Parliament's party history for this member: Labour ( – present).
Register of interests
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
A director (unpaid) of Transform Labour Ltd (formally Transform Europe (Campaign) Ltd). This is a dormant company, limited by guarantee, which applied for dissolution on 28 June 2023.
Leeds is one of the biggest local authorities in England. We have 27,000 households on the waiting list for council housing, 5,000 of which are in priority need. So many constituents come to me saying that they just cannot afford private rented homes. The main issue is that there is just not enough council housing. I welcome the Government saying that they are building more houses, but there needs to be specific help for Leeds, including both more funding for land remediation and the purchasing of city centre developments that are unoccupied or under-occupied. What additional support can the Government provide for that type of housing?
Have any funds been allocated to Ukraine’s water infrastructure—for instance, within the UN WASH cluster project? Has the UK provided funds for defence barrier systems for water infrastructure and/or for a consistent power supply for water and sewerage systems? My counterparts in Ukraine said to me that this is a top immediate priority to ensure that water and sewage do not overwhelm them.
When I was first elected to Parliament nine years ago, we had people coming in and saying that new technology in aviation—electric planes, hydrogen planes and SAF—would significantly reduce emissions by 2025; I think that was the date given. None of that has happened. So all these assumptions are being made about new technology, which has not arrived and will not arrive. And we will break through our carbon budget just with increased aviation, particularly if we go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow. Does my hon. Friend agree?
One concerning point that my hon. Friend did not raise is the number of houses that will be demolished and the number of people who will be displaced. Heathrow’s own assumption is fewer than 1,000, but that is really only the direct curtilage of the runway. Even a quite casual look at a map would show that the uninhabitable zone around Heathrow could be north of 5,000 homes.<span id="329WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="329WH"></span>
Who would pay for those demolitions, and for the replacements and compensation for those homeowners? That is something, alongside ground transport, that nobody is willing to pay for. That is an exceedingly large amount of money, on top of the misery caused for all those people living there.
I have listened to many of the contributions to this debate. They have been a credit to the House; this has been the sort of well-informed debate that we should be having about these complex and difficult issues.
As Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I draw attention to the recommendations and findings of our report following our legislative scrutiny of this important Bill. The JCHR report on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill was published on 7 September. It formed part of our regular scrutiny of Bills that raise human rights issues. Our legal team looked closely at the Bill; I particularly thank Alyssa Curry, deputy counsel on human rights in international constitutional law, for her tireless work on both the Bill and the accompanying remedial order.
We took oral evidence on the Bill on 28 January and 22 April. I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Office for its engagement, including the former Secretary of State and my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), as well as the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick). I am grateful also to the current team on the Front Bench, including the Secretary of State, who gave me his time last week.
We are particularly pleased that the Northern Ireland Office provided a full human rights memorandum, albeit belatedly. I use this opportunity to remind Treasury Benchers of the expectation that all Departments should provide those memoranda in detail when a Bill is introduced, as set out in the Cabinet Office guide to making legislation.
Our overall conclusion was that the Bill represented
“a vast improvement on the Legacy Act in terms of human rights compliance”.<span id="879" class="column-number" data-column-number="879"></span>
However, there were still areas where we felt it could be strengthened; I will come on to those. We also concluded:
“The Troubles Bill is an opportunity for the parties to resolve the legacy of the Troubles. The parties responsible must not waste this opportunity.”
As many have said, this is possibly our last opportunity to resolve them.
The Government have already accepted our recommendation on Attorney General consent. We are glad that that sensible concession has been made and will be implemented through Government new clause 50, if it is accepted by the House. We feel that it will give all parties more confidence about the independence of decisions to prosecute troubles-related crime. We also reported on the Northern Ireland remedial order on 28 February and 9 December 2025. We are very pleased that the Government have now accepted our advice to proceed no further with the order and that instead its contents will be incorporated into the Bill, if the amendments that the Government have tabled are made.
We recommended several other changes, which have not yet been made. I will focus on two; the third was raised by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow). First, there is the appointment of judicial panel members. Judicial panel members or JPMs will be vital to the functioning of the legacy commission. They will have to produce a final report on the findings of an investigation under part 3 of the Bill; preside over “inquisitorial proceedings” under part 4 of the Bill, which includes deciding how the proceedings will be conducted; decide whether and how to restrict public access to inquisitorial proceedings; decide whether to award funding for legal representation to the next-of-kin; produce a final report on the findings of the proceedings; and decide whether to make a referral to prosecutors following inquisitorial proceedings. Clearly, their role is key.
