Artificial Intelligence: Impact on Human Relationships and Society

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Friday 5th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, AI crossed the threshold of my understanding and experience much earlier than for any other speaker in this debate thus far. When I left for an underdeveloped country and was given some responsibility for a rural rehabilitation project, I found that it was all centred on AI— but then, of course, it meant artificial insemination. The letters have remained firmly in my mind, and the improvements to animal husbandry and all the rest of it that I was to learn about were a direct consequence of that particular branch of scientific development.

I add my voice to all the others who thanked my dear friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for bringing this debate to the Floor of the House today. She had such an adroit sense of timing that it follows not only the Vatican’s encyclical, but also Anne Keast-Butler, head of GCHQ, speaking a day later at Bletchley Park about the place of modern technology in our defence and security sectors. A day after that, Alan Milburn’s Young People and Work was published, to the consternation of the entire population as to the likely consequences of artificial intelligence in the world of work.

While it is true, as an earlier speaker said, that over time what happens in the next few years will have been assimilated and we will have grown skills and experience that will enable us, at that stage, to make progress, it remains a fact that people coming out of university now, with enormous debts, will find work very difficult to find. The capacity to bring a debate to this House and to stimulate, as it seemed, all these other responses in other fields is a great skill that only an Archbishop of Canterbury can pull off.

For three years I was a member of the Communications and Digital Select Committee with others in this Chamber. There is an aspect of the work that we covered there that has not been mentioned in the debate thus far. Underlying any remarks I make is a total and ready understanding of the need to accept and honour the work of scientists in bringing all these developments and improvements to our knowledge and for our use. I do not want any of that to enter my speech, but I want it to be understood that I cannot think of the world without those developments happening. Even in our report on large language models and generative AI, which was very extensive and saw many witnesses interrogated and in which we set ourselves the task of concentrating on the positive things that AI will contribute to the well-being—economic and otherwise—of the country, we still had a pretty loaded chapter on risk because we recognised that too. It would be very foolish for us to fall into the position where we are so keen to see and acknowledge the developments, and there has been ample evidence of that today, that we fail to see and take measures against the encroaching risks that come with the package.

While I was on that committee, we did another report on a category that has not been mentioned, digital exclusion. So many people in this country have no access, or no real access, to digital life. The report said there were 1.7 million such people. I cannot believe the figure is any better now, a year or two after that report was published. We went to hubs to see how people with no skills, no money and no stake in the economic development of our country are sharing information, facilitated by people who give their time to help to develop these things so that people have access to all the things they need access for: their rent, their welfare, their bank and all the rest of it. We should not be unaware of the fact that the other side of the progress that we expect is the creation of an underclass.

Also, in the period following the most reverend Primate the Archbishop—Oh! I am past my time. A verbose Welshman cannot possibly contribute to continuing this debate any longer, but let us remember the poor and the excluded. That is enough.

Crown Estate: Wales

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Just to repeat my response to the previous question, we have to make sure that we are independent of these problems that we are facing. Rather than relying on fossil fuel, the prices of which are set internationally, we need to have home-grown green energy to ensure that we can resist these problems. I just want to point out one or two things about how we are helping people in Wales. We are cutting household energy bills, saving the average household £150. We have helped over 160,000 people with the minimum wage. We have increased pensions by 4.8%, and we have increased benefits for people out of work by 3.8%. The 700,000 pensioners in Wales are going to be better off because of this Government.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, when we had the misfortune of leaving the European Union, Wales lost a significant amount of money from its structural programmes. The then Government promised that that shortfall would be more than made up for; indeed, the phrase was “not a penny less”. We have been promised that that gap will be bridged from the prosperity fund, but the Welsh Government remain rather sceptical about that. Does the Minister recognise that there is a shortfall and are the Government prepared to do anything about it?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The best way to answer this question is to look at what we have actually done, with the spending review in 2025 and the spring forecast in 2026. The outcome of that points to additional funding, on top of the Barnett formula, et cetera, of something in the order of £1 billion to be invested in Wales. That is good for its economy and good for the people of Wales. If they want to see this continue, the best thing they can do is to vote Labour in May.

