Artificial Intelligence: Impact on Human Relationships and Society

Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts

Friday 5th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

That this House takes note of the impact of Artificial Intelligence on human relationships and society.

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

My Lords, I wish to thank the usual channels for allowing me to hold this debate today and the parliamentary staff who have enabled it to happen.

In the Bible, the writer of the Book of Hebrews says of human beings:

“You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honour and put everything under their feet”.


God created human beings in His own image, with glory and honour—each and every one of us, regardless of who we are or what we do. We carry an inherent dignity and immeasurable value. This is not in spite of our weakness, vulnerabilities or limitations but in many ways because of and through them. God made us to be relational beings, in need of Him and in need of others, not sufficient on our own.

I start here because, fundamentally, our vision of what it is to be human—of our glorious humanity—must inform the rest of our debate about technology and AI. Pope Leo’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas begins here too. God made us creative beings, and AI and wider technologies are a remarkable product of human creativity. They have led to extraordinary discoveries and breakthroughs at speeds that we could never have imagined. They have connected us across the globe and opened up endless new opportunities for working, creating, learning and travelling. I now carry vast information, processing power and connectivity potential in my pocket with me every day.

But this extraordinary product of human creativity and the power it places in our hands also raise urgent new questions. What are the implications for our human relationships, for our connections with family and friends? How does it impact on our working lives and the existence or quality of our jobs? What are the implications for warfare, for climate change and for our engagement with information and democracy? Just because we could create something or deploy technology in a certain way, does that mean we should? As CS Lewis put it:

“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer”.


Wave after wave of technological innovation is taking place as we speak. The question we should be asking is simple: where are we going? What is our vision for how this technology will serve human flourishing? We are in danger of unleashing AI into our lives and societies without the theological, philosophical and spiritual framework with which to make decisions about creating, controlling, using or directing it.

Above all, we need to ensure that AI is being designed, built, regulated and used to serve our glorious humanity and not to diminish it—to be pro-human. As Pope Leo has said,

“humanity—in all its grandeur and woundedness—must never be replaced or surpassed”.

This poses the question: does AI make human life more human? The question matters for those designing, developing and building the technology as they think about what ideologies and belief systems should underpin the models, for there is no such thing as value-neutral technology.

This matters for Governments and policymakers as they determine what should and should not be permitted and regulated, and it matters for those using the technology. Many feel that AI is affecting them hugely without having any say in the matter. Others feel that the things which make us unique as humans are at risk of being eroded, devalued and replaced by AI as people turn to chatbots rather than other human beings for comfort and wisdom in moments of loneliness, loss, anxiety or pain. How should we adopt AI and what is the right place for it in our relationships, our families and our societies?

If humanity is to be placed at the centre of all thinking and decisions about AI, I would like to suggest that there are three fundamental questions to help us to work out what a pro-human framework for AI would look like, and how it informs practice. First, what does it mean to be human? If God crowned humans with glory and honour, how will AI respect—indeed, cultivate—that sort of dignity and value?

There are many ways in which AI is helping to enhance human dignity and to protect and uphold life. If you want to look to the potential of AI to serve human beings, you need look no further than across the sciences. In nursing, we can see the potential of AI. Nursing and medical care are areas where the value of human dignity is visible in some of the most tangible, practical ways. I do not believe that a robot or an AI model will or should ever replace human beings in some of these settings. Sitting at the bedside of a patient to deliver very difficult news or supporting a woman through the delivery of her baby are deeply vulnerable moments where human touch, eye contact and human emotional intelligence are invaluable.

However, there are many ways in which AI is having a hugely positive impact on healthcare. AI is beginning to make childbirth safer, from automated ultrasound to predictive tools for pre-eclampsia to consistent foetal heart rate monitoring. There are, sadly, other uses of AI today which, rather than enhancing human dignity, are providing new ways of degrading it or violating it. A recent report from Durham University presented evidence that chatbots are now facilitating violence against women and girls, allowing roleplay of incest, child sexual abuse and rape with few safeguards, risking the normalisation and the legitimisation of such abuse. These harms are not simply the result of user misuse. AI platform design choices, policies and governance failures are encouraging and enabling them, and existing regulation is wholly inadequate to prevent them.

