I move amendment No. 58: In page 34, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: "(5) In making a determination under subsection (4) , the market surveillance authority shall have due regard for the potential impact of this testing on the fundamental rights of those exposed to the high risk system, with particular regard to the fundamental rights of vulnerable persons.".

I move amendment No. 59: In page 34, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: "(5) In making a determination under subsection (4), the market surveillance authority shall have due regard for the potential impact of this testing on— (a) climate; (b) environmental protection; (c) biodiversity, and; (d) our obligations under the Paris agreement.".

I move amendment No. 60: In page 34, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: "(6) The Minister, in consultation with the Office, shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act and annually thereafter, undertake and publish an ethical review of the operation of this section and, following such a review, may make regulations in relation to the ethical operation of this section.".

I move amendment No. 61: In page 35, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following: "(c) inform the provider or prospective provider that the proposal shall come into provisional effect immediately unless otherwise specified in the notice provided to the provider or prospective provider, and".

I move amendment No. 62: In page 35, line 12, after "into" to insert "full".

I move amendment No. 63: In page 35, line 12, to delete "14 working days" and substitute "as soon as is practicable and no later than 7 days".

I move amendment No. 64: In page 35, line 23, after “into” to insert “full”.

I move amendment No. 65: In page 35, line 25, after “into” to insert “full”.

I move amendment No. 65 a : In page 37, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “CHAPTER 6 Policy coherence Report on policy coherence 53. The Minister shall publish, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, a report on policy coherence by Government departments, on the implementation of the Artificial Intelligence Regulation.”. This is around policy coherence and reporting of same. Amendment No.65 a calls for a report that looks at the coherence in the implementation of the AI regulation across vario…

Can I confirm that we are speaking to amendments Nos. 65 a , 68 and 69 as a grouping?

That is fine. The screen is wrong. I was just checking against the screen, which states that amendment Nos. 68 and 69 are included.

I move amendment No. 67: In page 38, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “(3) A relevant market surveillance authority shall ensure that any affected person subject to a decision which is taken by the deployer on the basis of the output from a high-risk AI system, and which produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects that person in a way that they consider to have an adverse impact on their health, safety or fundamental rights shall be able to obtain from the deployer clear and meaningfu…

I move amendment No. 68: In page 38, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(2) Should a request be authorised under subsection (1) , the completion of necessary conformity assessment procedures shall be undertaken without undue delay.”. This section provides for derogations for conformity assessment procedures to take place. The article in the EU AI Act states that this is to provide time for the assessment to happen, so it should then happen as soon as possible. We need to include the wording "undue d…

I move amendment No. 69: In page 38, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(2) Should a request be authorised under subsection (1) , a conformity assessment, in accordance with Article 43, shall be undertaken without undue delay.”.

I move amendment No. 70: In page 40, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “(3) Should the Office be the subject of the complaint in question, the Office shall ensure its assessment under subsection (2) is conducted by an independent person appointed by the Office.”. As a regulator, complaints against the office should be dealt with independently. This section deals with complaints with market surveillance authorities. If the complaint is about the office, it should not investigate itself. That feels li…

Under the current process, if there is a complaint against the AI office, it will still investigate itself under the current legislation. Is that correct?

For clarity, the AI office normally handles complaints about other organisations such as social media companies but were I to make a complaint about a decision made by the office, who would handle that complaint? What is the process behind that? The Minister of State may have said it and I might have missed it but in simple terms, who would be responsible under this legislation for that complaint?

I understand that but the Bill states it is the office that will be handling that complaint. I believe the Bill states that this is the case. Certainly, my reading and interpretation of the Bill is that the AI office will be responsible for a complaint concerning its own actions. The Bill says the office will handle these complaints and that is where our concern lies. If that is the case, it is bad governance. If the Minister of State is saying that this is actively not the case, I will take that, go back and read …

I will press it.

I move amendment No. 71: In page 40, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “(3) Should the Office be the subject of a complaint under this section, any assessment under subsection (2) shall be conducted by an independent person appointed by the Board.”.