Artificial Intelligence: Impact on Human Relationships and Society

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Friday 5th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the most reverend Primate for securing this debate on a matter that goes to the heart of what kind of society we wish to be and what kind of humanity we wish to embody. Many of my points have already been made by noble Lords across the House. I shall none the less repeat some of them as they warrant repetition.

Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant prospect. It is reshaping our economy, our public life and how we relate to one another, at a speed that our institutions, our laws and our moral frameworks struggle to match. As other noble Lords have pointed out, there is much to welcome—advances in medicine, scientific discovery, productivity and the potential for better public services—but there is also much that should give us pause.

This is not, at its core, a debate about technology; it is a debate about power—who holds it, how it is exercised and whether human beings remain AI’s authors or become, by degrees, its subjects. The concentration of data and computational capacity in the hands of a small number of corporations is not a technical detail; it is a political fact, with consequences for sovereignty, democratic accountability and the rights of ordinary citizens, who have little influence over how these systems are designed or deployed. The question before us is not whether artificial intelligence will continue to advance. It will. The question is whether democratic societies will exercise meaningful control over how it shapes our lives or whether we drift into a future increasingly governed by systems that few understand and fewer still can challenge.

This question bears particular weight on the young. As has already been said, we hear from students and graduates who are uncertain about the future for which they have prepared. Job offers are being withdrawn, entry-level roles are disappearing and career pathways are becoming less clear. What assessment have the Government made of AI’s impact on graduate employment and social mobility? How will they ensure that the gains from this technology are shared rather than concentrated? Progress that excludes a generation is not progress at all.

It is sometimes argued that innovation should simply be allowed to take its course and that markets will determine the best outcome. However, markets do not safeguard human dignity, uphold democratic values or distribute benefits fairly. These are matters of governance and political judgment. To abdicate that responsibility in the name of competitiveness would be a serious failure of duty.

Our democratic life is also at risk, in ways that we are only beginning to understand. AI systems increasingly shape what people read, hear and believe. They influence public debate, political discourse and the formation of opinion. What safeguards do the Government believe are necessary to protect democratic processes from AI-enabled manipulation and disinformation? How will citizens know that the information they receive has not been generated, altered or amplified by artificial intelligence?

Nowhere are the stakes higher than in warfare. Artificial intelligence is already embedded in surveillance and military decision-making. Systems are now being developed that can select and engage targets with diminishing levels of human intervention. The question of who is accountable when such a system fails and leads to the loss of civilian life—for instance, the terrible recent US bombing of an Iranian primary school for girls—has no satisfactory answer. Existing legal frameworks were written on the assumption that human beings would exercise judgment, restraint and moral responsibility and that such matters would not be left to machines.

What is the Government’s position, therefore, on maintaining meaningful human control over the use of lethal force? Do they support international efforts to regulate or prohibit fully autonomous weapons systems? A phrase increasingly heard in defence and arms-control circles is the “Oppenheimer moment”. It reflects a growing recognition that autonomous weapons may represent a technological threshold comparable in significance with the advent of nuclear weapons. Unlike nuclear weapons, however, autonomous systems are comparatively cheap, scalable and accessible. The barriers to proliferation are low while the potential for misuse is considerable.

Yet we are not witnessing the kind of sustained international negotiation that the gravity of this challenge demands. It is shocking that there is still no prospect of any comprehensive international framework governing autonomous weapons. What leadership is the United Kingdom providing in building one? This matters morally as well as strategically. One of the most troubling features of autonomous weapons is the distance that they place between the act of killing and any human sense of responsibility. That distance does not lessen the suffering of victims but merely removes the human conscience that might otherwise have prevented it.

Artificial intelligence must serve humanity, not the other way around. Its development can be justified only if it remains anchored in human dignity, democratic accountability and moral responsibility. The choices that we make now will shape not only the technologies of the future but the character of the society which that future inherits.

Social Cohesion and Community during Periods of Change

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Friday 6th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend and congratulate him on his maiden speech. He has done so much in 14 and a half years, serving as a Member of Parliament and as a Minister and Secretary of State. Above all, as president of COP 26, he did the impossible, uniting nearly 200 countries to commit to the Glasgow climate plan. His experience and dedication will be invaluable in this place. I look forward to his future contributions and the impact that he will undoubtedly have on our thinking, particularly on climate change. I sincerely hope that the blanket of good will does not cool down in the meantime.

I declare my interest as a board member of More in Common. I welcome this vital debate, as social cohesion matters. It is not merely an abstract ideal; it is the very fabric of our national unity and resilience. It embodies our ability to pull together, rely on one another and foster a stable and prosperous society. Today, we face unprecedented pressures on social cohesion. According to research by More in Common, Britons increasingly feel that the United Kingdom is divided. Since January, the proportion of people who describe the United Kingdom as divided has increased from 57% to 78%. The main divisions people identify are between the rich and poor, between immigrants and those born in the United Kingdom, and between left and right.

Britons view the UK as atomised and individualistic. When asked to describe the sense of solidarity in the UK, 71% selected “It’s everyone for themselves” while 29% said “We’re all in this together”. Furthermore, 43% believe the United Kingdom is more divided now than at any time in their lifetime. Three-quarters of Britons are concerned about racism, Islamic extremism, far-right extremism and religious divisions. A broad majority are also concerned about anti-Semitism, at 62%, and Islamophobia, at 71%.

