AI regulation in the UK: Debate on the need for cross-sector legislation

Approximate read time: 11 minutes

The House of Lords is scheduled to consider the following question for short debate on 4 June 2026:

Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative) to ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for a cross-sector AI regulation bill.

1. AI regulation in the UK

In the UK, AI is regulated in the context in which it is used through existing legal frameworks. For example, the Online Safety Act 2023 regulates AI systems that search websites and databases as “search services”.^[1] The act also applies equally to AI- and human-generated material; for instance, deepfake fraud material is regulated in the same way as other fraud material.

AI is also regulated through non-statutory principles. For example, the Conservative government’s 2023 white paper ‘A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation’ established principles for regulating the use of AI but not the technology itself.^[2] This framework was intended “to respond to the level of risk in a proportionate manner and avoid stifling innovation or missing opportunities”.

The UK has adopted some non-statutory principles by signing international AI safety declarations. In 2023, the UK hosted the AI Safety Summit, a meeting of governments and AI companies.^[3] Countries in attendance, including the UK, signed the Bletchley declaration on AI safety, committing to cooperate on identifying AI safety risks and building risk-based policies.

During the 2023 summit, the then Conservative government launched the AI Safety Institute.^[4] This was renamed as the AI Security Institute (AISI) in 2025 to “reflect its focus on serious AI risks with security implications”.^[5] The AISI is tasked with testing AI systems to identify safety concerns and to develop and test risk mitigation methods.^[6]

The previous government also signed the declaration following the 2024 AI Seoul summit which reaffirmed commitments to AI safety, such as ensuring the safe development of AI systems and promoting research in this area.^[7] The current Labour government did not sign the communique agreed at the 2025 AI action summit in Paris, which focused primarily on AI risks associated with inclusivity and sustainability.^[8]

The current government’s AI policy has been predominantly focused on promoting AI development and uptake to drive economic growth. As part of this, the government commissioned Matt Clifford to devise an AI opportunities action plan.^[9] This independent report argued that “the UK’s current pro-innovation approach to regulation is a source of strength relative to other more regulated jurisdictions”.^[10] Responding in January 2025, the government stated that it intended to consult on proposed legislation to regulate AI and to put the AISI on a statutory footing.^[11] To date, the government has not acted on these plans.

2. Government plans for AI legislation

The 2024 Labour Party general election manifesto stated it would “ensure the safe development and use of AI models by introducing binding regulation on the handful of companies developing the most powerful AI models”.^[12] This was reaffirmed in the 2024 King’s Speech.^[13] In March 2025, Feryal Clark, then minister for AI and online safety, stated that the government was “continuing to refine its proposals and will launch a public consultation in due course”.^[14] While there have been consultations on regulating the use of AI in specific contexts, such as copyright and healthcare, the government has not launched a consultation regarding cross-sector AI regulation.^[15]

While giving evidence to the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on 3 December 2025, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Liz Kendall spoke of a need for AI safety legislation but did not commit to an “AI bill”.^[16] Ms Kendall said: “I am thinking about it more in terms of specific areas where we may need to act rather than a big all-encompassing bill”.^[17] The secretary of state repeated this stance when providing evidence to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee in March 2026, pointing to the use of the Crime and Policing Bill to combat illegal content related to AI chatbots and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to implement the results of the government’s consultation on children’s lives online.^[18]

The 2026 King’s Speech did not include a cross-sector AI bill.^[19] However, the Regulating for Growth Bill contained provisions for the launch of the AI Growth Lab, a cross-economy sandbox that would allow new AI products and regulatory reforms to be tested in live market environments.^[20] The bill would also allow for regulatory reforms that “prov[e] successful” in these trials “to quickly be embedded permanently into law”.^[21]

3. EU AI Act

Unlike the UK, the EU has cross-sector AI legislation in the form of the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689). European Parliament considered this to be the “the world’s first comprehensive AI law”.^[22] The act applies to all AI systems placed on the market or used in the EU. It also applies to AI systems outside the EU where the outputs are used within the EU.