My second question is: what are we here for, and what gives our lives meaning and purpose? The Christian faith teaches that we are designed for relationship—with God, with others and with the created world around us. We find meaning and purpose in these relationships and in dignified work, where we can partner with God to see His kingdom come on earth. We are human beings crowned with glory and honour, here to glorify God.

Perhaps one of the most profound areas of purpose is work. We are already seeing record numbers of 18 to 24 year-olds in neither education, training nor employment, and this is only set to worsen as agentic AI starts to come online. One area of the greatest gravity that this debate must address is how we as the political class are going to help young people navigate a rapidly changing world.

Yet AI impacts our sense of meaning in other ways that go beyond work. A fundamental quality of a human being, one source of our well-being and sense of purpose, is our ability to create, imagine, think and invent. God placed humans in the Garden of Eden to look after the garden. He asked Adam to name the animals and species there, an inherently creative task.

On one hand, AI can enhance human creativity and imagination. It puts more information, people, networks and tools at our disposal. It can increase efficiency and take away the burden of more repetitive and administrative tasks. But there are reasons to be concerned that AI is in fact having the opposite effect on our human abilities. There is already concerning evidence about the impact of technology, particularly smartphones, on the human ability to think and create. Mary Harrington wrote an article last year entitled “Thinking Is Becoming a Luxury Good”. It highlights evidence of human brain power decreasing, with adult literacy scores levelling off and declining in the past decade in the majority of OECD countries, and some of the sharpest declines are among the poorest.

Child literacy is also declining. Research shows that children who are exposed to more than two hours a day of recreational screen time have worse working memory, processing speeds, attention levels, language skills and executive function than children who are not. A study has shown that heavy users of AI struggle more with critical thinking as they stop thinking for themselves, and their capability atrophies. The irony is that while AI might make us feel like we are more creative, AI’s inherent nature means that, at scale, ideas will in fact become more predictable, unoriginal and homogenised.

The human ability to think and create surpasses the capabilities of AI. We must work to ensure that our human abilities are given space to grow and thrive—to be the thinking, creative beings that God has made us to be. The Pope put this well last November during a live address to young people at the National Catholic Youth Conference in Indianapolis:

“be prudent; be wise; be careful that your use of AI does not limit your true human growth. Use it in such a way that if it disappeared tomorrow, you would still know how to think, how to create, how to act on your own, how to form authentic friendships. Remember, AI can never replace that unique gift that you are to the world”.

My third question is: what is truth? Pilate notoriously asked Jesus this question as he was being sentenced to death. According to the Christian faith, truth is not something we define ourselves or alter to suit our own personal, political or commercial ends. Truth is embodied in the person of Jesus Christ, and expressed in loving God and loving others. Truth is a fundamental foundation on which our personal lives and societies are built. Without common truth, a flourishing common life becomes impossible.

Generative AI cannot tell right from wrong or facts from fiction. Instead of truth, it produces a statistical echo of what has been said before in material it has been trained on. It reinforces biases inherent in the way that it has been coded, as well as social biases present in the material it has been fed. It also simply invents information. One study found that chatbots did this at least 3% of the time, some as much as 27%.

Even more concerning is that AI can be weaponised by malign actors. It is the perfect tool for someone wanting to create fake news. Its ability to disperse disinformation, discredit legitimate information, censor other information and game algorithms has the potential to distort and rewrite reality—to present fiction as fact, and all with a veneer of objective truth. It has the power to manipulate what we see and what we believe at a speed and scale never seen before. What is often presented as a tool in the democratisation of knowledge could, all too easily, become the tool of the autocrat.

