Udaykumar Nagaraju

“My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for securing this important debate. I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly as a director, adviser and shareholder in AI and tech companies. If we are serious about social mobi…”

“My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for securing this important debate. I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly as a director, adviser and shareholder in AI and tech companies. If we are serious about social mobility, education cannot be a one-off event at the beginning of life. Disadvantage does not end at 18. Technology is now changing faster than any single qualification can keep pace with. Lifelong learning is, therefore, not an optional extra. It is part of the economic infrastructure. The challenge is already stark. Young people from lower working-class backgrounds are more than twice as likely not to be in education, employment or training as those from professional backgrounds—it is 22%, compared with 9%. At the same time, Skills England says that demand for key occupations in priority sectors is expected to rise by nearly a quarter over the next decade, with particularly strong growth in the digital and engineering professions. Critically, it says that the education pipeline alone will not be enough. Significant reskilling of the existing workforce will be essential. Artificial intelligence brings these two challenges together. The Government’s AI labour market research found that 35% of surveyed organisations struggled to fill AI roles. Government-commissioned vacancy analysis also found significant advertised salary premiums for AI skills. Yet in 2023, 60% of expert AI vacancies were advertised in London and the south-east. If the skills, opportunities and higher-value jobs remain concentrated in the same places, AI risks widening regional inequality rather than reducing it. I welcome the Government’s building blocks—the AI skills boost, the level 4 AI and automation practitioner apprenticeship and the lifelong learning entitlement, supporting eligible courses and modular studies from January 2027. However, flexibility on paper does not necessarily mean access in practice. A learner in a deprived community may need a pathway from essential digital skills through applied training to an apprenticeship or modular higher education alongside meaningful work experience, careers advice and support with practical barriers. This is where FE colleges, employers and regional leaders can be powerful partners. I welcome the Government’s commitment to reach disadvantaged young people through programmes such as TechFirst. Will the Minister ensure that this opportunity extends beyond schools into lifelong learning and that local skills improvement plans and devolved skills funding will open pathways into AI and emerging technology careers for disadvantaged communities? Will the Government publish the participation, completion and employment outcomes by deprivation and by region? If we do this, lifelong learning can be both a ladder of opportunity and an engine of regional growth.”

“My Lords, I am grateful to the most reverend Primate for bringing this timely debate. I declare my interests as a technology consultant, an adviser on AI policy and a director of companies and organisations involved in AI and AI governance. I support…”

“My Lords, I am grateful to the most reverend Primate for bringing this timely debate. I declare my interests as a technology consultant, an adviser on AI policy and a director of companies and organisations involved in AI and AI governance. I support this Motion because Al is not merely another tool; it is increasingly a mediator of work, knowledge, attention and relationships. Unlike earlier technologies, AI moves at digital speed and can spread at very low marginal cost through existing digital infrastructure, entering our phones, homes, classrooms, hospitals and friendships, automating not only labour but judgment, creativity, companionship and trust. A small number of firms and countries now command many of the models and much of the compute and data on which others increasingly rely on. This makes AI not only an economic race but a governance challenge. Like all nations, we cannot afford to fall behind. AI will be central to productivity, public service reform and national competitiveness. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that around 40% of UK occupations are exposed to AI, with most likely to be complemented rather than replaced. We must therefore be ambitious, innovative and open to enterprise. Innovation and responsibility are not opposites: trustworthy AI should become one of Britain’s competitive strengths. The dilemma is clear: move too slowly, and we risk economic decline and dependence; move too quickly, and we might embed systems that erode dignity, privacy, fairness and trust. Governance must include technologists and investors, but must not be left to them alone. Ethicists, teachers, parents, clinicians, workers, entrepreneurs, civil society, young people and parliamentarians must all have a voice. AI may deepen existing divides. Countries and companies with compute, data, talent and capital will shape the terms of use. Communities with access to AI-enhanced education, healthcare and employment may pull ahead, while those exposed mainly to surveillance, misinformation or job disruption may fall further behind. Successful companies create jobs, wealth, tools and opportunity. But democracy must be capable of scrutinising concentrations of economic, informational and infrastructural power moving at this speed. More than half the people in the UK aged 16 and over use generative AI. Around one in eight users reports using AI as someone to talk to or as a friend—and the figure is even higher in the United States. Evidence on long-term effects is still limited, but the risk is clear. Digital platforms already shape identity and social habits, especially among young people, but generative AI goes further. It talks back, remembers, flatters and can simulate intimacy. Young people may increasingly turn to it for advice, reassurance and help with social situations: roles once shaped by parents, peers and teachers. AI companions do not require reciprocity. Real relationships involve patience, disagreement and obligation. We should not discover too late that human development has been reshaped by systems that simulate care without sharing responsibility. AI’s benefits are real. In the NHS, AI can reduce administrative burdens, triage referrals, predict missed appointments and support cancer screening. In education, it can help teachers plan lessons and create resources—though it must not weaken teacher-pupil relationships or critical thinking. However, we must also plan for the environmental cost. AI data centres need significant electricity and water. That is not an argument against AI infrastructure, but for building it with resilient energy and water planning from the start. Some of these questions cannot be answered within our borders alone. In July, the United Nations will host the first Global Dialogue on AI Governance in Geneva, which I hope to attend. The UK should help shape global rules that are innovative, entrepreneurial and at the same time democratic, humane and inclusive. The questions raised by artificial intelligence are not only technical and economic; they are about what kind of society we wish to live in, how work is valued, how children learn and form relationships, and how innovation and enterprise can serve the common good. I welcome the Government’s efforts to place the UK at the forefront of safe and responsible AI. As that work develops, I hope Ministers will continue to consider AI’s wider social impacts, including on children, loneliness, education, work, public services, competition and democratic trust, and ensure that Parliament remains engaged in that conversation. The Motion before us invites us to take these questions seriously and to bring together expertise from across society. I support it wholeheartedly, and hope this debate contributes to the Government’s wider work, and to the national and international conversation about what AI is, whom it serves and how it can be directed towards the common good.”