To ensure legitimacy and trust, as well as the success of the Bill in achieving its aims, JPMs must be seen to be independent. The way in which they are appointed will be key. There is already a process for appointing coroners and other judicial office holders in Northern Ireland: the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission makes those independent appointments. However, at present under part 2, the appointment process used for JPMs will be the same as that used for public inquiry chairs rather than the appointment model for coroners. Appointments will be made directly by the Secretary of State. When we questioned the previous Secretary of State, the Committee did not receive a satisfactory reason why that was the case.
The Secretary of State will have the power to appoint and to re-appoint the JPMs. That is even more concerning to the Committee because it could risk the perception that JPMs have an incentive to try to please the Secretary of State with their findings to ensure that they are reappointed. That could seriously undermine confidence and independence. JPMs should be able to do their jobs without fear or favour, so we recommend that for the sake of the success of this process and of public trust, the troubles Bill should be amended so that the NIJAC rather than the Secretary of State is responsible for appointing JPMs.
I turn to my second key point, about close family members. The status of being a close family member of a deceased person is a gateway condition for accessing <span id="880" class="column-number" data-column-number="880"></span>various provisions of the Bill. They are set out in parts 3 and 4 of the Bill. They include having the right to request an investigation into a death and to be kept informed of that investigation—two key points made by families seeking justice when they came before the Committee.
As I said, Mrs Cummins, while the effects of the definition are all in parts 3 and 4, the definition is in part 9, so I hope that you will permit a brief reference to that part in the context of our recommendation. A “close family member” is defined by clause 93 as someone falling within one of the following categories: a deceased spouse, civil partner or co-habitee; deceased child or stepchild; deceased parent or step-parent; or deceased sibling, half-sibling, or step-sibling. The definition does not cover nieces or nephews, aunts or uncles, or grandchildren. We found that that narrow definition was not in keeping with the provisions of the ECHR, in which article 2 makes clear the need to ensure sufficient involvement of the next of kin, which is not exhaustively defined.
The current definition also overlooks the reality, due to the passage of time, of family members—particularly grandchildren—currently searching for justice for their relatives. That is clearly unfair and unwelcome in a situation where family members are seeking justice. Our report recommends that the Government should amend the existing list of close family members to add an additional catch-all final category of being the next of kin. That will ensure that family members who are the grandchildren, nieces and nephews of the deceased can be considered close family members.
Our Committee welcomes this important Bill and believes that it represents a step forward in human rights terms and for all those affected by the painful legacy of the troubles. The Secretary of State has done the right thing in already accepting several of our recommendations. However, we think that the Bill could be even stronger. I urge the Government to consider carefully our recommendations about judicial panel members, the definition of “close family member” and, as my fellow Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, raised in his intervention, the extension of the duty of candour to cover legacy commission inquisitorial proceedings.
Thank you very much, Mrs Barker. As the newly elected Chair, I am proud to be presenting the significant findings of the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on human rights and the regulation of artificial intelligence. I thank Lord Alton for his exemplary leadership and service as the Chair of our Committee.
All the evidence suggests that the world is at the precipice of the outcomes of a reckless race towards superintelligent AI—AI that can fully replace and outmatch humans at any task. Our report found that no cross-economy regulators, agencies or bodies have systemic powers to prevent AI models or systems from being deployed, even if they pose significant risks.
Regulators lack the power to test and evaluate AI systems before they are publicly released or to prevent their release if they are considered to pose unacceptable risks, except in very limited circumstances. Our existing copyright laws will not stop the onset of superintelligent AI in the UK. Model developers engage the AI Security Institute on a voluntary basis. The AI Security Institute has no statutory power.
The Committee found that AI indeed threatens the human rights of people in the UK and elsewhere. We welcome the Prime Minister accepting one of our key recommendations that the Government should use its G20 presidency to address AI harms. That being said, with the speed and turbulence that frontier developers are hurtling towards unleashing superintelligent AI, we must regulate now—not in a year, not in five years, but now. With the G20 in mind, we should seek a global agreement on standards and regulations next year.
