JCHR holds two-part session exploring AI and human rights and UK-Mauritius agreement
The first panel will examine how key regulators are approaching the challenges of AI regulation, followed by a second panel which will focus on the human rights implications of the UK-Mauritius agreement.
Meeting details
Panel 1 - How can AI be regulated to protect human rights? Ofcom, ICO and EHRC to give evidence.
There are at least thirteen regulators in the UK with remits relating to AI, however none of these is a body dedicated to regulating AI.
The government has stated that AI should be regulated by the UK’s existing framework. However, it has not committed any significant resource to help regulators tackle the new and emerging harms posed by AI. Regulatory duties must also now be balanced with the government’s new duty to promote growth, whilst maintaining public safety.
On 4 February, the Committee will examine how three key regulators are approaching this challenge.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has legal powers to investigate bodies suspected of breaking equality law. However, the EHRC has warned of the financial imbalance between regulators and the tech industry, which could affect regulatory outcomes and even prevent regulatory action.
The Information Commissioners Office is responsible for regulating the use, storage and processing of personal data. It has highlighted that the use of personal information is a key part of AI innovation. The ICO also warned that biometric technologies pose a particular area of concern due to the high risk to individual rights and freedoms.
Under the Online Safety Act 2023, Ofcom is the regulator for online safety. The regulator’s stated approach is to focus on outcomes rather than upstream technology, and it’s powers have been tested recently in the challenge of responding to new and emerging harms online, including the “nudification” of real people using online tools.
In this evidence session, the Committee will ask whether the UK’s regulators have the resources, expertise, and powers to ensure human rights are protected from the new and emerging harms caused by AI. Members will look at how regulators approach challenges such as data bias in AI systems, fair and effective automated decision making, and the question of age restrictions for AI products and services.
Panel 2 - Does the UK-Mauritius agreement respect human rights of Chagossians?
In May 2025, the governments of the UK and Mauritius signed an agreement that would transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. As a British colony, the Chagos Archipelago had been depopulated between 1968 and 1973 to allow for the establishment of a US military base on Diego Garcia. Under the 2025 agreement, the UK would have an initial 99-year lease of Diego Garcia, allowing military operations to continue. The deal would also create a £40 million trust fund for the benefit of Chagossians.
Experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council criticised the agreement, arguing it failed to protect the rights of Chagossian people, including their right to return to Diego Garcia. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called on the two nations to suspend ratification of the agreement, which has not yet taken place, and engage with the Chagossian people to ensure their right to return and right to self-determination.
In this one-off session, the Committee will examine the human rights implications of the UK-Mauritius Agreement. It will focus on the extent to which the Agreement complies with the UK’s obligations under international law to respect the rights of Chagossians.