The potential for real harm is still to be fully realised. There is a serious risk that this will lead to a fundamental breakdown in trust across society. The real danger is not our rising gullibility, but our rising cynicism. It is not that we will believe anything; it is that we will believe nothing. If we cannot trust information we see online, then perhaps we cannot trust the people we meet. When the possibility for trust in another human being is eroded, relationships cannot be formed, nor can much of what we do in communities or our society be sustained. Without a common understanding of truth, human relationships and the reciprocal ties which underpin our societal structures flounder. Truth and the trust it inspires, between people and within societies, must be cherished and protected.

It is easy to feel overwhelmed when considering the current and potential impacts of AI on life as we know it. What can be done to ensure that AI serves humanity and does not degrade it? Uninventing AI is not an option, nor would we want to be without the many positive effects that it brings, so what are we to do with technology which places great power in the hands of those who own, control and use it? Power is not inherently wrong, but it carries great responsibility and often great risks for human beings, as we have seen repeatedly through history. Power corrupts, and it takes people of great virtue and moral strength to withstand its temptations.

Archbishop William Temple described a central occupation of Christian social thought as being man’s dignity, tragedy and destiny. I have spoken today of humanity’s inherent dignity, but it is our fallenness—the tragedy—which makes technology’s power so seductive and the risk of its abuse so often our story. In the Christian tradition, there is a call that overrides the lust for power; it is the call to service. The distinctive Christian version of service is sacrifice, and Jesus’s life, death and resurrection is the perfect example.

This leads to the third of Temple’s triad: destiny. Jesus’s sacrifice for us on the cross offers profound hope to all humanity in every season and every circumstance. It also offers for us a model of living a sacrificial lifestyle—one where, with Him at work in us, we choose to sacrifice our own personal ends in the service of others and begin to see the kingdom come on earth. Within this, I believe, lies the hope of our relationships, families and societies. At every level of society—from individuals making decisions about how to use AI personally and with our families and children, to business owners choosing where to use AI in their processes and how this affects their workers, to owners of AI companies choosing what technology they invent and the features or limits they place on this—we can choose to make decisions sacrificially in the service of our common humanity.

We must cultivate the character to deal with the opportunities, challenges and temptations that such powerful technology places in our hands personally and corporately, involving people, communities and civil society in conversations about AI, drawing on the wisdom and insights of faith communities. Technology this revolutionary must not simply be unleashed on our societies; it must be developed with us, and for us, at a human pace with human objectives. Above all, with our common and glorious humanity, we must put people ahead of our profit, convenience or technological progress at all costs and ensure that we harness AI to serve humanity, and to be an extraordinary tool in the creation of a more just, abundant and hope-filled world. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

My Lords, artificial intelligence is a topic of such vast breadth and consequence. I am deeply aware that we have covered a huge variety of issues today but have still only scratched the surface. I hope that today’s debate has been a helpful opportunity for a longer discussion on this most salient of topics—one that goes beyond party-political debate to address the deeper questions and challenges at stake, and considers the practicalities around decisions on AI for real people, for our relationships with one another and for society.

I am deeply grateful to noble Lords for having covered so many areas of expertise and to the Minister for responding to this debate. I am grateful that we have spent time focusing on the positive opportunities that AI brings, not least in the contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley, Lady Uddin and Lady Fall, and the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad, Lord Johnson and Lord Shinkwin.

I am grateful that we have spent time considering what it is to be human, as well as the dignity that is inherent in us as human beings. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, recognises that we have here a shared common ground between those of faith and those of no faith. There were many contributions on this topic, not least from the noble Lords, Lord Tarassenko and Lord Knight, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Gill and Lady Teather.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice— I think he was followed on this by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—for his comments about the difference between what is human and what is machine intelligence. That topic was also picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone, who began to explore what judgment was. I am very grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, quoted Tennyson:

“Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers”.


We spent a great deal of time speaking about relationships between ourselves and with society. That was picked up by the noble Lords, Lord Knight, Lord Nagaraju and Lord Rook, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who were particularly concerned about the risk of relationships with technology rather than with people. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, spoke powerfully about the impact of AI on relationships and social structures, particularly those within the family. The noble Baroness, Lady Fall, spoke about her concern that AI had brought conversation to a close.

