The Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill: Closing the UK's AI Regulation Gap?

The Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill [HL] (2025) represents a renewed attempt to introduce AI-specific legislation in the UK. Originally tabled in the House of Lords during the 2023-24 parliamentary session, the Bill failed to progress into law before the dissolution of Parliament ahead of the UK’s general election. However, its reintroduction on 4 March 2025 underscores ongoing concerns about AI governance, particularly in light of global regulatory developments and growing calls for legal oversight.

To better understand the implications of this Bill (the AI Bill), this article explores two key aspects:

• The Battle for AI Regulation: Why This Bill is Back on the Table.
• Shifting the UK AI Landscape: What This Bill Seeks to Change.

The Battle for AI Regulation: Why the AI Bill is back on the table

To understand the significance of the AI Bill, it is essential to examine its origins and the broader policy context in which it has been introduced. We will explore first the Bill’s genesis, highlighting its legislative pathway and intent, followed by an analysis of the UK's evolving AI regulatory landscape, considering both domestic and international factors shaping this debate.

A private member’s Bill with growing momentum

The AI Bill is a Private Member’s Bill, meaning it was introduced by an individual peer rather than the government. Such bills often struggle to become law due to limited parliamentary time unless they receive strong cross-party and government support. However, the reintroduction of the AI Bill signals persistent concerns among policymakers regarding AI risks and the potential need for formal oversight mechanisms.

While the UK government has consistently resisted statutory AI regulation, favouring an adaptable and principles-based approach, this Bill reflects mounting pressure from legislators and industry stakeholders. It has been argued that existing voluntary guidelines lack enforceability, creating regulatory uncertainty.

As AI continues to advance, this legislative proposal marks an important moment in the UK’s AI governance strategy. By proposing a statutory AI authority and codified principles, the AI Bill aims to address regulatory gaps that may arise from the current sector-specific approach.

The Broader Context of the Bill

Beyond its legislative origins, the AI Bill is being introduced in a rapidly evolving regulatory and geopolitical landscape. Understanding the UK government’s existing AI strategy, as well as how international developments influence regulatory decisions, is crucial to assessing whether this bill represents a necessary intervention or an unwarranted shift from the UK’s current approach.

The UK government has actively promoted minimal regulatory burdens to attract AI investments and cement the UK’s role as a global AI leader. The AI Action Plan reinforces this light-touch regulatory stance, prioritising flexibility over strict legal controls.

Despite this, the growing influence of international AI regulations cannot be ignored. The EU AI Act adopts a risk-based model, categorising AI applications based on their potential harm and imposing corresponding compliance obligations. By introducing elements resembling this risk-classification model, the UK’s AI Bill may indicate a regulatory convergence towards stricter oversight.

Beyond Europe, the UK’s AI regulatory policy is situated within a broader geopolitical landscape. The United States has opted for voluntary AI standards over statutory regulation, a position largely shared by the UK government. However, in contrast, the EU AI Act has established a comprehensive regulatory regime, imposing strict legal obligations on AI developers and users.

This tension was highlighted during a joint press conference on 27 February 2025, where UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and US President Donald Trump announced a new economic agreement focused on AI and advanced technologies. Starmer explicitly reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to a light-touch approach, stating: "Instead of over-regulating these new technologies, we’re seizing the opportunities they offer."

This statement underscores a UK-US alignment promoting innovation over rigid AI oversight. The AI Bill’s reintroduction, therefore, signals that some UK policymakers believe stronger AI governance is necessary, not only to align with global standards but also to facilitate AI trade agreements with both the EU and US.

Shifting the UK AI landscape: What this Bill seeks to change

We analyse in this section its scope and potential impact. Specifically, we will assess whether this bill represents a fundamental shift in UK regulatory strategy and how it compares to existing UK and global frameworks.

Regulatory Alignment or Divergence?

A key question surrounding the AI Bill is whether it represents a natural extension of the UK’s existing AI strategy or a radical departure from the government’s light-touch approach.

The Bill proposes the establishment of an AI Authority, a dedicated regulatory body responsible for overseeing AI development and ensuring compliance with new legal requirements. This contrasts with the current UK regulatory model, where AI oversight is dispersed among existing regulators, such as the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), and Ofcom. If enacted, the bill would create a centralised supervisory body, similar to the EU AI Office under the AI Act. The bill, therefore, potentially aligns the UK more closely with the EU AI Act’s risk-based classification framework.

The Bill introduces several governance structures, including mandatory AI impact assessments and standardised compliance obligations. It builds upon the UK government’s AI Regulation White Paper (March 2023), which established five key AI regulatory principles: 1. safety, security, and robustness , 2. transparency, 3. fairness, 4. accountability and governance, and 5. contestability and redress (the Five AI Principles). However, it diverges from the UK’s AI Action Plan (2024), which explicitly rejected prescriptive regulation in favour of flexibility. If passed, the AI Bill would mark a major policy shift, imposing legal obligations on AI developers for the first time.

Key Provisions: From Transparency to Public Engagement

To understand the full scope of the AI Bill, it is important to examine its core provisions. These include:

1. Creation of an AI Authority : the Bill proposes the establishment of a dedicated regulatory body tasked with overseeing AI compliance and coordinating with sector-specific regulators.
2. Regulatory Principles: The Bill enshrines the Five AI principles, derived from the UK government’s March 2023 white paper, "A Pro-Innovation Approach to AI Regulation."
3. Public Engagement and AI Ethics: The Bill highlights the need for public consultation regarding AI risks and transparency in third-party data usage, including requirements for obtaining informed consent when using AI training datasets.

Comment

While the AI Bill (2025) is unlikely to pass in its current form, given time constraints and lack of UK government backing thus far, it represents a significant milestone in the UK’s AI policy debate. It highlights a growing tension between the government’s pro-innovation stance and legislative calls for formal AI safeguards.

This legislative initiative comes at a time when the UK government remains committed to a pro-innovation approach to AI regulation, a stance first articulated at the 2023 AI Safety Summit and later reaffirmed in the AI Opportunities Action Plan (AI Action Plan) published on 13 January 2025. Unlike the European Union, which has implemented the AI Act, the UK has favoured a sector-specific and principles-based approach to AI regulation. If enacted, the bill would mark a fundamental shift in UK AI regulation, bringing it closer to the EU’s risk-based framework while challenging the UK’s current sectoral approach. Whether this bill gains traction depends on whether policymakers, regulators, and industry leaders recognise an urgent need for stricter oversight, or if the UK’s existing decentralised regulatory model remains the preferred governance approach to boost AI innovation.