Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

Debate between John Hayes and Damian Hinds

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; this is, of course, not a left versus right argument. For example, the antitrust regime in the United States exists precisely to prevent the concentration of power. Indeed, all the companies in the list we heard earlier were American. We did not mention ByteDance or Huawei, which we could easily have done. As the right hon. Member for Oxford East said, sovereign capability is obviously important, too.

On labour markets, there is also a risk—actually, the hon. Member for Poole did not do this, but I thought that he was going to keep saying, “Universal basic income, universal basic income.” He did not, but a lot of people do. Universal basic income is a policy prescription that those people calling for it tended to believe in years earlier, before they had even heard of AI, and now it fits this scenario. I do not know what the outcomes and therefore the mitigations of AI will need to be, but we must keep an open mind.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I had better press on, because we have a number of colleagues to get through.

Regarding generative AI and its effect on information integrity, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to earlier, we should bear in mind that so far the massive growth in fraud, misinformation and disinformation has all been done with cheapfakes. People talk about deepfakes, but it is done with rubbish, which can still take in large numbers of people. Just imagine what happens when such fakes become convincing. For example, there is the email that says, “I am stranded in Bermuda”, or whatever it is, “and I need you to send me £100 overnight.” Imagine when that scam actually involves a video of someone’s child saying it to them.

However, we soon realise that those things seem relatively benign when people start talking about agentic AI and super-intelligence, whereby machines take control of a situation, which some people have described as being ultimately an existential threat to humanity.

I do not know what all the answers are, but I think that as politicians—as the House of Commons—we need to ensure that our organisational architecture is equipped to consider all these questions as they evolve. However, I do not think that our Select Committee structure today is equipped in that way. For example, I do not think that having a Science, Intelligence and Technology Committee, which obviously covers technology, is a suitable way to address all these matters, and I also do not think that it is appropriate to expect every other Select Committee to develop such expertise themselves. Somehow, we need to meld the two structures. We must have some form of super-Select Committee—a support team, or something like that—to work with all the other teams or Committees across the piece.

I will finish by mentioning two specific things that we can do right now, because there is a ticking bomb with AI, specifically regarding children. In education now, if someone asks the typical year 9 pupil, “How many of your friends use AI to help them do their homework?”, that child would just laugh and say, “All of them.” The idea that we have some sort of issue where we have to encourage children to use AI is just nonsense. It is also crazy to suppose that we can just say to them, “Don’t do it,” and they will comply. Every child in the country learns computing in primary school. We need to make sure that the curriculum evolves so that children get to understand how the thing works, how it generates its content, why it might hallucinate, why it tries to flatter the questioner and why we cannot fully rely on it.

There is a real danger. Cognitive offloading is a fancy term, but it basically means relying on a machine to do the work for us. One way we can mitigate that effect with schoolchildren is ensure that when they do their exams at the end of the year, they do them with a piece of paper and a pen in exam conditions. I am afraid there is a move across exam boards to make more exams digital. Of course, they will say that the computers are not attached to the internet and children cannot do this, that and the other, but pen and paper is the safest thing. Of course, there should be exceptions for children with a special educational need or disability that means they need to use a keyboard, and exceptions for computer science, but in general, children at school doing their public exams should do them on pen and paper. That will make sure it happens lower down the school as well. It will also ensure that children continue to write. This sounds like a stupid thing to say, but people already ask, “Why is my child learning to write with a pen, because by the time they grow up nobody will be doing that?”

Finally, we are about to make the same mistake with chatbots as we did with social media. I am talking about anthropomorphism, where a computer program develops a personality of its own and develops relationships with people. I welcome the development of an age-appropriate design code for chatbots, but it is not enough. The regulatory regime we have in this country, with Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office, relies on there being evidence of harm. The evidence will not come before the harm. We need to change that system and adopt a precautionary principle when it comes to protecting children.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Damian Hinds

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

For reasons of timeliness, I will speak only to amendment 101, which relates to adults with Down syndrome or a learning disability, although the amendment is directly relevant to new clause 1, as the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) spoke about. Amendment 101 would disallow medical practitioners from initiating a conversation about assisted dying with a person who has Down syndrome or a learning disability. I speak primarily from my experience, along with others, on the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome and what we have heard from members of that community: people with Down syndrome and their families, and professionals specialising in the condition.

Many strong and deeply heartfelt arguments have been put by colleagues, and indeed to all of us by constituents in favour of the Bill, including by families in the most difficult circumstances to imagine—actually, they are sometimes unimaginable circumstances. Nobody could question the conclusions they have come to individually as a result of their circumstances. Equally deeply held and heartfelt points are made to us by people from the other perspective, also informed by their sometimes unimaginable own or family circumstances.

Of the arguments put against the Bill, I am particularly drawn to those around coercion. However, it is important to remember that coercion is not entirely a black-and-white matter. At the sharpest end, there are cases where an individual will directly bring pressure to bear on another for their own ends, but there are many gradations below that, and pressure can be felt differently by different people. It may be felt especially by people who worry they are a burden on their family, on caregivers, on the national health service, or indeed more broadly on society. Once assisted dying is an available option, over and above the question of pressure from others, I worry about the effect of pressure from oneself.

The Bill stipulates in clause 36 that the Secretary of State will issue a code of practice to ensure that the practitioner establishes that there is a “clear and settled intention” for the person to end their own life, including assessing that that person has

“capacity to make such a decision”.

That will have material challenges of its own. However, with regard to amendment 101, I am talking about the initiation, suggesting or raising of the matter specifically with an individual who has a learning disability or Down syndrome.

[Sir John Hayes]

The critical point about my right hon. Friend’s amendment, and indeed about new clause 16, is that they would put that on the face of the Bill. He is right to say that codes of practice and statutory guidance can be of value, but it seems to me that what is on the face of the Bill will be of fundamental importance, particularly in respect of coercion.

[Damian Hinds]

My right hon. Friend is right, of course. When we in this House are told that there will be secondary legislation, guidance or a code of practice, we can only ever take that on trust, and this subject is of such moment that what is on the face of the Bill is that much more important. Given the scale of the decisions that people could make as a result of this legislation, it is right that an additional layer of caution should be applied by legislators.

Obviously, it is important not to generalise—every single person is an individual—but it is the case that people with Down syndrome often exhibit distinct social characteristics, including great sociability, empathy, and a strong desire to please others and seek positive social feedback, while also being particularly sensitive to criticism or perceived failure, which can compound issues around communication and comprehension. We do not need to define what can result as coercion to worry about what might happen in that context.

Amendment 101 and new clause 1 are about initiating a conversation and ensuring that there are additional safeguards, and I urge the House to apply caution that is commensurate with the gravity of the path that could be embarked upon.