I was also grateful to my right reverend friend the Bishop of Leicester for his comment that this goes beyond the family to wider society, and to us acting as a healthy community. I was very grateful for the reminder from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that the gift of human relationships is often within our flaws, and I was encouraged that the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, mentioned love. Of course, as a Christian, I believe that love forgives all things and bears all things.

Maybe one of the most concerning areas that we have brought out today is the impact on young people. I was very grateful for the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Rook, among others. The noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, spoke about the fact that we need to prepare our young people, which we absolutely do. That was expanded on by the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, who spoke about the preparation in employment and decision-making, while others spoke about education. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, reminded us that change has occurred throughout history; however, that does not mean that we should not prepare for the change that is in front of us.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar, Lady Helic and Lady Owen, spoke about our responsibility in addressing these concerns, whether at a governmental level, at a corporate level or in the hands of our own actions. I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for mentioning the balance between pacing and not being outrun as we take this topic forward.

It was a very helpful reminder to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and then the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that we need to invest in humanities. If we are to develop an ethical framework in which we can make these decisions and be informed, that will be at the heart of doing it. The noble Baroness, Lady Teather, also reminded us that, in doing that, we need the space and partnership to discuss those issues and to reflect on the breadth that we have within our society. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for his challenge to the Church of England, Anglicanism and faith groups to facilitate that discussion and reflection on a global stage.

We spoke a lot about the responsibility for governance and regulation. There were some helpful reminders from the noble Lords, Lord Waldegrave and Lord Taylor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, of the need for us to look to our past to learn for our present and our future.

I was grateful for the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Brooke, about whether we need to invest in our own model. This was also picked up by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Oxford when he spoke about the BBC. In mentioning my right reverend friend, I would like to recognise the contribution that he has made on this topic over a number of years. It has enriched not just the Church but, I believe, government and society.

I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for bringing us back perhaps to where we started: the overriding need for us to have confidence in our own humanity. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Portsmouth encouraged us to claim and not give away the agency that we have in that gift. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Griffiths, for their reminder to us that it is often those in society who are least able to manage change whom the change falls most significantly upon.

AI brings with it real and positive opportunities, but we need to ensure that it is being designed, built, regulated and used to the service of our glorious humanity, not to diminish it: to make us more human, not less. There is nothing so precious to God on this earth than human life. That is the heart of the Christian message and we must do all that we can to treasure it, too.

Motion agreed.

Social Cohesion and Community during Periods of Change

Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts

Friday 6th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly as a commissioner on the National Preparedness Commission. I am glad to be taking part in this debate today. It is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, and I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, who has much to offer this House. I have the privilege of being Bishop of London, and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that London is full of great diversity of political views. I extend an invitation to him to come and see where we wrestle with some of our Christian faith and politics.

The riots over the summer were a wake-up call to us all to prioritise community cohesion. There is much to be said about this, and I echo much of what my friend the most reverend Primate has already said. I am going to focus my remarks on two issues which are central to this topic but are particularly related to health, although they have a much wider application, and those two topics are trust and partnership.

First, on trust, as the most reverend Primate indicated, we have much to do to improve trust within the Church of England. Not least, we must ensure we have a greater survivor focus and introduce independent safeguarding and mandatory reporting. I join my friend the most reverend Primate in apologising for the shocking failures that the Makin report highlighted.

Moving wider, the pandemic was a world-changing event that impacted on all of us differently, but I am sure that everyone in your Lordships’ House was horrified by the high death rate. We know that those from ethnic communities were more likely to have caught Covid, to have been hospitalised and to have died from it. According to ONS data, the Bangladeshi population faced a death rate five times higher than the white British population. The Pakistani population’s rate was three times higher. Even within these brutal statistics, we cannot properly communicate the extreme and severe loss that some communities experienced. We know that there were unequal health outcomes before Covid, but in some ways Covid demonstrated the scale of them.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, reminded us in the introduction to the first report of the Covid inquiry that the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens. It is easy to see how the pandemic has damaged our communities’ trust in institutions, including the health service, and how that damage worsened during the events over the summer. We have already heard how important it is for us to celebrate and recognise our differences, and it is true that one of the greatest strengths of this nation is, in fact, our diversity, but the experiences of some receiving care with a lack of cultural competence tells us that we have a way to go. Part of this is a lack of understanding and celebration of difference for patients and staff. It is vital for us to understand our ethno-religious identities because they change our experience not just of health but of communities.

