Artificial Intelligence: Impact on Human Relationships and Society

Lord Markham Excerpts

Friday 5th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords,

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness … it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair”.


Charles Dickens wrote those words nearly two centuries ago, but they could have been written today for the age of artificial intelligence.

I begin, like others, by thanking the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for bringing this debate to your Lordships’ House. At a moment when discussion of AI is often dominated by productivity, profits and technological capability, the most reverend Primate has asked a more profound question: what does this mean for human beings, for our relationships, and for the kind of society we wish to build?

This is precisely the role our religious leaders should play. Politicians debate growth, scientists debate capability and businesses debate opportunity, but questions of morality, community, purpose and human dignity are even more important. So, as my noble friends Lady Bottomley and Lord Parkinson said, who better than the most reverend Primate, as a religious leader and a health leader—if maybe not quite as saintly as some former Archbishops—to lead this debate?

Although it is an honour for me to speak today as Shadow Minister for Science and Technology, more importantly, and in keeping with the theme of this debate, I speak today as a father, as a husband, as a brother, as a friend to many, as a carer to some, and as a Christian; but above all as a fellow human being, trying to understand what this extraordinary technology may mean for the people I love and the society I want my children to grow up in.

Throughout history—and even before the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, was a child—humanity has repeatedly transformed itself through technology. For almost all of human history, nearly everyone was a hunter-gatherer; then came agriculture, and for thousands of years the overwhelming majority of people worked on the land. Two hundred years ago, most Britons still depended directly upon agriculture for their livelihoods; today that figure is less than 1%. Had someone stood in Parliament in 1800 and predicted that almost all agricultural jobs would disappear, they might reasonably have forecast mass unemployment, social collapse and economic ruin.

Instead, something remarkable happened, as the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone, said. New industries emerged, factories appeared, railways were built, and entirely new sectors of the economy developed. People moved into occupations that previous generations could scarcely have imagined. Engineers, accountants, financiers, retailers and countless other professions were created, for better or worse.

The same story repeated itself in the 20th century. Manufacturing employment declined dramatically, yet society adapted again. One hundred years ago, there were no software engineers, cyber security specialists, sports psychologists, social media managers, professional gamers or personal trainers. Indeed, the very idea that millions of people would earn their living helping others improve their fitness, well-being, appearance or online presence would have seemed absurd. Those jobs became possible because technology created wealth. When most people spent all their income on food and survival, there was little demand for gyms, beauty salons, sports coaching, holidays or countless other services we now take for granted. Technological progress did not simply replace jobs; it created entirely new forms of prosperity and human endeavour. Therefore, when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford asks what jobs AI will destroy, and rightly expresses concern over that, we should also ask, what opportunities will it create?

The honest answer is that many of those opportunities are currently beyond our imagination, as the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, said. The jobs of 2050 may be as difficult for us to envisage as software engineering or digital marketing would have been for our great-grandfathers. But AI is not simply another technological advance; it may prove to be a general-purpose technology on a par with electricity, the steam engine or the internet. The printing press democratised knowledge; artificial intelligence may democratise expertise.

Imagine every child in Britain having a personal tutor available day and night: a tutor that understands precisely what they know and what they do not know, that can adapt to their individual learning style, and which has infinite patience. For most of history, that level of personal attention was available only to the privileged few. AI offers that possibility of making it available to everyone.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, set out, there can be massive benefits. Imagine healthcare transformed in a similar way. Imagine not merely fewer forms to complete or fewer administrative tasks, but every citizen having access to a personal health companion that understands their medical history, monitors their well-being, identifies risks early and helps them live healthier lives. Knowledge that, today, is available only intermittently through a healthcare system under immense pressure could become available continuously.

AI is already transforming other areas of society. We see it in science, manufacturing, business and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, set out, on the battlefield. Ukraine analysts estimate that drones inflicted 96% of the Russian battlefield casualties in March 2026. A technology that existed barely a decade ago is reshaping warfare before our eyes. A relatively inexpensive drone can now destroy military assets costing millions of pounds.

History teaches us that technological leadership and geopolitical leadership often go hand in hand. The nations that mastered agriculture and industrialisation became dominant. The nations that mastered computing are becoming dominant. It would be extraordinary if artificial intelligence proved to be any different.

