In recent years there has been growth in the development and application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies. These can be used for a wide variety of applications.

There is no universally agreed definition of AI or AI technologies. The then Government’s 2023 policy paper on “A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation” defined Artificial Intelligence (AI), AI systems or AI technologies as “products and services that are ‘adaptable’ and ‘autonomous’.” Adaptability refers to AI systems, after being trained, developing the ability to perform new ways of finding patterns and connections in data that are not directly envisioned by their human programmers. Autonomy refers to AI systems making decisions without the intent or ongoing control of a human.

Many argue that AI technologies can offer great benefits to individuals and society – for example, assisting in decision-making and improving productivity. Others are concerned about risks such as:

• Perpetuation of societal biases and discrimination (for example, through the use of biased training data for AI models)
• Potential conflict with an individual’s right to privacy and freedom of expression (for example, where AI might be used in surveillance)
• Challenges for individuals in exercising their right to an effective remedy where their rights have been violated (for example, where it might be difficult to know how a model produced a particular output, and who is liable for that output).

On 5 September 2024, the UK signed the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. It is the first legally binding treaty in this area and "aims to ensure that activities within the lifecycle of artificial intelligence systems are fully consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of law, while being conducive to technological progress and innovation."

The UK also adheres to the OECD’s AI Principles, which were the “first intergovernmental standard on AI”. The five principles are:

1. Inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being;
2. Human rights and democratic values, including fairness and privacy;
3. Transparency and explainability;
4. Robustness, security and safety; and
5. Accountability.

The UK Government has signalled its intention to “bring forward legislation which allows us to safely realise the enormous benefits and opportunities of the most powerful AI systems for years to come.” (PQ 41098 on Artificial Intelligence: Regulation, 31 March 2025)

Against this backdrop, the Joint Committee on Human Rights will explore what regulation might be required in order to safeguard human rights when AI technologies are being developed and used, and any implications this might have for future legislation.  

The inquiry will not be considering topics such as social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms,[3] or how malign actors are seeking to undermine democracy.[4] While these are important topics, they are outside the scope of this inquiry.

[1] POSTbrief 57, Artificial intelligence: An explainer, 14 December 2023    

[2] UK Parliament, Artificial Intelligence (AI) glossary, January 2024

[3] The subject of a report by the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee: Social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms

[4] The subject of a current inquiry by the Foreign Affairs Committee: Disinformation diplomacy: How malign actors are seeking to undermine democracy

Section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that in proceedings under that Act in respect of a judicial act done in good faith, damages may not be awarded except in two circumstances. The first is to compensate a person to the extent required by Article 5(5) of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) (deprivation of liberty). The second is to compensate a person for a judicial act that is incompatible with Article 6 ECHR (right to fair trial) in circumstances where the person is detained and, but for the incompatibility, the person would not have been detained or would not have been detained for so long.

In the case of Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 1140, the Court of Appeal found that accusations of professional misconduct against a witness made by a Family Court judge breached her rights under Article 8 of the ECHR (right to respect for private life).

In its judgment of 22 June 2021 in SW v United Kingdom (Application no. 87/18), the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR (right to an effective remedy), because the effect of section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 was that the witness could not bring a claim for damages in respect of a judicial act that was incompatible with Article 8.

Government proposals

On 17 July 2025, the Government laid before both Houses of Parliament its proposal for a Remedial Order to amend the Human Rights Act 1998. The proposed order is intended to give effect to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in SW v United Kingdom, by remedying the incompatibility of section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 with Article 13 of the ECHR.

The Government proposes to address this incompatibility by amending section 9(3) to allow damages to be awarded to compensate a person for a judicial act on an additional basis: that the judicial act is incompatible with Article 8 on the ground that it was done in such a procedurally defective way as to amount to a breach of the requirements of procedural fairness under that Article.

Section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 was previously amended by the Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2020 to give effect to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hammerton v United Kingdom (Application no. 6287/10). See the Fifteenth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 2017-19, and its Second Report of Session 2019-21.

Remedial Orders

Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives Ministers of the Crown the power to make remedial orders.

The section applies if it appears to the Minister that, having regard to a finding of the European Court of Human Rights in proceedings against the United Kingdom, a provision of legislation is incompatible with an obligation of the United Kingdom arising from the Convention.

In those circumstances, the Minister may by order make such amendments to the legislation as the Minister considers necessary to remove the incompatibility, if the Minister considers that there are compelling reasons for doing so.

Reporting on the proposal

The Joint Committee on Human Rights is required to report to Parliament on any proposal for a remedial order to be made under the Human Rights Act 1998. 

The Committee has 60 sitting days to report to each House its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposal should be laid before the House.