MPs’ Use of ChatGPT in Commons Draws Criticism as AI-Style Phrases Spike in Hansard

A senior Conservative MP accused Labour colleagues of reading ChatGPT-generated material into the House of Commons on Thursday, citing a rise in AI-style phrasing in recent parliamentary contributions.

Tom Tugendhat, the former security minister, told the Commons that "all we hear from Government members is ChatGPT-generated press releases," pointing to repeated use of the phrase "I rise to speak" as evidence that some contributions had been drafted with the help of generative AI. A review of Hansard, the official record of parliamentary debates, shows an uptick over the past year in that phrase and other turns of phrase the Pimlico Journal and others have linked to AI-generated text.

The intervention followed separate reports that some MPs are using AI tools in day-to-day parliamentary work. Labour MP Mike Read (Northampton South) was observed using ChatGPT on a train to help draft replies to constituents. Read told reporters he believed MPs should use generative AI to assist with correspondence provided safeguards are in place and a human reviews material before it is sent. He said he uses a closed system that prevents constituent data being fed back into the model and that replies are always edited and personalised by a human.

Another Labour MP, Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley), has worked with an AI firm to create a virtual version of himself that uses his voice to answer constituent queries on local issues and policy. Sewards said the system will help strengthen the link between an MP’s office and constituents.

The Pimlico Journal published an analysis suggesting a "widespread use of AI to generate Commons speeches," identifying eight words and phrases that have seen recent spikes in parliamentary usage. The publication’s findings and the Hansard search have heightened scrutiny in Westminster over the role of generative AI in political communication.

Tugendhat, who used the word "absurd" to describe the Commons environment, framed his criticism around parliamentary decorum and language. He singled out the phrase "I rise to speak" as an Americanism that, he said, suggested a templated or externally generated origin for some speeches.

Labour MPs and some proponents of AI-assisted drafting argue the technology can improve efficiency and constituency service if used responsibly. Read and Sewards both stressed human oversight and technical safeguards. Read said a human always has the final say before correspondence is sent; Sewards said the virtual avatar complements, rather than replaces, his office’s work.

The debate in Westminster reflects broader international discussion about political actors’ use of generative AI. Last month, Sweden’s prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, drew criticism after saying he regularly consults AI tools for a "second opinion," prompting questions about transparency and reliance on machine-generated advice.

Parliamentary rules do not expressly ban MPs from using AI tools to draft speeches or correspondence, but the exchanges in recent weeks have prompted calls from some MPs for clearer guidance on disclosure, data protection and the need to ensure speeches reflect the speaker's own words and views. Lawyers and parliamentary officials have also warned that constituency data and confidential information require careful handling if processed by external AI services.

As generative AI becomes more widely adopted across workplaces, the Commons is likely to face further scrutiny over how members balance efficiency gains with expectations of accountability, personal responsibility and the integrity of parliamentary debate. MPs who use AI say they will continue to press for safeguards and clearer rules; critics say transparency and a reaffirmation of parliamentary standards are needed to maintain public trust.