MPs and peers tell UK to stop winging it on AI regulation

AI AND ML

Rights committee demands watchdog with teeth as patchwork safeguards leave victims hunting for remedies

UK lawmakers want an AI watchdog with the teeth to stop potentially dangerous systems reaching the public, warning that existing rules leave people exposed and struggling to hold anyone accountable.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) – comprising MPs and peers – said that although a number of laws and regulations apply to some AI systems, the overall legal landscape is patchy and confused. No single body coordinates regulation of AI, leaving gaps that could make it difficult for people harmed by AI to obtain legal redress.

Committee chair Alex Sobel MP said the speed and complexity of AI development made its impact hard to predict.

"What is clear is that at present we are unprepared to deal with its consequences however potentially dire they may be. Nowhere in the world, including the UK, has a current legislative and regulatory approach to AI that is fit for purpose. New legislation is needed to establish a comprehensive set of protections that deal with the entire AI supply chain and its lifecycle. A single AI regulator should be established to set policy, monitor performance and with the teeth to ensure enforcement."

Successive UK governments have floated plans for AI regulation. In 2023, the previous Conservative government proposed an approach to AI regulation based on known harms rather than possible risks.

After taking power in 2024, the Labour government said it would "seek to establish the appropriate legislation to place requirements on those working to develop the most powerful artificial intelligence models."

It has yet to introduce that legislation. The JCHR report said Meta, owner of Facebook and WhatsApp, had warmly welcomed the government's approach.

"However, it was criticised by a wide range of other witnesses, especially those focused on human rights protection, those involved in the legal system, and technical bodies. The approach was described as 'uncritical and deregulatory,' and 'asleep at the wheel.'"

The report warned AI systems were prone to producing unfairly discriminatory outcomes, "which may arise from bias in the datasets on which they are trained as well as from the way they are developed and deployed. This threatens the human rights of people in the UK and elsewhere."

The MPs and peers recommended a risk-based approach, with lighter requirements for low-risk systems to avoid overburdening organizations using them.

The proposed AI bill should "mandate more demanding obligations for higher risk AI systems and models," the report said.

The committee also called for mandatory transparency requirements throughout the AI lifecycle.

"Urgent action is needed to close gaps in the regulatory framework which is currently fragmented and difficult to navigate. A single, independent AI oversight body should be established on a statutory basis. The body would act as the central point of contact for raising concerns about the use of AI and carry out oversight and monitoring of AI harms and risks," the report said.

The EU has already adopted a risk-based approach through its AI Act, which imposes different obligations according to risk and bans certain practices outright.

The US has no overarching AI law. The Trump administration's December 2025 executive order called for a "minimally burdensome national standard" and directed federal officials to challenge state AI laws it considers inconsistent with that policy. ®