Preparing for an Ageing Society (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Friday 4th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I commend the Economic Affairs Committee for producing this report and thank the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his comprehensive introduction.

The committee has offered a sobering assessment of our inadequate preparedness for an ageing society, and I fully endorse the recommendations of the report, particularly the emphasis on supporting those in their mid-50s and 60s to remain in work or return to work, as well as its call to address the crisis of adult social care. It is, however, regrettable that the Government’s response does not grasp the strategic direction recommended in the report, nor the committee’s call to “act now”.

I declare my interest as an ambassador for the Age Irrelevance campaign, which was built on the vision of the late Baroness Greengross, a lifelong campaigner for age inclusion. The campaign’s push for the inclusive language of “era of longevity” as opposed to an “ageing society” captures the need for a holistic approach and the pressing need for younger generations to invest in their own longevity, from both a financial and a health aspect.

If we are to move from the idea that an ageing society is a burden that will deplete resources, we need to look it at as a multistage life. We need to move away from the narrative which creates intergenerational division and resentment to one which is designed to create systems that allow people to contribute to society in different ways and at different stages of their life. To achieve that, we need an integrated approach with a positive narrative that shows determination to benefit from the demographic shift and maximise the opportunities it offers.

If the pension imperative is that people must work longer, this can be achieved only if it is supported by a national housing strategy, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which supports rightsizing near places of work, enabled by progressive models to promote work and healthy, longer lives. Longer working lives can be achieved only if they are underpinned by a focus on healthy living, healthy ageing, prevention, and understanding of healthy living and healthy lifestyles from early stages.

In preparing for longer lives, financial planning should be mandated in the education curriculum, and we need employers to actively support longer careers and changing working patterns. The Government should also place lifelong learning at the heart of education and, of course, continue to ensure digital inclusion and the use of innovative technology to achieve this.

Urgent engagement with the issues raised in the report is very important, and I look forward to an encouraging response from the Minister.

Artificial Intelligence: Impact on Human Relationships and Society

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Friday 5th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for securing this debate and for an extremely thoughtful introduction.

As we know, the central question before us is: how can we best harness the advantages and potential of AI without damaging society and humanity? Technology has always changed human behaviour, but AI is different because it reaches into areas once thought uniquely human: judgment, creativity, communication and even companionship. Human relationships are not built simply on the exchange of information. They are built on trust, empathy, understanding and shared experience, and they depend on our capacity to listen, to question and to challenge.

The misuse of AI destroys trust when people can no longer distinguish between what is real and what is artificially generated. Democratic debate is distorted when misinformation is produced at scale and targeted with unprecedented precision. Trusted information is a core part of the security infrastructure of a democratic society, and it must be a strategic priority for the Government.

Social cohesion frays when algorithms increasingly shape what we see, what we believe and whom we trust. As has rightly been referenced, the Pope recently stated that technology must remain a tool in the service of humanity, not its master; and wisdom is not as same as knowledge. One is reminded of Tennyson, who said:

“Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers”.


For me, AI could also be called an ancient intelligence. It can process vast amounts of data, but it cannot exercise judgment. It cannot distinguish between what is technically possible and what is ethically right. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that the development of AI is guided by principles that protect humanity and preserve accountability, transparency and democratic oversight, as well as being inclusive. It must not replace the human qualities upon which society is built.

We need proper governance to ensure that these technologies preserve the common good and shared prosperity. Governance is about not just rules, norms and procedures but incentives, eliminating barriers, fostering impact through investment and putting money into innovation to help navigate the challenges that arise from technology. The best governance systems will be those that can monitor the entire cycle of technology, infrastructure, algorithms and data. It is a myth that governance stifles innovation.

The Government’s plans for AI are rightly ambitious. The previous proposals, in 2023, which established the AI Safety Institute—it is now called the AI Security Institute—were geared towards mitigating future risks, but they are now missing from the current plan. The Government should not be reduced just to managing harms after they arise, which will narrow the choices going forward. Given AI’s potential, it is preferable to manage the risks early, rather than resorting to drastic measures later.

The AI Security Institute has made a useful contribution and was a good innovation. However, its work is retrospective, its scope was narrowed from safety to security, and it does not focus on societal harms such as misinformation. Voluntary compliance is no longer sufficient; what we need is a statutory framework. In yesterday’s debate, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, made a very good case for having a cross-sector, principles-based approach.

Going forward, there will also be a need for what I call AI literacy—equipping people for the new demands posed by AI by giving them the skills and qualities needed to use it intelligently, identifying and developing skills and talent for the future workforce, and offering opportunities for lifelong learning. Here, I support the call from the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, for higher preference being given to education in the humanities, which has been demoted in previous years. It would be useful to know what the Government are doing in this area, because I suspect they are lagging behind.

If we do not build the future for ourselves, AI will. We can take action now to show that progress rooted in ethics and the protection of humanity is not a constraint but a competitive edge and the foundation of a strong, democratic society.