The act places obligations on providers and users of AI depending on the level of risk.^[23] AI systems considered to have unacceptable risks are prohibited.^[24] For example, the use of AI for real-time remote biometric identification for law enforcement or for assessing the risk of an individual committing a criminal offence.

High-risk AI systems are those used in certain contexts that can have a detrimental impact on people’s health, safety or fundamental rights, such as critical infrastructure or essential services.^[25] The act imposes requirements for the use of these systems including risk management, human oversight and cyber security requirements.

AI systems presenting limited risks, such as those interacting directly with people or generating content, are subject to transparency requirements. For example, systems must make it clear to users when content is AI generated and employers using AI systems in the workplace must inform employees.^[26] Systems presenting minimal risks are not regulated under the act.

Requirements are also placed on models that can perform a wide range of tasks, known as general purpose AI (GPAI).^[27] The specific requirements for a GPAI system depend on whether it is used in high-risk contexts, presents systemic risks or is released under a free and open licence. The European AI Office was established to implement rules for GPAI.^[28]

The act came into force in August 2024 with many provisions due to apply after this. AI systems with unacceptable risks have been banned since February 2025, GPAI provisions have applied since August 2025 and high-risk AI compliance requirements were due to apply from August 2026.^[29] However, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU recently agreed on the ‘Digital omnibus on AI’, which has delayed the application of high-risk AI provisions to December 2027 or August 2028, depending on product type.^[30] This was intended to give time for technical standards and other support tools to be put in place.

4. Stakeholder commentary

A 2024/25 survey run by two AI research institutes, the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Alan Turing Institute, tested the UK public’s attitudes towards AI regulation.^[31] They reported that 72% of people supported introducing AI laws and regulations, increasing from 62% in 2022/23, and 89% supported an independent AI regulator. Additionally, 38% agreed and 48% did not agree that “it is important to keep up with other countries on AI, even if this means lighter rules”.^[32] The Ada Lovelace institute concluded that this indicates “a clear misalignment between public expectations and government ambitions for AI”.^[33]

The Ada Lovelace Institute has argued there is a need for a comprehensive legal framework to strengthen AI regulation in the UK, particularly at the design and development stage.^[34] It claimed that “done right, regulation becomes not just a way to manage risks, but a foundation for innovation”.^[35] To mitigate a range of AI risks, the institute recommended that legislation is introduced to do the following:^[36]

• establish powers for government and regulators to define what ‘safe’ looks like
• mandate pre-deployment testing for general purpose AI systems
• empower UK regulators to intervene when models pose serious risks to individuals or society
• establish accountability mechanisms at both the model and platform levels
• introduce reporting obligations for developers of high-risk and general-purpose AI systems

Critics of cross-sector AI legislation argue that such an approach stifles innovation, instead favouring targeted regulation at the point of use.^[37] For example, members of the EU AI Champions Initiative, consisting of over 40 European companies, including Mercedes-Benz and Airbus, sent an open letter to the European Commission arguing for the postponement of the EU AI Act in July 2025.^[38] This group claimed that the act introduces uncertainty for industry with issues such as unclear risk categorisation and guidance, and complexity arising from member states’ autonomy in implementing the act.^[39] Non-European companies, such as Google and Meta, have also argued that the act may hurt European innovation and growth.^[40]

5. Read more

• House of Commons Library, ‘AI regulation in the UK’, 31 March 2026
• House of Lords Library ‘Potential future risks from autonomous AI systems’, 5 January 2026
• Politico, ‘How the UK fell out of love with an AI bill’, 22 December 2025
• Airlie Hilliard et al, ‘Artificial intelligence policy worldwide: A comparative analysis’, Royal Society Open Science, 2026, vol 13, issue 2

---

Photo by Roman Budnikov on Unsplash