Social Cohesion and Community during Periods of Change

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Friday 6th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not know what the odds would be for someone being asked to speak immediately after an Archbishop on two successive days, but here am I, with a mood change from yesterday to today. Yesterday was perhaps elegiac and today might even risk being euphoric—we will have to see about that.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to be here and to contribute to this important debate, for which I thank the most reverend Primate. As I stand here, behind and above the Bishops, I am reminded that on Friday morning debates like this—accustomed as I have been to sitting on the other side of the House where I can look them in the eye—I always want to test the biblical knowledge of the Bishops. I begin, therefore, in sermonic mood, although I promise that I will soon release you from the captivity of that mood. This is really to challenge the Bishops.

The Bishops will know pretty well the opening verse of chapter 13 of the Epistle to the Hebrews. They will probably know it in the King James version—I see one or two of them who might just be in touch with something more modern—but, in the Greek, the word “philadelphia” appears in that first verse: brotherly love. If ever there were one word to encapsulate what I think is the driving force behind and the hoped-for outcome of this debate, philadelphia might be it. Because we like philadelphia and can wed our thoughts to teasing out meanings from that word, we tend to stop short and spend our time luxuriating in whatever philadelphia might be made to mean. But if you go on in the verse, you will find another Greek word, and it is equally important. It is “philoxenia”, which is a love of strangers. That complementarity of ideas seems to me to bring to our attention dimensions of the subject we are debating which it is important not to forget.

At the moment, I am prepossessed every working hour with preparing for meetings that I will be at on Monday, in Paris. I am a member of the delegation from this Parliament to the Council of Europe. I sit on its migration committee. Since I have been on it, we have been taxed with movements in the interpretation of the United Nations convention on refugees that have embraced, shall we say, wide extremes. The erosion of the original ideals of the convention have preoccupied the migration committee. It has been rather difficult for me, as a Labour member, sitting through meetings of the migration committee when the Conservative Government were putting through this House three Acts of Parliament that were at odds, I felt, with the lofty ideals of the convention, but that is not where I want to dwell.

The committee has given me the supreme honour of chairing one of its sub-committees. For a humble Methodist minister to be the chairman of a sub-committee is probably as high as it gets. I have fought very hard, since achieving that summit, to win time on the agendas of migration committees for the considerations of the sub-committee to be adequately dealt with.

What is the sub-committee? It is for diasporas and integration, which I think bears particularly on the issues before us today. I have worked with diasporas in this country for decades—Bangladeshi, Zimbabwean, Fijian, Ghanaian and many others. I belong to a diaspora: the Welsh on Gray’s Inn Road. I have won an hour on Monday—just one hour. I am hoping to persuade people that this subject deserves adequate attention and that we move from looking at the edges of the convention that we have all been worried about to the positive role that diasporas might play in shaping communities, as well as being places where people can gather for safety, cultural identity or whatever it is. I have prepared a paper that we will discuss on Monday with that in mind.

I am sure noble Lords will all want to know about the byzantine ways in which the Council of Europe does its work—I can see the look of longing on their faces. If I win enough signatures for the proposal I put forward on Monday, it will then go to the migration committee itself, where I will again have to win the arguments and support before it agrees to send it on to the parliamentary assembly in its full plenary body later in the process. I am rather hoping I can catch a mood here, because all my work with ethnic-minority groupings and diasporas suggests that they can play a terrific role positively to reshape the way we think about the multicultural society that we live in.

They are not just residual bodies where people can find safety, community and all the rest of it—a kind of passive receptivity—but agents for change in society at large. They can bring points of view to the attention of a larger society; they can shape local communities; they can add to the thinking of the rest of us. That is my hope, but I have to contend with two radically opposed understandings of multiculturalism. I have heard the term used in two diametrically opposite ways.

First is the idea that multicultural means there are all these microscopic bodies that we call diasporas, and they sometimes put their own objectives at the expense of others and form separate entities within the larger community. We do not want to live in a country with that kind of episodic way of looking at the way we organise ourselves. The other way is to glory in multiculturalism, which does not satisfy itself with one kind of cultural entity. It is an entity that can be enriched, receive innovation and stir the imagination for greater and more glorious things that we could all enjoy, if only we found the way to release the diaspora from looking inwards to looking outwards. There is already a lot of that happening. I am working with the Catholic agency for development, which is doing some map-making for diasporas, and I want to put all this thinking on to an evidence base.

Think of me on Monday. I now leave the debate for others to take further, but I have rather enjoyed this moment that started with the Bishops, and I have looked at the lowering of attention among the rest of your Lordships as the minutes have passed by.

