TL;DR

The House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee issued a call for evidence on 22 October for the second phase of its inquiry into the UK and the multilateral system. This phase is about AI: how Britain can use international institutions to influence the technology’s global governance, and where it should put its diplomatic effort. The deadline for written submissions is 5pm on 26 November.

What the committee will examine

The inquiry’s first phase looked at broad trends across multilateral bodies and the options they leave Britain. Phase two narrows to AI, against what the committee calls an increasingly complex international backdrop.

Committee chair Lord Robertson of Port Ellen set out three questions. Peers want to know which parts of AI are best handled through cooperation between countries, whether today’s institutions are up to the job, and how Britain might bring its expertise and clout to bear on whatever arrangements emerge. He described global AI governance as “one of the most pressing international challenges of our time”.

He also signalled the committee expects disagreement: “We want to understand where agreement is possible, where divisions are likely to persist and how the UK can help develop approaches to global AI governance.”

Context

Earlier this month the Commons BIST Committee opened a standing inquiry into AI safety and governance. The Lords exercise looks outward, at the international forums where cross-border rules might be agreed.

The timing fits a wider debate about whether global summits can deliver binding rules at all. Our analysis this week, If AI rules go regional, which bloc is Britain in?, examines the argument that regional coalitions are the more realistic route, and what that leaves open for the UK.

Looking forward

Organisations with a view on international AI standards, safety testing or cross-border regulation have about five weeks to respond. In our view, the most useful submissions will be specific about which multilateral bodies the UK should prioritise, since the committee has explicitly asked how the country should “prioritise its resources and engagement”, and a report recommending everything at once would help no one.