UK AI-specific legislation? Joint Committee on Human Rights report

The Joint Committee on Human Rights (“the Committee”) has called for an AI-specific legal framework in the UK, concluding that existing laws and regulations do not adequately address the human rights risks posed by AI (here). That call is the result of an inquiry specifically into human rights and the regulation of AI (here). Here we provide a brief summary of the inquiry's report. 

Why is the Committee calling for change?

Despite recognising AI’s potential to support the protection of human rights, the Committee focuses on three principal risks in which AI could affect human rights in an adverse manner: equality and non-discrimination; privacy and data protection; and the right to an effective remedy. 

Equality and non-discrimination

• The Committee’s first major concern surrounds AI’s ability to replicate or exacerbate discriminatory outcomes arising from the development and deployment of AI software.  
• As AI models are trained on large datasets that often relate to human activity and decision-making, the report contains concerns of embedded human biases. 

Privacy and data protection

• Significant privacy related risks were also identified by the Committee surrounding the considerable volumes of data required to train AI systems, including personal data obtained through online public sources. The report refers to facial recognition technology as a particular concern, noting evidence that around three million facial people had their faces scanned by police facial recognition technology without consent in the UK between 1 January and 29 October 2025. 

The right to an effective remedy

• The Committee highlights concerns surrounding accountability and transparency, noting that individuals may struggle to challenge AI-assisted decisions if they are unaware AI has been used. It identifies greater transparency as essential to ensuring effective remedies. 

Other rights

The report also raises concerns surrounding:

• intellectual property rights, including the use of copyright works and performers’ content to train AI systems; 
• the right to a fair trial, including risks arising from AI-generated legal content and “hallucinated” authorities; and
• wider risks associated with increasingly autonomous AI systems. 

What’s missing from the current framework? 

According to the Committee, existing laws: 

• were largely developed before advanced AI systems emerged;
• focussed more on AI deployment than development; 
• lack sufficient transparency requirements; 
• make it difficult to identify responsibility across complex AI supply chains; and 
• do not provide regulators with adequate powers to address AI-specific risks. 

What does the Committee propose?

The Committee calls for a dedicated AI Bill introducing:

• a risk-based regulatory framework;
• mandatory transparency requirements;
• human rights due diligence obligations;
• stronger accountability across the AI supply chain;
• prior approval requirements for certain high-risk AI systems;
• an independent AI oversight body; and
• statutory powers for the AI Security Institute to assess powerful AI models before deployment.

It also recommends prohibiting certain uses of AI where they are considered incompatible with human rights.

The report's central message is clear: the UK's current approach to AI regulation is no longer sufficient, and a dedicated AI framework is needed to balance innovation with the protection of fundamental rights.

If you would like to discuss how current or future regulations impact what you do with AI, please contact Tom Whittaker, Brian Wong, Lucy Pegler, Martin Cook, Liz Griffiths or any other member in our Technology team.  For the latest on AI law and regulation, see our blog and newsletter.

This article was written by James Dunkerton.