My Christian belief that we are all made in the image of God motivates me to ensure that we can do better here, but trust is key. Although having sufficient GP appointments available is important, what is more important is feeling confident that you will be listened to and understood. As we will no doubt be aware from our own communities, there were moments of brilliance throughout the pandemic in which faith groups demonstrated neighbourliness and commitment to service, even when people’s day-to-day lives were really restricted. There are lessons to be learned from their ingenuity in building support for their communities and about how to build trust out of a crisis situation. It is important that we recognise the huge amount of work carried out by faith groups while respecting the difference in values that we may have.

Partnership that utilises diversity is key to ensuring cohesion. Working for the good of a place that you live in and seeing a difference is one of the most important and fulfilling parts of our citizenship. We tend to have a greater appreciation and support for something we have helped to build, and it is good to see this encouragement being prioritised on my doorstep with the new City belonging networks established by the Lord Mayor and others across London. We saw wonderful examples of partnership working across local communities, faith groups, the NHS and voluntary and community groups where people in the midst of the pandemic worked together to provide community cohesion.

We are here to reflect on a moment of crisis over the summer, as is right. Indeed, the cumulative impact of previous moments of crisis in our nation and abroad, including serious conflict, mean that a time of fear and uncertainty, and even bereavement for some, is what they experience in the midst of their community. That makes it important that we work together. It is difficult but important work.

However, partnership and engagement with groups and people different from ourselves, particularly on the part of government, cannot be sought only during times of crisis or in reaction to a crisis. Sustained involvement that involves local communities over the long term is required to combat the short-termism of electoral cycles and funding periods. Some faith groups have been serving their communities consistently for generations. When this goes unrecognised, it is detrimental to trust. Indeed, building relationships over the long term and working in partnership are what will build resilience so that, when a crisis occurs, we are better able to cope.

We are encouraged by God in Jeremiah 29 to,

“seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare”.

I hope that this will be an opportunity for us to seek the welfare of our nation, communities and those who are different from us, for it is there that we find our own welfare.

Living in a COVID World: A Long-term Approach to Resilience and Wellbeing (COVID-19 Committee Report)

Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Grand Committee

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. First, it is a pleasure to be participating in an important debate on this report. I thank all those involved in the committee, particularly the chair, for all the work they have done. This report rightly encourages us to increase our understanding of the lessons we can learn from the pandemic and to act on them in having a long-term view of the future.

This is a crucial topic. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in her view that our electoral system does not naturally lend itself to having a long-term view of the future. I shall focus today on recommendations 1 and 2. They are, in fact, interconnected. Those topics are first, inequalities, following the noble Lord, Lord Patel, particularly in health, and, secondly, community engagement.

Health inequalities have been a focus of many of my contributions in your Lordships’ House, and I welcome the understanding that the report demonstrates of why addressing them is so important. It says:

“The pandemic has shown that national level resilience is undermined by financial inequalities and health inequalities, which are often exacerbated by racial injustice”.


The moral argument for reducing health inequalities is an important one which continues to motivate me. However, the pragmatic argument is also shown here. If we are starkly unequal in our health, we as a society are more vulnerable to health and other challenges that we face. There is also an economic argument: improving the health of a population and reducing inequalities increases the ability of the population to contribute economically.

I do not need to impress on noble Lords the seriousness of the health inequalities we face. The gaping differences in life expectancy and healthy life expectancy persist. The trends in health inequalities were further exacerbated by the pandemic, as already mentioned. The Beyond the Data report, written by Professor Kevin Fenton and Public Health England in 2020, highlighted that during the pandemic some ethnic groups were more likely to be exposed to Covid-19 and, once infected, were more likely to contract a serious infection and die.