That brings me to the challenge that faces our country. AI will happen. The question is not whether it will arrive; the question is whether Britain will help to shape it, or it is shaped by others; whether we lead or follow; whether we help to write the future or merely live in a future written elsewhere. Of course, there are risks. There are legitimate concerns about safety, alignment and control. There are concerns about systems becoming more capable than we fully understand. There are concerns about bad actors, misinformation and misuse. These concerns are real. They deserve serious attention, and that is why the work undertaken by the AI Security Institute is so important, as the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, set out.

It is right that Britain should be a global leader in understanding and mitigating these risks. But there is another danger that we should not ignore, as my noble friend Lady Owen and the noble Lord, Lord Raval, set out so powerfully: the danger of becoming so fearful of the future that we surrender leadership of it; of regulating ourselves into irrelevance; of assuming that if Britain slows down, the rest of the world will slow down as well. History shows, unfortunately, that this is not the case. If responsible democratic nations choose not to lead, others will. The future will not be built only in democratic areas such as Silicon Valley or, hopefully, London and Cambridge. As the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Cashman, warned, it will also be shaped in places whose values we may not share—in Beijing, Tehran or Pyongyang.

The answer to risk is not to retreat; it is leadership and ensuring that the winners in the AI race are countries committed to democracy, freedom, transparency and the rule of law. But, as we discuss productivity, growth and competitiveness, we must not lose sight of the questions posed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury: what kind of society are we building? What kind of relationships are we nurturing? What kind of people are we becoming? Perhaps nowhere is this more important than the area of companionship and care. Many of us have watched loved ones struggle with loneliness; have worried about elderly relatives living alone; have wished that someone could be there more often than distance, work and life permit.

As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, future AI companions and robotic carers may provide comfort, companionship and practical support to millions. They may know our stories, understand our habits, remember every conversation, never become impatient, never tire and never forget. For some people, particularly those who are isolated, vulnerable or neurodivergent, such technologies may prove genuinely transformational. Yet, they raise profound questions. If AI can become our tutor, adviser, healthcare companion and perhaps even our friend, what becomes of human relationships? As the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Frost, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and many others asked, what happens if people increasingly choose the company of machines over the complexities of other human beings? What happens if young people can learn, work, shop and socialise without ever leaving their homes? What happens if a society connected by technology becomes disconnected from one another? What if AI replaces love and, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, warned, we need the other AI—artificial insemination—alongside artificial intelligence?

As the noble Lord, Lord Rook, said, the danger is not that machines become more human. The danger is that humans become less human, that convenience replaces community, that interaction replaces relationships and that simulation replaces companionship. I return to where I began. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop has done this House a great service by reminding us that the central question is not what artificial intelligence can do; the central question is what kind of society we wish to become as we embrace AI to enhance that society rather than diminish it.

Throughout human history, humanity has adapted to extraordinary change. I believe we will adapt again. I believe AI will create immense prosperity, cure diseases, transform education and improve lives in ways we can scarcely imagine. I believe that Britain should strive to be among the winners of this revolution, rather than among those left behind. However, if this technology is to serve humanity rather than diminish it, we will need more than scientists, entrepreneurs and politicians. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth said, we will need moral leadership. We will need people willing to ask not simply what we can do but what we should do. We will need voices willing to defend human dignity, family, friendship, community and purpose. As we step into this brave new world, we will need technological leadership, but, more than ever, we will need moral leadership.

That is why I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop for bringing forward the debate today. The challenge before us is not merely to build more intelligent machines but to ensure that, in doing so, we remain fully human.

Amazon Web Services

Lord Markham Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, the departments impacted were HMRC, the Home Office, the DVLA and the DWP. I am not aware that the Ministry of Defence was impacted, but I will write to the noble Lord if it was.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Unfortunately, as Health Minister I saw at first hand instances of lack of resilience in the health systems, not just in the NHS but among a lot of its suppliers. Many noble Lords will recall the cyberattacks on the blood testing services in summer 2024. I did not quite hear in the noble Lord’s response to the question from the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, that we will make sure we can really understand the costs and the lessons learned from all this. Given the nature of these sorts of incidents, is the Minister willing to do this?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for reminding me. Yes, of course we have learned from what happened last year with CrowdStrike. As we know, in July 2024 the Government committed to a review of the lessons learned from the CrowdStrike incident, which was co-drafted between DSIT and the Cabinet Office. The Government have made a number of changes since that incident, including announcing a forthcoming cybersecurity and resilience Bill and bringing the Government Digital Service, including the newly formed government cyber unit, into DSIT as part of the digital centre of government.