The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is a statutory equality and human rights body in the United Kingdom. It has enforcement powers in relation to the Equality Act 2010 and can institute or intervene in legal proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998; its other enforcement powers relate only to breaches of the Equality Act, not the Human Rights Act (Human Rights and the Regulation of AI (Joint Committee on Human Rights, HC 160, September 2026)). It is one of the 13 regulators the UK Government asked in 2024 to set out their strategic approach to AI. Its chair, Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, gave evidence to Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights on 4 February 2026.
Role in AI regulation
Deployers of AI systems must comply with the Equality Act 2010 in the areas it covers, such as employment and the provision of services, and public bodies must comply with the public sector equality duty when deciding whether and how to deploy AI. The Act does not apply between businesses, so it does not reach developers further up an AI supply chain (Human Rights and the Regulation of AI (Joint Committee on Human Rights, HC 160, September 2026)). The Joint Committee cites the case of an Uber Eats courier locked out of work by facial-recognition software which, the committee heard, was worse at identifying Black people's faces; the EHRC publication it cites reports that he won a payout with the Commission's help (Human Rights and the Regulation of AI (Joint Committee on Human Rights, HC 160, September 2026); see AI Bias and Discrimination).
Positions
In written evidence the EHRC said that "[a] significant challenge for effective remedy is ensuring individuals know that AI has been used and that it can be challenged," and that while the government's Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard "is a good starting point," people "should be proactively informed about the use of AI in any significant decision about them" and about how to challenge it. It described AI as "not a single thing," with risks "unique to a specific tool or model's purpose, use and utility" (Human Rights and the Regulation of AI (Joint Committee on Human Rights, HC 160, September 2026)).
On regulatory coverage, the EHRC said healthcare is well regulated, allowing it to work with health regulators on equality in AI, while "[o]ther areas are less well regulated, such as the social security system." It opposed a single AI regulator, saying one "would duplicate and complicate existing regulation," and argued that existing regulators should be "sufficiently funded and funded to be able to work together." The Joint Committee disagreed and recommended an independent statutory AI oversight body (Human Rights and the Regulation of AI (Joint Committee on Human Rights, HC 160, September 2026)).
Resources and expertise
The EHRC told the committee that its ability to undertake AI work is limited by its resources, and stated that its budget has remained at £17.1 million since 2016. It said that "we do not have the technical expertise on AI that other regulators have," and that government proposals for shared resources "will be unlikely to close the capability gap we currently face in the short or medium terms." The Ada Lovelace Institute described the EHRC as "critically under-resourced to address AI." Professor Lorna McGregor, a former EHRC Commissioner, recommended extending existing regulators' remits with additional resources (Human Rights and the Regulation of AI (Joint Committee on Human Rights, HC 160, September 2026)).
Relationships
- related: UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), Ofcom (Office of Communications) — regulators with overlapping AI-relevant remits
- related: Joint Committee on Human Rights (UK Parliament), Human Rights and the Regulation of AI (Joint Committee on Human Rights, HC 160, September 2026) — evidence to the JCHR inquiry
- related: AI Bias and Discrimination — Equality Act enforcement against discriminatory AI
- related: CDEI and DSIT (UK) — the sector-led UK regulatory approach