The UK Government has delayed its long-anticipated artificial intelligence regulation bill by at least a year, pushing it into the next parliamentary session, expected after the King’s Speech in May 2026. The move aims to allow time for the development of a more comprehensive framework to address the growing complexities of AI.
Science, Innovation and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle confirmed the postponement, which has sparked concern about the ongoing lack of oversight in a sector evolving at speed. Initially, Labour had planned to introduce a focused AI bill targeting large language models such as ChatGPT, requiring companies to submit systems for review by the AI Security Institute. The goal was to manage risk while strengthening the UK’s position in the global AI race.
The delay reflects a broader strategy to align UK regulations with those of the United States. According to a government source quoted by The Guardian, the revised bill may include copyright provisions designed to strike a balance between supporting creators and encouraging AI innovation. This effort includes ongoing discussions with rights holders and technology leaders.
Copyright has already become a flashpoint. A separate data bill that permits AI companies to train models on copyrighted content—unless creators opt out—has provoked backlash from the House of Lords and the creative industries. Artists including Elton John, Paul McCartney and Kate Bush have criticised the policy, warning it could erode copyright protections and damage the cultural sector.
Public opinion appears to support greater oversight. A survey by the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Alan Turing Institute found that 88% of people believe the government should intervene when AI products pose serious risks. Over 75% also support formal regulation over private sector self-governance.
The debate comes amid rising demand for AI skills across the UK job market. A report by PwC highlights a long-term increase in AI-related job postings, even as overall AI vacancies have recently dipped. The findings point to a sustained need for skilled workers as AI adoption grows.
The government is under pressure to strike a balance—fostering innovation while safeguarding intellectual property and public trust. Some, including investor Nathan Benaich, have welcomed the delay as an opportunity to craft sound policy. But others warn that timely regulation is essential, especially as AI becomes more deeply embedded in daily life.
As ministers prepare the next steps, the challenge remains to develop legislation that keeps pace with technology while addressing mounting ethical, legal and economic concerns.
Created by Amplify: AI-augmented, human-curated content.
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative is current, with the latest developments reported in June 2025. The earliest known publication date of similar content is February 2025, indicating that the topic has been covered for several months. The report is based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. However, the delay in the AI regulation bill has been a subject of ongoing discussion, with earlier versions showing different figures and dates. For instance, a report from February 2025 indicated that the bill was expected to be introduced in Parliament before the summer, whereas the current report suggests it will not be ready before the next King's Speech in May 2026. ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/24/uk-delays-plans-to-regulate-ai-as-ministers-seek-to-align-with-trump-administration?utm_source=openai)) This discrepancy highlights the evolving nature of the situation. Additionally, the article includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged.
Quotes check
Score:
9
Notes:
The report includes direct quotes from government sources and public figures. The earliest known usage of these quotes appears in reports from February 2025, indicating that they have been previously published. The wording of the quotes varies slightly across different sources, suggesting potential paraphrasing or updates. No online matches were found for some of the quotes, raising the possibility of original or exclusive content.
Source reliability
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative originates from Tech Monitor, a reputable organisation known for its coverage of technology and digital economy topics. However, the article is based on a press release, which may introduce biases or selective reporting. The reliance on a single source for the report's content raises questions about the comprehensiveness and objectivity of the information presented.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims made in the report align with known developments in UK AI regulation, including the delay of the AI bill and the government's strategic shift to align with US policies. The report includes specific factual anchors, such as the expected introduction of the bill in May 2026 and the involvement of notable artists like Elton John, Paul McCartney, and Kate Bush in opposing the data bill. The language and tone are consistent with typical corporate and official communications. However, the reliance on a single source and the lack of corroboration from other reputable outlets raise concerns about the report's comprehensiveness and objectivity.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative provides current information on the UK's delay in AI regulation, with some original content. However, the reliance on a single source and the lack of corroboration from other reputable outlets raise concerns about the report's comprehensiveness and objectivity. The discrepancies in earlier versions of the bill's timeline further highlight the evolving nature of the situation.