Ministers: Government Business

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am always careful to question individual reports, but I repeat that we take a leading role on the global stage in countering state threats, and we will continue to work closely on this with like-minded allies and partners to defend UK interests, and the international rules-based system, from hostile activity.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has told us that she is unwilling to talk about case histories and so on, although she has given us a pretty fulsome step-by-step report on the Home Secretary’s resignation and reappointment. In view of the fact that she began by telling us from the Dispatch Box today that this is not a laughing matter—that it is very serious—and the sober words from the right reverend Prelate about his experience of GCHQ and the seriousness of these lapses, can she confirm from the Dispatch Box that to describe what we are going through as a witch hunt is inappropriate?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I note what the noble Lord says, but I must say that I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord Forsyth: we really need to move forward. I went into detail on the Home Secretary only because she wrote a letter in great detail, which I think is of interest to people who take an interest in these matters. We need to move forward and to support those in the security services and others trying to defend national security and, even more importantly, anticipate the new threats coming at us all the time. The digital world is changing, as I know from my recent trip, and we have to work to strengthen defences, but in a reasonable, sensible way.

Upholding Standards in Public Life

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

I strongly agree with what my noble friend has said. Of course, the issue of trust runs much wider, as he says, than individuals. We in your Lordships’ House were given a great trust by the British people in the referendum in 2016; can we all answer that we held to that trust promptly and fully?

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I have never used the language that has just been adduced in the previous speaker’s question, but I have used the language that was used by the Prime Minister in the reading that he gave in St Paul’s Cathedral, and would hold all people to account by the standards implicit in the words that he read. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to the exchange of correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, and the Prime Minister. In his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, the Prime Minister set out his own sense of his actions—I refer noble Lords to that letter and the way that he has held himself accountable publicly for those actions.

Peerages: Recommendations

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very happy to speak in Comrade Balfe’s debate. Now that I know his true provenance, I feel that he has hidden virtues I was unaware of.

I rise to speak wondering why there is a debate about this at all. It seems so self-evident that people who have undergone due process should have what has happened presented transparently in a proper form to the Crown, and if there is a divergence then the alternative case should be put. I cannot really see that anybody could take a position other than being in favour of all that.

I am, of course, completely new to the world of politics. The wiles and Machiavellian goings-on that I have vaguely become aware of over the years will, I am sure, fit me for that final deliberation at the pearly gates, when I wonder whether or not I am going to get in. Granted that I have, relatively speaking, a naivety on these things, I cannot understand how we are where we are. In 2004, when I was admitted to your Lordships’ House, Tony Blair’s Government had a very considerable majority in the Commons. When I came into the House of Lords there were, roughly speaking, 200 Labour Lords and 200 Conservative Lords. I rejoiced at the fact that someone from my background could come into a debating Chamber where cases had to be won, majorities had to be put together and arguments had to be presented that won the approval of those assembled. No Government, simply because it had even a whacking majority, as the Labour Party did then, could simply assume that it would carry the day all the time in the Lords.

Then, of course, we became aware that things were going on that got into the newspapers. We put together a committee, headed by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Its task was to try to introduce some order as it was sought to bring the numbers in the House of Lords roughly into equivalence with the House of Commons. The formula was simple; it was debated on the Floor of the House and it was agreed, and I thought that we had something that would sort out some of the excesses and wrongdoings of the Chamber as it was.

All these years later, when we look at the figures, we find that there is no longer a rough equivalence between Labour and the Conservatives, but that the Labour Party has, in fact, followed the advice of the Burns committee —one in for two out—that the Liberal Democrats have done the same, but that the Conservatives simply have not. It is not only that: they have grossly inflated the numbers coming in so that instead of a rough equivalence, we now see that there are 258 Peers the Conservatives might expect to count on for their support and 168 Labour Members. I cannot understand how something that was put together out of the deliberations of the House of Lords and which got approval from all sides of the House should end up with us being in a position—self-regulating as we are supposed to be—that leads to an imbalance of this kind.

I know that in our party meetings we can talk about our record in this respect but I must say to Conservative Members, and those taking part in this debate in particular: please tell us that you are as anxious as the rest of us that the things we have agreed in this way are not followed through on. In one case, someone who was rejected by the commission had that rejection overruled by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is under fire for a lot of things at the moment; he should be under the same kind of fire for the way in which this situation has come to pass.

