Artificial Intelligence (Regulation and Employment Rights) Bill

Workplace AI Risk Assessments

1. A description of the proposed artificial intelligence system,
2. A description of the relevant value chain,
3. The date from which it is proposed that the system will be used in high-risk decision-making,
4. The categories of high-risk decision which it is proposed the system will take or contribute to,
5. The proposed purpose or aim in using the system,
6. The logic which will underpin the proposed decision-making,
7. The proposed data that will be processed by the system in relation to high-risk decision-making,
8. The way in which the personal data of employees, workers or jobseekers will influence the proposed decisions,
1. A description of how it is proposed to monitor the artificial intelligence system for accuracy, including how that metric will be defined, when high-risk decision-making takes place,
10. A description of how it is proposed to monitor the artificial intelligence system for the risks to the rights of workers, employees or jobseekers contained in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the UK General Data Protection Regulation,
11. An assessment of the risks to the rights of workers, employees or jobseekers contained in the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the UK General Data Protection Regulation, and
12. The measures to be taken with a view to eliminating the risks.

1. the impact of the high-risk decision-making that has taken place on the protected characteristics set out in sections 4 to 12 of the Equality Act 2010 including the extent to which inaccurate decisions are made by the artificial intelligence system,
2. how often decisions have been modified pursuant to section 18, and
3. the extent to which there have been any incidents in which the high-risk decision-making has caused harm in the workplace.

1. trade associations,
2. trade unions,
3. the Equality and Human Rights Commission,
4. the Information Commissioner's Office, and
5. persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of workers.

Direct consultation with employees and workers

1. High-risk decision-making shall not take place unless, at least one month before the high-risk decision-making takes place, the employer has taken into account the concerns and interests of workers or employees who are or may be affected by it.
2. In this Act, the concerns and interests of workers and employees, include all legitimate concerns and interests, including –
   1. Understanding and minimizing the deployment of detrimental high-risk artificial intelligence systems,
   2. The impact or potential impact of artificial intelligence systems upon workers and employees in relation to their well-being, and
   3. The potential for any diminution or other adverse effect on the degree of human connection with their employer.
3. In order to take into account, the concerns and interests of employees or workers pursuant to subsection (1) employers shall –
   1. Complete a WAIRA in accordance with section 14,
   2. Share that WAIRA with their employees and workers,
   3. Listen to the concerns and interests of their employees and workers in relation to the WAIRA, and
   4. Discuss how any adverse aspects identified in the WAIRA can be removed or modified.
4. Once high-risk decision-making starts, the process in subsection (3) must be repeated every 12 months for as long as decision-making continues.
5. The Secretary of State shall by order provide guidance as to the process identified in subsection (3), and how account is to be given to such guidance.
6. Such guidance may provide for different ways for employers to proceed for different classes of employment, and for different levels of risk.
7. Before preparing guidance under subsection (5), the Secretary of State shall consult with such of the following as he considers appropriate—
   1. trade associations,
   2. trade unions, and
   3. persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of workers.

Register of artificial intelligence systems used for high-risk decision- making

1. To the extent that it is reasonably practicable to do so, employers shall establish and maintain a register of information about the artificial intelligence systems used in high-risk decision-making, in accordance with the provisions of this section.
2. The information contained in the register must be available to workers, employees, and jobseekers, in a readily accessible format.
3. The information in the register must identify, in so far as it contributes to high-risk decision-making -
   1. Each artificial intelligence system in use,
   2. The date that the use commenced and when the use ended,
   3. The categories of high-risk decision-making the system took or contributed to,
   4. The purpose or aim in using the system,
   5. The type or category of data processed by the system, and
   6. The existence and date of any WAIRA.
4. The information in relation to the use of an artificial intelligence system must be set out in the register within three months of the day on which the system is first used.
5. The register must be kept up to date as changes to the artificial intelligence system occur, and the date of such changes must be recorded in the register within three months.
6. The Secretary of State may make regulations by order as to -
   1. what is a readily accessible format,
   2. the form which a register must take,
   3. the detail of the information to be set out in the register, and
   4. what is reasonably practical,

   and such regulations may make different provision for different circumstances.

Right to personalised explanations for a high-risk decision

1. On request, made by an employee, worker, or jobseeker (A), in compliance with this section, an employer must provide an explanation of any high-risk decision which is, or might reasonably be expected to be to the detriment of A.
2. The explanation must -
   1. be readily understandable,
   2. address how the decision affects the worker, employee, or jobseeker personally,
   3. be in writing in a readily accessible format, and
   4. be free of charge.
3. The obligation in subsection (1) arises only if A makes a request to the employer’s nominated contact in writing within 3 months of the date on which they become aware that a high-risk decision has been made, or such longer period as is agreed between the parties or is otherwise just and equitable.
4. The explanation shall be provided within 28 days of a written request from A or such other period as is agreed between the parties or is otherwise just and equitable.
5. Subsection (1) does not apply, if -
   1. It is not reasonably practicable for the employer to provide an explanation,
   2. It relates to a decision which has already been personally reconsidered by the employer,
   3. It duplicates a request which the employer has already properly personally reconsidered in relation to A within the last 3 months, or
   4. It is vexatious or excessive.
6. Whether a request is vexatious or excessive shall be determined having regard to the circumstances of the request, including (so far as relevant)—
   1. The extent to which the request repeats a previous request of a similar nature, for which the employer has already provided an explanation.
   2. How long ago any previous request(s) were made, and
   3. Whether the request overlaps with other requests made by the employee or worker to the employer.
7. In any proceedings where there is an issue as to whether a request is vexatious or excessive, it is for the employer to show that it is.
8. An employer’s nominated contact is such person, as is nominated and competent to provide an explanation for the purposes of this section, or in default of such nomination the most senior person within the employer.
9. An employer may nominate the contact by any means, provided that the name and address and contact details of that person are readily available to all its employees, workers, or jobseekers.
10. The Secretary of State may make regulations by order as to -

    and such regulations may make different provision for different circumstances.

