital society.

The economic case is compelling. Research by CEBR shows £9.48 return for every £1 invested in digital inclusion. The Local Government Association found a 4% increase in economic activity per 10% broadband increase. Digital exclusion deepens inequalities, reduces productivity, and increases pressure on public services.

Beyond the Usual Suspects

While the government identifies five priority groups – low-income households, older people, disabled people, unemployed and young people – this framework needs expansion. Digital exclusion affects social housing tenants, benefits recipients, people with health conditions, single parents, those with English as second language, and geographically isolated communities.

Research by Stockport Homes demonstrates how these characteristics intersect – tenants who don’t use the internet are more likely to be over 55, have disabilities, and rely on pensions, with 30% having no devices at all.

Learning from Success

We have excellent models to build upon. 100% Digital Leeds provides a council-led blueprint focusing on third-sector capacity building. Greater Manchester’s evidence-based approach targets specific demographic needs with affordable connectivity solutions. Digital Unite’s Digital Champions Network offers scalable peer support across multiple settings.

Four Pillars – But We Need More

The government’s four focus areas – skills, tackling poverty, breaking barriers, and building confidence – provide a foundation but need strengthening:

Digital Rights and Citizenship must be added as a fifth pillar. We need comprehensive online safety education, privacy protection frameworks, and digital citizenship understanding.

For Skills, we must establish digital literacy as a statutory right with clear progression pathways integrated into essential public services.

For Data and Device Poverty, internet access should be an essential utility with legal rights to data access, mandatory social tariff provision, and sustainable device recycling infrastructure.

For Breaking Barriers, we need universal design standards, digital “right-of-way” for public services, multi-language support, and guaranteed offline alternatives.

For Building Confidence, comprehensive scam awareness programs, peer learning networks, and addressing cultural barriers are essential.

Practical Solutions Now

Several immediate actions could transform digital inclusion:

Auto-enrollment for social tariffs through DWP systems would ensure eligible households automatically receive affordable connectivity
VAT reform on broadband – using the 15% differential to create a social inclusion fund
National device donation scheme – government departments and businesses donating refurbished equipment
Digital champions in every community – trained volunteers providing local support
Emergency connectivity support – for those in crisis situations

Sustainable Funding Essential

The Digital Inclusion Innovation Fund needs minimum 3-5 year commitments, ring-fenced allocation for deprived areas, and support for both grassroots innovation and proven programs. We should remove early termination charges for benefits recipients and simplify social tariff applications.

Working Together

Success requires partnership across government, industry, charities and communities. We need a National Digital Inclusion Forum, regional partnerships, and statutory requirements for public service digital access. Employers must actively promote digital upskilling – as FutureDotNow argues, businesses across all sectors need incentives to train their workforce in essential digital skills.

The Cost of Inaction

Digital exclusion isn’t just about technology – it’s about social justice. Every day offline means missed opportunities for education, employment, healthcare, and social connection. The pandemic showed us the devastating impact of digital exclusion. We cannot return to treating it as an afterthought.

Time for Transformation

The government’s plan provides a foundation, but we need greater ambition and systemic change. By treating digital inclusion as fundamental infrastructure backed by appropriate resources and statutory requirements, we can ensure no one is left behind.

Change starts with ideas and is achieved by actions. Digital inclusion is one of the defining challenges of our time. Together, we can build a digitally inclusive Britain where everyone has the skills, access, and confidence to thrive in our digital world.

The post Digital Inclusion Action Plan: No One Should Be Left Behind in Digital Britain appeared first on Lord Clement-Jones | Speaker AI and Creative Industries.

Meet your new Chair, Lord Clement-Jones

Tim Clement-Jones — Sat, 24 May 2025 15:49:00 +0000

In March I became the Chair of the Board of the the Author’s Licensing Collecting Society which has over 125,000 members comprising a great range of writers and authors. This is the interview I gave to their weekly newsletter to mark the event.

22 May 2025

In March, Lord Clement-Jones was appointed Chair of the ALCS Board. We sat down with him to discuss his extensive background, the use of creators’ works by AI companies, and his focus for ALCS in the coming years.

You’ve had a fascinating and varied career, can you try to summarise your background?

I’ve had somewhat of a dual career. I started off as a lawyer. At the same time, I became very active within the Liberals, so I was heavily involved in legal issues within politics as well as in the various businesses I worked at, such as London Weekend Television, Grand Met and Kingfisher, the big retailer. In politics, I was Chair of the Liberal Party, then Treasurer of the Liberal Democrats.

