MPs Are Divided Over Whether They Should Use AI To Do Their Jobs
While some MPs have incorporated the use of AI into their everyday work, others say they avoid using it altogether (Alamy)
6 min read
MPs are divided over whether artificial intelligence (AI) can help ease the pressures of parliamentary workloads, with some hailing it as an efficiency tool and others warning it risks undermining trust between politicians and the public.
While Parliament has been on summer recess, UK MPs have continued to experiment with their uses of AI.
Labour MP Mark Sewards launched an AI version of himself to answer questions from constituents – which he had to then adjust and add further safeguards after PoliticsHome prompted it to produce some unusual responses.
Another Labour MP, Mike Reader, made headlines last week after being spotted on a train using ChatGPT for casework. He has since defended his approach in The House, arguing that AI should be used by MPs as long as “safeguards are in place and a human always has the final say on what goes out the door”.
Meanwhile, Parliament has been carrying out a pilot scheme for some MPs to use Microsoft Copilot for tasks such as summarising reports and correspondence – a programme which is already widely used across government and the civil service.
Reader told PoliticsHome he believes the use of AI is necessary when he receives “over 500 emails per week, from campaign petitions to complex legal queries”. He insisted that many MPs are using AI tools like ChatGPT every day to draft correspondence and also parliamentary speeches.
The Labour MP and his team play “ChatGPT Bingo” to spot when they think an MP has used it to write their speech: “They have certain terms they use… ChatGPT thinks parliamentary speeches should start with ‘I rise to speak in support of…’ If you see someone say that, chances are they've probably written it with ChatGPT.”
PoliticsHome analysis of Hansard shows that the phrase “I rise to speak…” has been used 601 times across the Commons and the Lords so far this year – compared to only 131 in the first eight months of 2024, and 227 times in the same period in 2023.
While Reader said he does not share any personal data from constituents with the AI tool, he was “really worried” about the data risks across Parliament more widely, with many parliamentary staff not necessarily trained in how to use AI safely. The MP said he has personally trained his own staff on its use.
Conservative MP Luke Evans has been another early adopter of AI in Parliament, and delivered the first speech in Parliament written by AI in 2023. He is now directly involved in Parliament’s pilot of Microsoft Copilot.
He told PoliticsHome that the pilot was aimed at making MPs “more productive and creative” by using AI for simple tasks such as summarising briefings or organising social media posts.
Evans said that he would be worried if anyone was using it to “outsource either opinions or ideas to a computer”, and expressed concern that some MPs and staff might not be fully equipped to use it safely. However, he insisted that it was important for MPs to try to be ahead of the technological curve and figure out how to use AI productively.
“Like in every industry and sector across the country, AI is there and should be looked at and explored,” he said.
“The question from an MP’s point of view is how do you do this safely and make sure that people are protected, that data is protected.”
Other MPs were less confident about the idea of AI being deployed safely in their own offices. Labour MP Charlotte Nichols said she has avoided AI entirely in her own work, describing herself as “a bit of a Luddite”.
“When it comes to casework, I wouldn't go anywhere near it for that, because I just think it's a GDPR minefield,” she said.
“For starters, I'd be worried about where any sensitive information was going.”
She was sceptical about the practicalities of getting staff to manually check everything that AI produces: “That sounds like more work, not less.”
However, Nichols told PoliticsHome she saw the potential value in AI for helping with communications, such as writing social media posts or press releases – especially when she does not directly employ any comms staff in her own office.
But ultimately, she argued that the reason MPs and their staff were being tempted to use AI was because public expectations of MPs are too high, while MPs’ resources do not stretch far enough.
“Maybe we need an honest conversation about what level of correspondence we are expected to deal with, and how small our teams are,” she said.
“We live in a culture where everyone wants everything within a day or two days. And sometimes it's not as straightforward as that. We need twice the amount of staff that we've got… but I'm not convinced AI is the answer to that.”
Labour MP Noah Law agreed that the casework load for MPs was “enormous”, but that AI tools like ChatGPT should not be seen as a “silver bullet”.
He said he currently uses it as a research tool – “like Google” – but that it needs more checks, and can therefore sometimes end up taking more time.
Multiple MPs told PoliticsHome they were deeply cynical of Sewards’ experimental AI bot.
Reader described it as “very bold”, but “more of a branding exercise than a helping constituents exercise”.
Labour MP Mark Sewards launched an AI version of himself to respond to constituents' questions (PoliticsHome)
“It will be interesting to see what he declares [as expenses], because that's not a cheap piece of work, even if it was a volunteer doing it.” Reader said.
“It's great to see people innovating… I'm not sure the product was quite ready when he launched it. People have played with it and it’s not actually particularly useful.”
Nichols said she would be worried about what an AI-generated MP could say, and the potentially damaging impact on public trust.
“There's a perception that MPs are out of touch robots anyway, and I don't think adding an AI interface between you and the public is necessarily going to help,” she said.
Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty told PoliticsHome that he felt using ChatGPT for any form of constituency correspondence was unacceptable.
“MPs relying on ChatGPT to respond to constituents makes a mockery of the role MPs play,” he said.
“It’s unacceptable for MPs to outsource casework to AI, any more than it would be unacceptable to use an overseas call centre. I’m old school and don’t use it myself. I think speechwriting needs to be done from scratch if you want to develop your own style and tone, but I’m sure not everyone thinks that...”
