TL;DR

UK regulators have told Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights that existing laws can address many AI-related harms, but funding shortages and fragmented oversight are preventing effective enforcement. The EHRC’s budget has not changed since 2012, representing a 35% real-terms cut.

Funding, not powers

More than a dozen UK regulators have responsibilities touching on AI, but none has a dedicated mandate for the technology. Senior officials from several watchdogs said the system risks falling behind without stronger coordination and investment.

Mary-Ann Stephenson, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said financial constraints were the biggest obstacle. The EHRC’s budget has remained at £17.1 million since 2012, the minimum level required to carry out its statutory duties — a 35% reduction in real terms when adjusted for inflation.

Andrew Breeze, Ofcom’s director for online safety technology policy, warned that regulators’ powers are largely limited to how technologies are used rather than the systems themselves, and none of the main watchdogs can approve or reject AI products before they reach the market.

A dedicated regulator?

Labour peer Baroness Chakrabarti compared AI to pharmaceuticals: “We would not dream of not having a specific medicines regulator. AI is capable of enormous good, but also enormous harm.”

Regulators, however, favoured a coordinating body rather than a single “super-regulator,” arguing that AI is a general-purpose technology best overseen by sector-specific authorities. Former Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham called for stronger information-sharing powers and compulsory audit capabilities.

Looking forward

Civil liberties group Big Brother Watch warned that AI-enabled mass surveillance could “spiral out of control.” With the government maintaining that the current framework is sufficient, the gap between regulatory capacity and the pace of AI development is likely to widen without new investment.