I came into the House of Lords in 1999 because I was very close to Paddy Ashdown. I was Chair of his campaign and got him elected as party leader. I joined DLA Piper, who, strangely enough, are our lawyers at ALCS. They do a lot of work around copyright, IP and technology. I’m still a consultant there on AI regulation and policy. I’ve been very lucky because I’ve been able to indulge the things I want to do in politics, but I’ve also had a fulfilling series of jobs.

What would you say was your proudest achievement in politics?

I think it’s persuading people to do things that I passionately believe are important. I’ve had two Private Members’ Bills pass through the House. The first was an advertising bill that banned tobacco advertising in Formula One and various other sports. The second was the Live Music Act, which came in 2012. This made it far easier for venues like pubs to host live music, which has had a considerable impact on young musicians who are just starting out.

What drew you to ALCS and why now?

I think it’s a real watershed moment for ALCS. Not that there’s an existential issue, the income from the Copyright Licensing Agency remains strong, but we do need to make sure that our authors benefit in the age of AI and don’t see their labour further devalued or even replaced by machines.

The most pressing issue at the moment is the training of models using creators’ works without recognition, consent or compensation. A lot of scraping has already taken place, and the train is already halfway out of the station. But we also need to consider the outputs. If your work is imitated by AI, you’re not going to see the full benefits of your work and original creation.

The wonderful thing is that ALCS has very strong relationships, not just in the UK but also internationally. We’ve got an active and passionate membership, as well as great allies across the creative sector, including visual artists, journalists, and screenwriters. Working together across these industries will be hugely important to securing a positive outcome for creators.

It seems like a real fork in the road moment for AI. What do you think is at stake if we, as a society, get this wrong?

Without the right approach, we could see a gradual erosion of copyright. Some Large Language Model developers, like OpenAI, don’t appear to believe in copyright. They’ve been aided and abetted by groups like the Tony Blair Institute who argue there shouldn’t be any copyright protection for training material. They take the extreme position of no protections at all, not even a text and data mining exception with an opt-out.

The Government is doing impact assessments and so on, but most people are pretty clear there’s only one real solution, which is a licensing solution. Therefore, it’s up to us and our partners to propose a simple collective licensing system that makes it easy for model developers to comply.

One idea is to resurrect the Copyright Hub, an idea proposed by Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property in 2012 but never properly utilised. It would ensure all rights metadata are under one roof, making it simple and easy for those seeking this data to obtain it legally. I’d also personally like to see the Government go further and offer tax breaks for using copyright-licensed material, which would provide further incentive to obtain a licence and help ensure that creators are paid for their work.

This issue seems to have struck a chord with creatives, from the Make It Fair campaign to protests outside Meta. Why do you think that is?

I think many are understandably afraid. Authors are in touch with the world, and ever since ChatGPT burst on the scene in November 2022, AI has been everywhere, you can’t open a newspaper without seeing something about it. I speak on these issues and keeping up with developments is incredibly tricky. There’s so much happening all the time, at an incredible pace. This fast-moving world is disorienting. And if it could affect your livelihood, of course you’re going to sit up and take notice.

Authors aren’t alone, many professionals like lawyers, accountants and architects are also deeply worried about AI. But for authors it’s worse. If copyright is eroded, their livelihoods are completely vulnerable. And yet there has been virtually no reassurance from Government.

And are you optimistic that this response we’ve seen from creators will persuade the Government to rethink their approach?

Yes, I am, because of the sheer weight of the push back we have seen. I always thought backbench MPs getting flak from their constituents would be crucial, and that’s what we have seen. Backbench Labour MPs are getting a lot of letters on this, and ministers are too. The government has already rowed back to a large extent and it’s not clear now where they stand.

They initially said their preferred solution was an exception with an opt-out. After more than 13,000 consultation responses, which is absolutely unheard of, they no longer sound like they’re committed to it. They haven’t yet said so publicly in a clear way, and there’s still a long way to go, but they’re definitely on far shakier ground than when the consultation was launched.

Last year, you co-authored a book on this subject, Living with the Algorithm. Can you tell us a bit about some of the ideas you explore in it?

For me, it’s all about mitigating risk. There are more immediate risks like bias and all the other issues we’ve talked about, but we urgently need to regulate AI before artificial general intelligence arrives, because by the time it does, it may be too late to control. We need to make sure model developers have adequate frameworks and guardrails in place. You don’t want to let something loose that may not have humanity’s best interests at heart.