I am new to politics. I hope to find probity and integrity but something like this puts me on the side of the tabloid press, which thinks that we are all a lot of funny people.

Devolved Governments: Public Expenditure

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, as someone who is very against the independence movement in Scotland, I would agree. We have also to accept that an increasing amount of revenue is raised in Scotland for the Scottish Government. For example, from 2017-18 Scottish income tax rates were entirely devolved, and all revenues from Scottish income tax are retained. Likewise, in 2015, stamp duty was devolved to the Scottish Government. So there is a rising percentage that is in their own gift and I can only assume that some of that is being used for what is, in my view, a mistaken approach.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I might take a moment to remind the House that, as well as Scotland, Wales has a devolved Government. I believe transparency there is of an order of which we could all be proud. I want to pick up on a point made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, during a Question about the Barnett formula. In his opinion—and in the opinion of many of us—it needs to be looked at in a radically new way for a new age. The Answer from the Dispatch Box yesterday was, quite simply, that there was no prospect of such a review. Is the Minister today, who is refreshingly different from the Minister yesterday, of the same mind?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I think we all know that the Barnett formula was something of a fudge, put together many years ago. It is an extremely complicated thing to try to unravel. We know that the amount of funding that goes to individual citizens is favourable to the devolved regions, but the formula is not necessarily satisfactory—so I would encourage the noble Lord to keep up his campaign to push for a review.

House of Lords: Appointments Process

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I suspect that some of us have more agreement with the noble Lord than perhaps he suggested at the beginning. However, I am worried about all the scurrilous references about the dragging through the dirt of this Chamber. I believe that the work we do is of critical importance and I find myself growing increasingly despondent with our situation.

We have heard that the Burns report has been rubbished in recent times, and we can all regret that. For reasons we know only too well—names have been named—the Chamber is rapidly becoming bloated by carelessness and cronyism. No wonder—we cannot doubt it—we attract such negative media attention and will go on doing so.

The overwhelming majority of us were appointed because people had faith in us, thinking that we would give more, impart wisdom and better our laws. The Appointments Commission, if it were on a statutory basis, in the words of the proposal, would I am sure engender trust and achieve improvement. I do not profess to know the intricate workings of our constitution, nor do I see myself as someone with special wisdom on the future of this Chamber, but I believe—in good faith towards each other and towards the British public—that we must not fail with the measures available to us to improve the work of this House.

It matters to me a great deal that I belong to an institution in whose integrity I have total trust. If we fail to keep our own promises that we have made to ourselves then it is only a matter of time before this becomes an irreparable House of corruption. The House of Commons, as we all know, is beset by questions of sleaze. We certainly do not want that to be the case with us as well.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

2nd reading & Order of Commitment discharged & 3rd reading
Monday 11th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I add my voice to those who have spoken already on this matter. Some of the speeches will live with me for a very long time, in the way that the case has been put and the evidence put forward, and it seems almost recondite for someone like me to add to the detail. I want to come at it from the point of view of social care but also, perhaps existentially, from my experience with MHA—Methodist Homes for the Aged—the largest charity care provider in the country, which has been doing it for 75 years. It has 70 residential homes scattered across the country, looking after 4,400 people. Three thousand people are being helped to live in their communities, with staffing and support people to do that, and 11,000 in their own homes. MHA has 7,000 staff and 3,750 volunteers. As the cream on top of the milk, it is one of the leading exponents, in such institutions, of music therapy—just to indicate that all is not simply bread and butter.

It has to be said that seeking some guidance from MHA on what it has felt about what has been happening on the ground in the communities that it cares for is what gives me a sense of wanting to contribute to this debate. Things have been dire. Let us look, first of all, at the last 18 months—or whatever it is—since Covid started and see how it has affected the care system in general. If all goes well and things are better than we think and expect, we are talking about waiting two years before a certain amount of money might come into the system and be addressed to social care. The last 18 months have taken so much out of those providing social care that any talk of sustainability begs the question: sustaining what? Things have been dire. A 95% increase in insurance has had to be borne as a result of the pandemic, £2 million per year was needed to purchase PPE, there has been staff sickness, overtime, bank agency staff, restricted movement between care homes and so and so forth. Care homes have barely managed to hold the show together under the pressures that they have been feeling in these last 18 months. So when the Prime Minister got up and made the announcement he did—and we all hope there will be however many millions it is in two years’ time—we have to ask ourselves, “What about now? What about repairing the damage that has just been done and is still being suffered?”

