My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this group of amendments. It is time to talk technology. Before going into the specifics of the amendments, I will set out the overarching reasons for this group.
As we have heard, the SBC does extremely good work, but the resources that she currently has available are chronically insufficient for the task that is being asked of her. The Minister said in a previous response that discussions are already happening around staffing and resource. That is good, and we wait to see the outcome, but what is critical in those discussions is the question of the right mix of staffing and technologies. Even if the resource is put in, without the right mix of technologies and staffing the SBC will not have any chance whatever of optimising her task when it comes to what the Bill requires of her.
Another reason for these amendments is the Government’s current posture when it comes to artificial intelligence. This may be up for change, and I certainly hope it is; the announcement of an AI Minister to be in Cabinet can be only a positive thing. Currently, however, the Government’s stance on AI is not to bring forward cross-sector AI legislation. This is not a party-political point; the previous Government took the same position. What is said is that the Government will take a domain-specific approach when it comes to artificial intelligence. So here we are: we have a domain. It seems right, appropriate and beneficial to bring forward AI amendments specific to commercial payments.
Amendment 73 would introduce a digital access pathway into the services of the SBC. It should be seen with amendments in the previous group. It is critically important to have digital access, but this must be seen with accessibility of the digital tools themselves while providing non-digital alternatives. Equally, a digital access pathway would enable the commissioner to better perform her tasks, and would enable greater efficiency and effectiveness for small businesses to get involved with the processes as and when they need to do so.
On AI, it is critical that the commissioner has AI resources at her disposal, but in that we need to look at algorithmic accountability and all the concepts around transparency, bias and an ethical approach. If we could suggest a principles-based, outcomes-focused and input-understood approach to AI, that would put the commissioner in the right space, and algorithmic accountability is certainly a key part of that.
Perhaps the most important amendment in this group when it comes to the service of the commissioner is that around an AI-assisted payment monitoring tool. That could go much broader than any staffing cohort could possibly achieve, and it would make use of all the data that is currently out there, which could be put alongside the payments data that the commissioner herself has. Not only would it drive greater efficiency but it would enable the commissioner to get into areas that would otherwise be unavailable to her and her staff, no matter how big that staffing team was.
I have talked throughout today about the amount of data that the commissioner currently has, and the extraordinary amount of data that she will have as a consequence of the provisions in the Bill. So it seems right to have an open payment data register—with the right principles set around it, obviously: the principles of privacy, anonymity and so forth. That data source would provide a rich base, not just for researchers but for anyone to see what is happening from whichever angle they want to take in the payments landscape. It needs to be made available and put into a framework. It would have research benefits, as I say, but that would drive economic benefits. It could potentially bring forward fintech tools and products as a consequence of that, all adding economic benefit as a consequence of data that otherwise would have its primary use but then would just largely sit there, not being of any benefit to anyone.
The final amendment I shall mention is that around cyber and post-quantum cryptography. Very much like the amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, it may be that this is not the time for the commissioner or indeed broader business to consider PQC and have to adopt approaches and postures right now on the passage of the Bill. However, we should put a potential date in there so that at least the commissioner, broader government and all businesses consider what is happening in terms of the approaching Q day, when existing cryptography will be insufficient for the might of quantum that it will face. It seems reasonable, sensible, and the right level of forward look to have a consideration of cyber and indeed PQC in our discussions at this stage of the Bill.
Taken together, these amendments would bring the right level of technology: purpose focused—not technology for technology’s sake, not a silver bullet in search of something where it could potentially be of some use, but clearly focused technologies—for the benefit of the commissioner, and through that, the benefits not least to small and micro-businesses. I look forward to the debate, and I beg to move.