If you give me a vote, I’m on the side of the humans. AI is useful, I use it every week, as many of us now do. But I don’t think we should simply lie back and say, “OK, AI is here and there’s nothing we can do.” We have to keep pushing the Government to come up with better and more robust solutions than those they are currently proposing.

Beyond AI, what should ALCS focus on over the next few years?

We need to get out and about, whether that’s me or Board members or the Executive. Being visible to members is vitally important. I know we have a number of events with members across the country planned for this year, and I’d like to see that continue.

We also need to maintain strong financial controls. Keeping our overheads limited so the vast majority of income goes to members is vital. The irony is that AI and other technologies will be important here too, in helping to streamline some of the increasingly complex processes of collecting and distributing royalties at this scale. We’re already running projects within the organisation that I think will significantly improve our efficiency.

What message would you give to members who are feeling concerned about their rights and livelihoods?

If anyone can sort this out, we can. We represent more than 125,000 writer members, so they are not alone. There are thousands of like-minded people beside them – scriptwriters, novelists, non-fiction writers. Having a dedicated organisation working on their behalf can be a huge advantage. It’s about using our contacts, our knowledge, our influence to secure the best possible terms on their behalf. These coming years will be vitally important, and we will always put the interests of our members first.

What’s a book you’ve read recently that stuck with you?

I’m a dull creature, I try to read a book a week. Recently, I read a book about Meta called Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams. It’s essentially a whistle-blowing book about the unethical way that Meta is being run, it’s revealing and horrifying. She had worked there and exposes the very cynical management style from Zuckerberg and Sandberg, and how Meta has dealt with Governments. It really makes you worry about big tech and reinforces my belief that we need to introduce far more robust regulation.

How do you typically unwind away from your busy work schedule?

I always try see the bluebells each Spring. Last weekend, my wife and I went just beyond Greater London to a bluebell wood which was fantastic. We like to travel when we can. When Parliament is in recess, we try to get away for a few days, I just got back from Amsterdam. Before that, we went to Córdoba in the February recess. I try to only focus on whatever books I’ve brought, even though I often fail and still end up dealing with emails! But by and large, that’s how we keep sane.

The post Meet your new Chair, Lord Clement-Jones appeared first on Lord Clement-Jones | Speaker AI and Creative Industries.

Lord C-J: We need more women in the STEM Workforce

Tim Clement-Jones — Sat, 08 Mar 2025 10:36:41 +0000

The House of Lords recently celebrated International Women’s Day with a debate to “take note of International Women’s Day and the steps being taken to promote women’s participation and leadership in science and technology in the UK and internationally”

This is what I said in the debate:

It is a great privilege to take part in this debate. We have heard a brilliant and insightful set of maiden speeches today. I particularly valued the weight of the Welsh and Scottish representation here. It is not always present in the force that it should be. I declare an interest as chair of Queen Mary University, which, relevant to this debate, has a very distinguished biomedical engineer at the helm of our School of Engineering and Materials Science, Professor Hazel Screen. I envy the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for having an engineer daughter to consult with on his speech today. I also thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her introduction today and for moving the Motion. I congratulate her on her new appointment. I do wonder how many hours in the day there are, as I know the weight of her current post.

I was chair of the House of Lords Artificial Intelligence Committee, whose 2018 findings revealed a deeply troubling picture. Globally, over three-quarters of AI and data science professionals were male. In the UK, women’s representation was even lower at just 20%. Seven years later, despite numerous initiatives, the needle has barely moved. I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, is angry—we all should be. This is not just about fairness, crucial though that may be. This is not to undervalue the importance of the humanities and the arts. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, and others, it is about the quality and safety of the AI systems being developed.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said, when teams lack diversity, the technology they create reflects those limitations. We are in danger of building tomorrow’s world with yesterday’s biases. The implications are profound—from facial recognition systems that fail to properly identify women and ethnic minorities to recruitment algorithms that perpetuate gender bias or medical diagnostic systems trained predominantly on male data, as well as the proliferation of deepfake pornography, misogyny, threats of violence and trolling online, as illustrated by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hazarika, Lady O’Grady and Lady Owen.

The wider picture of STEM is equally concerning. As we have heard, women comprise only 29% of the UK’s tech workforce. In engineering and technology apprenticeships, women account for just 17% of starts. Only 8.5% of active spin-outs had all-female founding teams, and just 16% had mixed founding teams. At leadership level, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said, women make up a mere 6% of STEM leaders. These statistics represent not just inequality but a massive waste of talent at a time when these skills are crucial to our economic future and medical research, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, pointed out.