The Committee has concentrated on the key principles identified in the Council of Europe’s framework convention as being fundamental to the protection of human rights— <span id="212WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="212WH"></span>equality and non-discrimination, and privacy and personal data protection. The Committee defined that AI systems are machine systems that perceive, learn and act.
AI is now widely used across a diverse range of purposes, from email spam filters through to powerful tools for scientific discovery. AI systems are being incorporated into more complex AI agents. These are small, specialised pieces of software that can make decisions and operate co-operatively or independently to achieve pre-specified objectives. A fundamental aspect of current AI systems is their capacity to operate with varying degrees of autonomy and adaptiveness. Some AI models operate in ways that are so mathematically complex that their outputs are opaque, even to an informed expert.
The general-purpose AI systems used today are not coded line by line, but use vast amounts of data and are grown, not built. This results in systems that nobody fully understands or can reliably predict.
Let me be clear: AI is the crucial technology of the 21st century. It is vital to effective defence and promotes vast benefits for science, medicine and the UK’s prosperity. However, there are many ways in which AI may adversely affect human rights. In particular, witnesses during our inquiry told us of the potential impact on the treatment and condition of workers, workers’ rights generally and on the environment.
Furthermore, companies are spending billions to make superintelligent AI reality. The chief executives of top AI companies themselves put the chance that it ends all human life at between 10% and 25%. In any other industry, with that level of risk, this development would be ruled out. How have we allowed frontier developers to create the rules in which they govern themselves?
On the first principle of the framework convention—equality and non-discrimination—we heard that intentional abuses committed using AI systems such as deepfakes can have a disproportionate effect on people from minoritised groups, compounding existing structural and systemic racism and sexism that impacts victims’ personal and professional lives. The Safety Not Surveillance coalition told us:
“AI is having a chilling effect on communities of colour in the UK.”
Discrimination can arise when AI systems are deployed, because of these baked-in biases and choices made by those deploying AI systems. We heard explicit examples of AI facial recognition software having racial basis and of AI recruitment tools discriminating against women applicants. AI systems are prone to producing unfairly discriminatory outcomes because of biased training data. That threatens the human rights of people in the UK and elsewhere.
Next, we looked at the second principle of the framework convention, which is that AI systems pose particular risks to privacy and personal data. The Committee found that because of the prevalence of web scraping to collect personal data to train large language models, there is potential for AI systems to be used in highly intrusive ways. That threatens the article 8 right to privacy of people in the UK and is given particular expression in data protection law in relation to personal data. Between January and October 2025, about 3 million people would have had their faces scanned by police facial recognition technology in the UK without their consent.<span id="213WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="213WH"></span>
Human rights principles must inform all aspects of the Government’s policies and practices relating to AI systems, including their approach to the regulation of AI. The Committee recommends that the Government encourage the development of AI use cases that can demonstrably improve human rights.
Although the AI action plan commissioned by the previous Administration brings a welcome focus on innovation and economic opportunity, it fails to pay sufficient attention to the need to secure the protection of human rights from AI-generated interference throughout the supply chain.
The UK’s leading position as the third largest AI market in the world affords opportunities not only for economic growth, but for setting strong standards on the responsible adoption and development of new technologies. The Committee is encouraged by the prominence given to AI by the new Administration and urges the Government to seize the opportunity to regulate AI in a way that puts human rights first. To address the global nature of AI harms and protect human rights, Governments need to collaborate to identify risks and promote consistent standards. The UK can be justifiably proud of its record of leadership on AI. That has been maintained across Administrations from different sides of the debate. An appropriate regulatory regime would not only enhance human rights protections but help to reinforce the UK’s leadership position in AI safety.
The Committee recommends that the Government introduce a new AI Bill, as promised in the 2024 King’s Speech, to place AI regulation on a sound basis and give full effect to the framework convention. A risk-based approach is needed to address AI harms. The Hugging Face incident and others illustrate the significant risks that can arise from the newest and most advanced AI models, and legislation should address those risks on a precautionary basis with a view to avoiding harm, as with the regulation of pharmaceuticals. Low-risk AI systems should be subject to fewer and less demanding legal requirements. To ensure that regulation can keep pace with technological developments, it is preferable for legislation to take the form of broadly framed principles. The AI Bill that we recommend should provide for a regulatory regime that would classify different risk levels and mandate proportionately more demanding obligations for higher-risk AI systems and models.