“My Lords, it is a great honour to rise and address this House, and I am grateful for the opportunity. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for raising this important Question. I express my sincere thanks for the warm welcome from all s…”

“My Lords, it is a great honour to rise and address this House, and I am grateful for the opportunity. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for raising this important Question. I express my sincere thanks for the warm welcome from all sides of the House. I am appreciative of Black Rod, the Clerk of the Parliaments, officials and staff. I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Berger, of Barnhill, and Lord Raval, of Hertsmere, for their support during my introduction. I also thank my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark for their guidance and support. I was born in India and came to the UK as a student. My journey was shaped by education. I pursued a master’s degree in computer science at Oxford Brookes University, leading me into a career in the technology sector. After more than two decades, I returned to study at University College London, undertaking a master’s in public administration, focusing on development, technology and innovation policy. That experience, together with my work on AI policy, reinforced my belief that technological progress must be guided by thoughtful governance and a commitment to the public good. It is for this reason that I have chosen the territorial designation of Bloomsbury, reflecting both my academic connection and its long traditional tradition of intellectual inquiry. I declare my interests as a technology consultant, an AI policy adviser and a director of AI companies. My experience in the technology sector has given me a deep appreciation of both the opportunities and the complexities of innovation. I strongly believe that the opportunities and risks of artificial intelligence must be understood widely and that its benefits should be shared across all parts of society. I turn briefly to the subject of today’s debate. The transition to clean power is both necessary and welcome. As the Government advance their ambitions in the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, it is vital that the impact on rural communities is carefully considered. Technology and innovation can play an important role. AI will increase electricity demand, but it can also help a clean power system to operate more effectively by improving renewable forecasting, balancing the grid and detecting faults faster. The opportunity is to ensure that rural communities are not merely asked to host this transition but are enabled to share in its benefits through community energy, local participation and greater local resilience. We are living through a period of profound technological change. Artificial intelligence presents both significant opportunities and important challenges. We must harness its potential to drive growth and improve lives, while ensuring that its risks are addressed responsibly and with foresight, particularly in relation to safety, security, ethics and bias. In doing so, I am guided by values long associated with the Labour movement: fairness, inclusion and the belief that progress must benefit all. This is not a challenge for the UK alone. It calls for stronger international co-operation and meaningful partnerships, including those between the United Kingdom and India, the European Union and the United States. I take my place in this House with humility, mindful of its traditions and the wisdom and experience of its Members. I hope to contribute constructively, particularly in the areas of technology policy, innovation and global co-operation. I thank your Lordships.”