The digital divide compounds these challenges. Women are 40% less likely than men to adopt technologies and there is a striking gap of 21 percentage points between junior men and women in adopting AI tools at work. This creates a vicious cycle—underrepresentation leads to technology designed without women’s input, which in turn makes technology less accessible to women, as the Minister said.

We have seen some laudable initiatives. The previous Government’s investment in AI and data science conversion degrees with scholarships for underrepresented groups was welcome. Organisations such as WISE, the Tech Talent Charter, which sadly closed down last year, and Women in AI have done valuable work. The Tech She Can charter, with more than 170 companies committed to increasing women in technology roles, shows industry recognition of the problem.

We must ask why, despite all these efforts, progress is so slow. The education pipeline remains a critical challenge and, although we have seen some improvement, with an almost 30% increase in girls starting STEM A-levels between 2009 and 2020, this has not translated into proportional workforce representation. Something is clearly going wrong in the transition from education to career and in career progression thereafter.

The persistence of the leaky pipeline in STEM education and careers, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, remains deeply concerning. While we see encouraging numbers of young women taking STEM A-levels and entering undergraduate programmes, the sharp decline at postgraduate level and into academic careers suggests systemic issues beyond mere time lag effects. I was very interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, said about the culture in schools.

It is particularly striking that many capable female students report never having considered advanced STEM careers, not because of active discouragement but because they simply had not envisioned themselves in these roles. I was very interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, set out a number of really interesting suggestions for action in this area. I would suggest another few areas where government action could make a real difference.

First, we need a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of current initiatives. While individual programmes show promise, they often operate in silos. We need a coherent national strategy that co-ordinates efforts across education, industry and government. This should include early intervention in schools, support through higher education and workplace initiatives.

Secondly, we should consider mandatory reporting on gender diversity in STEM roles for larger companies, similar to gender pay gap reporting. What gets measured gets managed. This would provide crucial data to inform policy and hold organisations accountable. Companies should report not just on overall numbers but on recruitment, retention and progression.

Thirdly, we need targeted support for critical transition points, particularly in returning to STEM careers after career breaks. What happened to the pilot returners programme in the Midlands and the north of England, known as STEM ReCharge? This should include expanded training opportunities, flexible working arrangements and structured return-to-work programmes.

Fourthly, we must address the persistent barriers in workplace culture. This means tackling unconscious bias, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, ensuring fair promotion processes and creating inclusive environments. The Government should lead by example in their own STEM workforce and require diversity initiatives as part of public procurement, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady.

Fifthly, we need specific focus on emerging technologies. With AI and quantum computing shaping our future, we cannot afford to repeat past patterns of exclusion. This means ensuring women’s participation in this field from the ground up.

More fundamentally, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and many others in this debate, we need to address the cultural barriers that persist in STEM fields. We should celebrate the prominent women in STEM, as we were asked to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Moyo and Lady Bottomley, but the very fact that we can name all these individuals—as role models who show what is possible—and their very exceptionalism, highlights the systemic problem we must address. That surely is self-evident.

This underscores the critical importance of visible role models and intentional mentorship. We need to move beyond passive representation to active engagement, ensuring that young women not only see themselves succeeding in STEM fields but are actively encouraged to see themselves in these roles. It is not just about technical skills; it is about creating an environment where girls see themselves as natural problem-solvers and innovators. Too often, this fundamental confidence-building is missing from young girls’ experiences, creating invisible barriers long before career choices come into play.

Time is short, but I want to mention the international dimension, which was raised particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Loomba and Lord McConnell. Our leadership in science and technology gives us both the opportunity and the responsibility to set global standards for inclusion. In this context, the announced cuts to the UK aid budget cast a huge and unwanted shadow over STEM development globally, particularly for women and girls. Are the Government still committed to the international women and girls strategy of 2023-30, launched only two years ago on International Women’s Day? It set important goals. Given the Government’s commitment to STEM education and gender equality, will efforts be made to protect these areas from the worst impacts of these cuts?

Looking ahead in the UK, we see that the stakes could not be higher. AI and other emerging technologies will reshape our society. If women remain underrepresented in the development of such technologies, we risk embedding gender bias into the architecture of our digital future. This is not just about equality; it is about ensuring that our technological development serves our entire society and not just half of it.

The post Lord C-J: We need more women in the STEM Workforce appeared first on Lord Clement-Jones | Speaker AI and Creative Industries.