In their response to recommendation 1 of the Covid-19 Committee’s report, the Government pointed to the levelling-up White Paper and promised a White Paper on health disparities. I was and remain disappointed that the critical work that has been done on both these pieces of work has not been brought forward. In the absence of this, will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to prioritise reducing health inequalities, especially since the report lays out so well why doing so is key to our preparedness and resilience as a country?

Secondly, the report places a heavy focus on sustained and long-term engagement with communities. This is an extremely welcome and important part of what is required for resilience. Recommendation 2 of the report is a call for

“Renewed efforts to build trusted relationships between the state and all groups within society, including racial and religious groups, young people, disabled people and others”.


In their response to this, the Government said that they are already acting to build trust in local communities. As an example, they said,

“the government established vaccination centres in 50 religious venues, worked with ethnic minority celebrities & influencers”,

and so on. Although I commend the setting up of vaccination clinics in these spaces, this is not a means of gaining trust but the fruit of trust.

After the worst of the pandemic, I convened a health inequalities action group to examine the role that faith groups had played in the pandemic and the role they could play in reducing health inequalities across London in the long term. During the town hall events that were held as part of our work, we heard stories of faith groups stepping in to promote health-seeking behaviour and provide for their communities during the pandemic. We heard that faith leaders hold the trust of their communities, often much more than government or other civic bodies. The Government’s health inequalities strategy, Core20PLUS5, shows us the importance of “plus”, that is, those who are not thought of by or engaged with public services.

There is a faith group in every community. Professor Fenton’s Beyond the Data report explains that faith leaders often have the understanding and trust of their communities. This trust is key. As the adage goes, “Change happens at the speed of trust”. However, in our work on inequalities, we found that since the vaccination centres were set up during the pandemic, the Government are no longer engaging with the health-promoting work that faith groups do and would like to do. The relationship has not been sustained, and I fear that the value of faith leaders is not recognised, certainly in respect of the significant difference that could be made within health inequalities. Faith leaders continue not to be regularly consulted at a local level and the truth is that there is some work to do to equip local leaders and faith leaders with the tools of engagement. It is in these sustained relationships that our interconnectedness and resilience is realised.

I just want to mention social prescribing. This is another key way that faith groups can be involved in the health of our community, especially in light of the report’s emphasis on well-being. There is an understanding of not just physical or mental well-being in many faith groups, but also of our well-being as whole people with social, emotional and spiritual needs, all of which contribute to health and, I believe, the resilience of our communities. At the heart of the report is our understanding of our mutuality and interconnectedness, which is key to our public health and well-being. In the light of this, will the Minister say what efforts the Government are making systematically to engage with faith groups and maintain relationships with them? What assessment have they made of the key role faith groups can and already play in public health?

Before I finish, I would like to mention the nod in the report to the long-term funding of public services. The Government’s response to recommendations 24 and 25 was to highlight the 10-year mental health plan which, at the time, was in consultation. Of course, that is no longer happening, in favour of the major conditions strategy. There also remain a number of questions about the major conditions strategy in the absence of the health disparities White Paper. I also suggest that spending on public health services does not feel like a long-term investment as things stand.

To conclude, I warmly welcome this report and its recommendations. I hope that we will hear from the Minister about the Government’s ongoing response to this and their efforts to build and hold relationships across difference for a more resilient society.

Restoration and Renewal: Location of House of Lords Chamber

Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, again, I am not going to speak for my right honourable friend, but the noble Lord makes a cogent point which would need to be considered by all of us within Parliament in respect of its future operation. Those of us who have had experience of a Parliament by Zoom know the importance of personal contact within and across the Houses to the good operation of government and Parliament.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, can the Minister reassure both this House and the public that a full cost-benefit analysis is being undertaken to ensure the good and proper use of public funds?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as far as the R&R scheme is concerned, that is a matter for both Houses. As far as government property is concerned, obviously that is a matter for the Secretary of State. The right reverend Prelate makes a cogent point.