MPs and Peers Call for a New AI Bill to Protect Human Rights

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has called for a wide-ranging AI Bill to address human rights risks from artificial intelligence. The committee published its findings on 14 September 2026. BBC News

What the report found

The report runs to 100 pages. It is titled "Human Rights and the Regulation of AI" and is the committee's 4th Report. Committee chair Alex Sobel MP said "nowhere in the world, including the UK, has a current legislative and regulatory approach to AI that is fit for purpose."

Mr Sobel was elected Chair of the Joint Committee. The committee has 12 members drawn from both Houses of Parliament — the Commons and the Lords — currently including MPs and peers from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.

Ministers said nothing yet in the verified material. The committee said the current legal framework for AI is fragmented and difficult to navigate, leaving gaps in protection. Think of it as overlapping rulebooks with pages missing.

What the committee wants

Its prescription is primary legislation: a new Act of Parliament. The committee said the AI Bill should create a single, independent AI oversight body on a statutory basis, meaning set up in law.

The Bill should set a regulatory regime that classifies different risk levels, the committee said. It should place more demanding obligations on higher-risk AI systems and models, with stricter checks for riskier uses.

Some uses should be prohibited outright as incompatible with human rights, the committee said. It cited possible action on subliminal techniques (hidden prompts designed to steer behaviour) and inappropriate use of profiling or biometric data, such as data about faces or bodies.

The committee cited AI-created sexualised images of women and girls and scanning people's faces without consent as examples of AI-related human rights abuses.

What industry told the inquiry

The inquiry also took evidence from industry figures. Anthropic head Dario Amodei proposed a plan including global regulation, industry-wide regulation and independent monitoring of AI models as they are developed. He urged slowing the pace of development. OpenAI chief Sam Altman and Elon Musk said they agreed with Mr Amodei's call to slow the pace.

Former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon told the BBC that staff developing AI systems were genuinely frightened for the future of humanity. An Anthropic spokesperson told BBC News the company was building models with some of the strongest safeguards in the industry.

Parliament's own announcement was titled "Wide-ranging AI Bill needed to address severe human rights risks posed by AI". UK Parliament The committee set 14 November 2026 as the due-by date for its Human Rights and the Regulation of AI inquiry. The committee said the inquiry will explore what regulation might be required to safeguard human rights when AI technologies are being developed and used.

What happens next

The broader context here will be familiar to those who follow AI policy in Whitehall and Brussels. EU governments and members of the European Parliament agreed in May to delay rules on high-risk AI systems such as those involving biometrics. Reuters A UK upper-house committee, the House of Lords, said in March that Britain should back a licensing-first approach for AI training and should reject any move to let AI companies freely mine copyrighted material for commercial model training.

Looking at what this means for ministers and parliamentary business, the committee is asking for a different model from sector-by-sector guidance. A statutory body with cross-cutting authority would cut across existing regulators, and a risk-tiered regime with outright prohibitions would require clear definitions in statute for subliminal techniques, profiling and biometrics. For government lawyers, the test would be enforceability and redress, not only principles.

For MPs and peers handling the Bill if it comes forward, the cross-party composition gives the report procedural weight. Joint Committees speak for both Houses, and a unanimous call for prohibitions, tiered obligations and independent monitoring narrows the scope for a purely voluntary response. The next step, in parliamentary terms, is a government response and a decision on legislative time.