From geopolitical turmoil and global pandemics to economic crises and technological innovation, including migration, our societal bonds are being tested like never before. This reality demands our attention and action. I argue that neither the right nor the left of the political spectrum has all the answers. The centre might. That is where we must seek common ground before the sense of division and fragmentation is entirely hijacked by those who claim to be the only ones to understand British people and the only ones who can speak for them.

I will focus on three issues: migration, integration and foreign policy. Migration is an unavoidable and undeniable feature of our times, and as a nation of immigrants we must recognise the indispensable contribution that migrants have made to our economy and culture.

However, we must also face some hard truths. The surge in immigration has placed immense pressures on public services, creating an environment where social cohesion begins to erode, fostering an “us versus them” mentality that, as we know, stirs division and resentment. While there is no evidence that refugees pose a political, social, economic or security threat, polling shows that people are concerned. Those concerns should not be dismissed outright. This places a particular responsibility on Governments to find the resources to address the domestic implications of migration, while those not in government must respond responsibly.

The responsibility to help is determined not by geography but by adherence to universal human rights and values. It transcends religion, culture and ethnicity. We need not to be reaching for the lowest common denominator in our response to the refugee crisis, but to strive to live up to the highest ideals and our highest standards. Every country in the world—not just in Europe, not just here—must be part of solution.

We should also be mindful of the distinction between economic migrants who are escaping extreme poverty and refugees who are fleeing immediate threats to their lives. All people on the move in these tragic circumstances must have their human rights and dignity respected. We should not stigmatise anyone for aspiring to a better life, but refugees face immediate danger, persecution and death, and their rights are enshrined in international law. Effective reception and screening are crucial to ensuring that claims are assessed and protection is extended to those who really need it.

Secondly, integration must be a fundamental part of our immigration policy. Failing to integrate new citizens creates parallel communities divided not just by geography but by culture and identity. Effective integration goes beyond the English language. It requires bridging social and cultural gaps through comprehensive educational programmes that instil core British values of justice and fairness and promote community engagement through participation and volunteering.

We must not be shy about expecting a reciprocal relationship between new citizens and their new homeland. It is a two-way relationship. It is not only about accepting what Britain has to offer, such as security and opportunity, but about giving back. As someone who has experienced this process personally, I can say that being a citizen is not just about holding a British passport. It is about contributing to society, respecting and upholding British laws and values and strengthening those values through our individual and collective example.

On our foreign policy, we must reflect and strike a balance between the national interest and global responsibilities. I believe that in some cases, we have fallen short on both. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition at the Lord Mayor’s banquet that global problems increasingly manifest as local challenges. When it comes to the Middle East conflict, the impact on social cohesion in the United Kingdom is staggering. According to More in Common, 49% worry about the rise of anti-Semitism in the UK, 47% worry about the rise of Islamophobia, 55% are concerned that it will lead to increased tensions between religious groups and 58% are worried about the potential for increased Islamic extremism. I ask the Minister: what comes after the Prime Minister’s recognition of the impact of foreign policy on domestic policy and cohesion? What will change after that recognition?

We must recognise the pressure on our social cohesion, not only in migration and foreign policy but as a part of a wider crisis in global governance. Over the past 15 years the number of forcibly displaced people in the world has surged. The crisis is unsustainable and beyond the capacity of international humanitarian organisations or countries like ours to manage alone. It is driven by a systemic failure to resolve conflicts. Nothing tells us more about the state of the world than the movement of people across borders. We must look for long-term solutions. We cannot donate our way out of these crises, nor can we bomb our way out of them. We cannot solve the problem simply by taking in refugees. We need to find diplomatic solutions to end those conflicts.

Our historical commitment to defend freedom has often strengthened our national cohesion. We must continue that legacy as a source of collective pride and use it as a foundation to tackle the challenges of the day.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, Gaza’s children are innocent. They are the future of the Palestinian state, which must become a reality. I welcome my noble friend the Foreign Secretary’s comments in that direction. Their lives are being shattered, more than 10,000 have been killed, and every day in Gaza more than 10 children on average have one or both of their legs amputated, often due to being injured by heavy weaponry and often in procedures carried out without anaesthetic due to the blockade. Children’s bodies are particularly vulnerable to blast injuries and burns inflicted by explosive weapons. Their need for medical aid is overwhelming, and their right to it is recognised under international law. A Palestinian child’s life is as precious as that of any British or Israeli child.

We have the expertise and ability to help in demanding a ceasefire and helping the most vulnerable civilians. Will my noble friend therefore commit to supporting efforts to provide specialist medical treatment on a temporary basis to a limited number of children from the region in the United Kingdom?

Intelligence and Security Committee: Russia Report

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, I can only repeat what I have told the House. Motions will be laid for the constitution of the committee next week. It is then the responsibility of the committee to decide how and when it publishes its report. I am sure it will take note of what the noble Lord and others have said. But again, I wholly reject the charge that the Prime Minister in any way is responsible for delaying the report.

[Baroness Helic (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s assurance that the new committee will soon be established and that the Motions will be laid for its constitution. In October 2019, the then chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee stated that there was a long-standing agreement that the Prime Minister will endeavour to respond to ISC reports within 10 days. Does my noble friend agree that that agreement should be reinstated? Given that the Government have had the Russia report since October and approved it in December, will they issue their response at the same time as the report is published?

[Lord True]

My Lords, the Government must see the formal publication of the report before considering action. Under the Justice and Security Act 2013, the ISC has responsibility to exclude material that any Prime Minister considers prejudicial to the continual discharge of the committee’s functions. Therefore, the role any Prime Minister undertakes in examining the report must be carefully done and is an important statutory process.