    1. What is reasonably practical,
    2. The contents of an explanation, and
    3. What is an acceptable accessible format for an explanation.

Right to human reconsideration of a high-risk decision

1. Subject to subsection (2), on request made by an employee, worker, or jobseeker (A), in compliance with this section, an employer shall undertake a personal reconsideration, by a competent agent, of any high-risk decision which is, or might reasonably be expected to be, to the detriment of A.
2. The obligation in subsection (1) arises only if A makes a request to the employer’s competent agent in writing within 6 months of the date on which they become aware that a high-risk decision has been made, or such longer period as is agreed between the parties or is otherwise just and equitable.
3. An employer’s competent agent is such person, as is competent to act for the purpose of this section in accordance with subsection (5), and who is nominated to act for the purposes of this section, or in default of such person the most senior person within the employer.
4. An employer may nominate the competent agent by any means, provided that the name and address and contact details of that person are readily available to all its employees, workers, or jobseekers.
5. A person is competent to act as an agent for the purpose of this section only if they are -
   1. suitably trained,
   2. designated by the employer to conduct such reconsiderations,
   3. able to discuss and clarify the facts, circumstances and reasons that led to or relating to high-risk decision, to which A has been subject,
   4. able to discuss and clarify the facts, circumstances and reasons that led to or relating to high-risk decision, to which A has been subject, and
   5. able to alter that decision.
6. The reconsideration by a competent agent must take place, and be notified to A in writing, within 28 days or such other reasonable period as is agreed between the parties or is otherwise just and equitable.
7. The employer may authorise the competent agent to delegate the task of reconsideration, provided that the person to whom the function is delegated also satisfies the requirements in subsection (5).
8. Subsection (1) does not apply if, either,
   1. It is not reasonably practicable for the employer to provide an explanation,
   2. It duplicates a request which the employer has already properly personally reconsidered in relation to A within the last 3 months, or
   3. It is vexatious or excessive.
9. Whether a request is vexatious or excessive must be determined having regard to the circumstances of the request, including (so far as relevant)—
   1. The extent to which the request repeats a previous request of a similar nature, for which the employer has already provided an explanation,
   2. How long ago any previous request was made, and
   3. Whether the request overlaps with other requests made by the employee or worker to the employer.
10. In any proceedings where there is an issue as to whether a request is vexatious or excessive, it is for the employer to show that it is.
11. The Secretary of State may make regulations by order as to -
    1. What is reasonably practicable,
    2. The training that is necessary,
    3. The nomination of a contact, and
    4. The form of the reconsideration,

    and such regulations may make different provision for different circumstances.

Complaint to an employment tribunal

1. A worker, employee, or jobseeker, who is personally affected may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that their employer has failed to comply with the rights and obligations set out in sections 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18.
2. On a complaint under this section, it is for the employer to show that it has complied with its obligation under sections 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18.
3. An employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section after the end of –
   1. The period of 6 months beginning with the date of the failure to which the complaint relates, or
   2. Such other period as the employment tribunal considers just and equitable.
4. Section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996 (extension of the time limits to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings) applies for the purposes of subsection (3)(a).
5. For the purposes of subsection (3), a failure shall be taken to have occurred on the day after the last date by which an employer could have complied fully with an obligation in section 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18.
6. For the purposes of subsection (3), in deciding what is just and equitable, the employment tribunal shall take into account-
   1. Any steps taken by a trade union or an employee, worker or jobseeker, to attempt to persuade an employer to comply with sections 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18 without recourse to litigation, and
   2. the extent to which the employer’s failure was observable and transparent.

Remedy

1. Where an employment tribunal finds a complaint under sections 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18 well-founded, the tribunal may –
   1. make a declaration to that effect,
   2. make an award of compensation to be paid to the worker, employee, or jobseeker, in respect of the act or failure to act to which the complaint relates, and
   3. make a recommendation in accordance with Part 11 to the employer as to the steps necessary to remedy the breach of this Act and to ensure that there is no repetition (a breach of which will attract additional compensation).
2. The award of compensation may include compensation for the injury to the feelings of the worker, employee, or jobseeker.
3. The amount of compensation pursuant to subsection (1)(b) shall be such as the employment tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard to the infringement to which the complaint relates but shall not exceed a maximum sum of £xx.
4. An award of compensation pursuant to subsection (1)(b) will not prevent the worker, employee, or jobseeker from seeking a remedy for the infringement of their rights and entitlements under other legislation, but the principle of no double recovery for the same loss shall apply.
5. An award of compensation pursuant to subsection (1)(c) shall be such as the employment tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard to the infringement to which the complaint relates but shall not exceed a maximum as set out in section 157(5) in the Data Protection Act 2018.
6. The Secretary of State shall make regulations by order to set the initial maximum compensation and for a mechanism to update the maximum sum in subsection (3) on annual basis after consultation with such employer and employee organisations as he considers appropriate.