Lord Holmes warns AI Growth Lab legislation risks executive power grab

The UK peer has questioned whether sandbox powers linked to AI regulation will receive enough public engagement and parliamentary scrutiny.

Lord Holmes has questioned whether UK AI Growth Lab legislation will receive enough public engagement and parliamentary scrutiny.

Lord Holmes has raised concerns that UK legislation linked to the proposed AI Growth Lab could give ministers too much power to amend regulation through secondary legislation, as the Government brings forward the Regulating for Growth Bill.

In a LinkedIn post, Lord Holmes, Member of the UK House of Lords, questioned whether the legislation would become "an executive power grab" rather than a policy developed through public engagement and parliamentary scrutiny.

The post follows the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s October 2025 call for evidence on the AI Growth Lab, which described the proposal as "a pioneering cross-economy sandbox that would carefully supervise the deployment of AI-enabled products and services that current regulation hinders."

The AI Growth Lab proposal stemmed from Matt Clifford’s AI Opportunities Action Plan, which included a commitment to "implement pro-innovation initiatives like regulatory sandboxes." Lord Holmes said he supports regulatory sandboxes in principle and included them in Clause 3 of his AI Regulation Bill, but warned that the detail of the Government’s approach now matters.

The Regulating for Growth Bill, which Lord Holmes said is being introduced in the House of Commons, is intended to strengthen a "Growth Duty" for regulators and create sandbox powers. Lord Holmes wrote that the AI Growth Lab is not named directly in the Bill and that there is no detail about secondary legislation.

AI Growth Lab raises scrutiny questions

Lord Holmes wrote: "Is the legislation going to be an executive power grab rather than a principled & coherent policy produced through public engagement and parliamentary scrutiny?"

The concern centers on how sandbox powers would be created and controlled. Lord Holmes said the Government had been considering how legislation would be drafted "with appropriate public and Parliamentary scrutiny."

He wrote that if primary legislation gives ministers the power to create sandboxes, "secondary legislation would enable time-limited, targeted modifications to specified sectoral regulations."

That raises a specific issue for AI policy, education technology, digital services, creative industries, and public sector AI adoption: which rules could be modified, for how long, by whom, and with what scrutiny.

Lord Holmes points to Henry VIII powers

Lord Holmes linked the Regulating for Growth Bill to wider concerns about delegated powers, including so-called Henry VIII powers, which allow the executive to amend primary legislation through statutory instruments.

He wrote: "Is this yet another instance in which the govt claims the technology is developing so fast that delegated powers are needed to keep up?"

He cited recent amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on social media bans and the Crime and Policing Bill on AI-generated content, including chatbots, as examples where ministers would gain powers through secondary legislation to make changes linked to the Online Safety Act: "Is this appropriate public and Parliamentary scrutiny? Both Parliament and public are being excluded from an essential process. In my Bill, meaningful, long-term public engagement about the opportunities and risks presented by AI is set out on the face of the Bill (Clause 6)."

Call for clearer UK AI policy

Lord Holmes said the UK needs a clearer approach to AI that combines growth, inclusion, public interest, and democratic oversight: "We urgently need a clear, uniting vision for UK AI. There is such potential to include, to generate growth and to address so many seemingly intractable issues, if approached in a way that puts humans in charge and humanity at the heart."

He added: "The current legislative approach is sadly lacking, leaving citizens, creatives, consumers, innovators and investors far less likely to be able to benefit from AI whilst certainly being left with the unaddressed burdens."

The Regulating for Growth Bill is now the legislative route to watch for sandbox powers connected to AI-enabled products and services. Further detail is still needed on how secondary legislation would operate, which sectoral regulations could be modified, and how public and parliamentary scrutiny would be built into the AI Growth Lab process.