The thought that the mandatory vaccination status for care home staff which is not required in the health service could see a labour shift from care homes to hospitals seems really rather perverse. We simply have to recognise that many of the care institutions that we are talking about are in a dire, dire state. There is a dependency and a relationship between them and the local authorities that are being looked to, to anchor the proposals that are being made. MHA has contacted local authorities to see how to take advantage of the £3.2 billion that was given to local authorities to respond to Covid-19 pressures. Of the 188 local authorities that it works with, only 5% gave a 10% increase, there was a smaller uplift from 35% of local authorities, and 60% gave no uplift at all. You just wonder how much of this money that was supposed, through local authorities, to improve the situation financially for social care got to the front line. The conclusion from MHA is that almost none at all got there.

We also have the whole question of recruiting and retention. On this workforce business, perhaps if there are any HGV drivers who are surplus to requirement now that we are training them all ourselves and producing them for supply chains and all the rest of it, we could get them qualified to work in our care homes, because there is a desperate need. Across social care, so many years of low pay have been compounded by valued staff leaving, due—as I say—to Brexit and exhaustion from the pandemic, and now some staff leaving and moving to the NHS, as I have suggested.

The last 18 months have left the social care sector in dire straits. The next two years—until whatever, if anything, filters through from the latest arrangements—will have to be survived. Clearly, from the evidence I have been adducing, local authorities are not in a position to play their part. Frankly, to talk about the future of the social care sector seems redundant; survival is the very first thing, as well as a carefully thought-through policy. We have heard so many hints of good ideas that have been in circulation in cross-party committees which have worked on these issues. Therefore, this little piece of legislation seems tawdry.

I hope the Minister will recognise that, lovely man as he is, we want him to be the channel through whom we declare our displeasure to the Government he serves.

Standards in Public Life

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and indeed to take part in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Blunkett. He set the case before us, and it has been illustrated widely. My contribution shall be much narrower; I mean to complement what we have heard thus far.

If I may decouple the words “my noble friend”, I shall take the word “friend” out for a moment and release it from its honorific usage when we are in this House, which limits its application to those on our side of the House. Suppose, in a debate like this, we look for what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has just suggested is the benefit of the committee system—namely, that all of us, on all Benches, have a common interest in seeing this together as a team and not in oppositional terms, although there is plenty of illustrative material that could point the finger here, there or anywhere else.

The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said that he was not a saint. From my professional background, I found saints a pain in the backside and prefer dealing with sinners any day.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

The realities are all around me, as I can hear from that response.

If we consider ourselves a Committee of the whole House and if the word “nobility”, freed from the word “friend” just for a moment, can be a word that sums up all those Nolan principles—truth, integrity and all the other things—we will have a starting point.

I have to say that this House astonished me in recent times in the way it responded to the introductions to the House made by the Prime Minister that took the proportions between our respective parties into such an unhealthy place. The Labour Party, since the Burns report, has tried hard to follow the formula we all agreed as friends, and I think the Liberal Democrats have done the same. However, the expansion on the Conservative Benches is in defiance of an agreed position that all of us took in accepting the Burns report. I was astonished that there was not an uproar. My noble friend Lord Blunkett introduced Machiavelli into these discussions this afternoon. I would introduce Extinction Rebellion, because its tactics are more appropriate for this present age. If we had glued ourselves to our seats or bolted ourselves to the doors, protesting against the mistreatment of this House and of this Parliament by overruling the common, agreed statement of the House on the question of its membership, we would have shown some stamina and spunk and would have had a word we could possibly say outside this Chamber.

Public trust has been invested in every one of us. The electorate have put their trust in every Member of the other place. When the body politic has a rotten head, it will soon find itself infected similarly. I therefore believe that we must take the general points and address the philosophy and constitutional aspect of this case, but it is in the interests of all of us—and of our credibility outside this Chamber—for us to see that we simply must find a way to deal with infractions and diminished responsibility, which are a threat to the public life of this country.

I suppose that, as I sit down, that someone will say, “There we are, he has reverted to type—that was a Methodist sermon.” If it was, let the cap fit.