Some uses of AI should be prohibited because they are incompatible with human rights. I believe that to be the case when it comes to superintelligent AI. Once developers reach superintelligent AI, it will be too late to slow anything down in time for us to regulate. The development of the most advanced AI systems happens on a spectrum, so where we draw the line matters. That line must be able to recognise the capabilities of superintelligent AI. The clearest example of such a capability is recursive self-improvement—the full automation of AI development, with no humans in the loop. That is the point at which we lose control, as development towards superintelligent AI would proceed too fast for humans to intervene and remain in control.
Frontier developers are heeding standards, rather than statute, for their own AI models. These are the same developers who are deliberately training their models to hack and deceive, as we heard this week during the Business, <span id="214WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="214WH"></span>Innovation, Science and Trade Committee inquiry session, which I guested at as JCHR Chair. We heard from ex-employees of frontier developers OpenAI, Google DeepMind and Anthropic. We heard about non-existent safety cultures in these organisations. Some whistleblowers put the chance of AI destroying humanity at 50%—a coin flip as to whether we survive. This is not a human rights model that we should ever be working with. These frontier developers believe that they will not get stopped by Government in their race to superintelligence. Let us put a stop to that and regulate now.
In the words of David Krueger, previously at the UK AI Security Institute,
“My dream is that in 10 years people will look back and say: ‘Remember when there were all these people building AI that could’ve killed everybody? That was CRAZY! What were we thinking!?’”
I thank my fellow Committee member for that question. In the report, we said:
“Many AI systems developed for a specific purpose can be deployed or adapted for use for different purposes and contexts from those intended by the AI developer. Those deploying the system may lack understanding of the risks arising from the way in which the AI system has been designed and developed”.
We also recommend that the AI Bill should
“impose proportionate obligations on actors at all stages of the AI lifecycle and supply chain to ensure that risks are identified, evaluated and effectively addressed at the appropriate stage.”
On Tuesday, at the BIST Committee, we heard from Daniel Kokotajlo, a whistleblower, who said that pre-deployment training was insufficient and AISI or other safety institutes should be undertaking internal testing during all stages of development.
I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee. It has been my great privilege to twice hear Pope Leo address an audience in the Vatican. The second time, at the Jubilee of Governments, last year in June, he addressed this exact issue. This is not a recent development for the Pope. I read his encyclical and think that every Government should study it. It is interesting that—although he is technically a head of state, because the Vatican is a <span id="215WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="215WH"></span>state—a faith leader such as the Pope has such an incisive view on an issue such as this and brings it back to the central principle that human rights are for humans. We have already seen the anthropocentric effects on the climate. We cannot have the same pervade every area of life through AI. These AI companies are now at a stage where they are trying to replace Governments and not be regulated by Governments. That is, exactly as my hon Friend says, because they can then limit their liabilities, maximise their profits and act without any scope from the state. That should concern us all.
I absolutely agree. We continually heard evidence right across the industry, both here in the House and externally, about the excellent work that the AISI does. I am pleased that the AI Minister, who is here in the Chamber, has played another leading role in developing AISI as the world’s leading AI safety institute.
However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two things. The first, as the report found, is about human utilisation of AI tools through, for instance, deepfakes, which affect people’s human rights, or through employment practices, which we can probably very easily regulate, control and legislate for, but that need Government action.
Then, secondly, there are the frontier models. We need a very different level of regulation and legislation for those than we have for individual assistive tools. <span id="216WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="216WH"></span>I am not really worried about ChatGPT 2.0. It is not going to create an existential crisis but, without regulation, future models that are being developed can and will.
First, AI may have the potential to replace many things, but it will probably never be able to replace the hon. Gentleman’s intervention at the Adjournment debate. We can probably rest assured of one thing in terms of AI development.
I am glad that we now seem to have cross-party support from the hon. Gentleman and his party for a new AI Bill with human rights at the centre. What he says about human rights is absolutely correct. I always say that human rights are universal, inalienable, indivisible and apply everywhere in the world. Our Committee’s remit is for the UK, but this is an international issue. I am sure that the Minister has heard all that we have said.