AI Systems: Risks

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, for giving us this valuable opportunity today. When, within our lifetimes, we experienced the introduction of the world wide web and the internet, we could see the opportunities that that technology brought—but it also brought harms, something we have learned far too late to deal with. We debate almost every week in the Chamber how we are going to deal with those harms. If intelligence is about anything, it is about learning from that past experience and using that knowledge to avoid repeating the mistakes with AI. It is not Luddite to express the concerns that have prompted this debate today on the safety and development of AI. I believe we are already behind the curve.

I am not an expert on this subject but, as an older person, I have concern for future generations, not just in my own family but in this country and the world, and that is not an exaggeration. It is not just on a domestic basis that we see this; it is interesting that we have seen some of those organisations that one might think have a vested interest already expressing their concern. We have received a briefing for this debate from the Institution of Engineering and Technology, and it is interesting that it should say:

“AI safety and the assessment of risk must go beyond the physical, to look at financial, societal, reputational and risks to mental health, amongst other harms”.


If that is what industry is telling us the potential harms are, we should already know how we are going to control it.

I hope that today’s debate will ensure that, when the Minister responds, he will give us some information not only about what the Government are intending but about what timescale the Government are working to, because clearly industry also thinks that we are behind the curve. The institution also talks about standards and transparency, and says:

“Industry standards should not only aim to be met but exceeded”.


How rare is it for us ever in this House to hear industry say on regulation that we should exceed the norm? From what we have already heard in this debate, there is a clear identity as to why we should do that.