The expansion of AI infrastructure is critical to the UK's long-term economic growth, resilience, and global competitiveness. This Government is working with industry to improve understanding of the demand for agricultural land.

National planning policy gives clear preference for development sited on brownfield, industrial, contaminated, or previously developed land. Where development of agricultural land is necessary, lower-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land.

The Land Use Framework included a clear, long-term commitment to maintain overall food production in England while increasing resilience to climate change and safeguarding our best and most versatile agricultural land.

The government believes that the safe adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) by the financial services sector is a major strategic opportunity, with the potential to power growth across the UK. As set out in the Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy, it is the government’s ambition to make the UK ”the world’s most technologically advanced global financial sector”, leveraging our dual strengths in Financial Services (FS) and AI to drive growth and productivity, and deliver consumer benefits.

The FS AI Adoption Plan, authored by the FS AI Champions, Harriet Rees and Rohit Dhawan, is an important step towards achieving that aim, and sets out the next steps for industry, regulators, and government to grasp the opportunities for safe adoption of AI in FS.

The government works closely with the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority, and the AI Safety Institute to monitor developments in AI capability and access across the sector.

The government is aware that access constraints may arise for a number of reasons, however it is not currently concerned about the availability of frontier models for UK FS firms.

The government will continue to monitor this issue and will consider what further steps may be necessary to ensure that the UK financial services sector can access the AI capabilities it needs to remain globally competitive. We are also supporting the UK’s own sovereign AI capabilities through the Sovereign AI Unit backed by £500mn of funding.

The government is committed to adopting artificial intelligence in a way that is transparent, responsible and accountable to the public.

Information about algorithmic and AI tools used by government departments to support decisions that affect members of the public, or that have a significant influence on a decision-making process with public effect, is published through the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS). The ATRS has been mandatory for central government departments since 2024, and records are published on GOV.UK at www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records. In addition, departments may use other internal tools which do not fall within the scope of the Standard.

In line with public procurement transparency requirements, departments publish contractual information for AI services and tools on Contracts Finder and, where above the relevant threshold, on the Find a Tender Service.

AI services and tools are accessed across government through a range of commercial routes. Departments may contract directly with AI providers, access AI products via intermediated routes such as reseller arrangements where the contractual relationship sits with a partner rather than the underlying provider, or use AI capabilities delivered as features within existing enterprise software and platform contracts (for example productivity, HR or service management tools).

The department does not use automated decision-making systems to make, or support the making of, decisions relating to staff, citizens or recruitment where outcomes are determined without meaningful human involvement. Similarly, the department does not use automated decision-making systems to make employment-related decisions concerning civil servants. This includes decisions relating to performance management, disciplinary action, or the allocation of work. Accordingly, the specific issues raised regarding automated decision-making, human review, oversight arrangements, bias mitigation, trade union consultation, challenge mechanisms and compliance with the provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 are not applicable to the department’s current operations.

The department keeps its use of digital technologies under review and would ensure that any future deployment of automated decision-making systems complies with data protection legislation, regulatory standards and guidance, including requirements relating to transparency, accountability, fairness, human oversight and individuals’ rights to review and challenge decisions where relevant.

The department does not use automated decision-making systems to make, or support the making of, decisions relating to staff, citizens or recruitment where outcomes are determined without meaningful human involvement. Similarly, the department does not use automated decision-making systems to make employment-related decisions concerning civil servants. This includes decisions relating to performance management, disciplinary action, or the allocation of work. Accordingly, the specific issues raised regarding automated decision-making, human review, oversight arrangements, bias mitigation, trade union consultation, challenge mechanisms and compliance with the provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 are not applicable to the department’s current operations.

The department keeps its use of digital technologies under review and would ensure that any future deployment of automated decision-making systems complies with data protection legislation, regulatory standards and guidance, including requirements relating to transparency, accountability, fairness, human oversight and individuals’ rights to review and challenge decisions where relevant.

The department does not use automated decision-making systems to make, or support the making of, decisions relating to staff, citizens or recruitment where outcomes are determined without meaningful human involvement. Similarly, the department does not use automated decision-making systems to make employment-related decisions concerning civil servants. This includes decisions relating to performance management, disciplinary action, or the allocation of work. Accordingly, the specific issues raised regarding automated decision-making, human review, oversight arrangements, bias mitigation, trade union consultation, challenge mechanisms and compliance with the provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 are not applicable to the department’s current operations.

The department keeps its use of digital technologies under review and would ensure that any future deployment of automated decision-making systems complies with data protection legislation, regulatory standards and guidance, including requirements relating to transparency, accountability, fairness, human oversight and individuals’ rights to review and challenge decisions where relevant.

The department does not use automated decision-making systems to make, or support the making of, decisions relating to staff, citizens or recruitment where outcomes are determined without meaningful human involvement. Similarly, the department does not use automated decision-making systems to make employment-related decisions concerning civil servants. This includes decisions relating to performance management, disciplinary action, or the allocation of work. Accordingly, the specific issues raised regarding automated decision-making, human review, oversight arrangements, bias mitigation, trade union consultation, challenge mechanisms and compliance with the provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 are not applicable to the department’s current operations.

The department keeps its use of digital technologies under review and would ensure that any future deployment of automated decision-making systems complies with data protection legislation, regulatory standards and guidance, including requirements relating to transparency, accountability, fairness, human oversight and individuals’ rights to review and challenge decisions where relevant.

The department does not use automated decision-making systems to make, or support the making of, decisions relating to staff, citizens or recruitment where outcomes are determined without meaningful human involvement. Similarly, the department does not use automated decision-making systems to make employment-related decisions concerning civil servants. This includes decisions relating to performance management, disciplinary action, or the allocation of work. Accordingly, the specific issues raised regarding automated decision-making, human review, oversight arrangements, bias mitigation, trade union consultation, challenge mechanisms and compliance with the provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 are not applicable to the department’s current operations.

The department keeps its use of digital technologies under review and would ensure that any future deployment of automated decision-making systems complies with data protection legislation, regulatory standards and guidance, including requirements relating to transparency, accountability, fairness, human oversight and individuals’ rights to review and challenge decisions where relevant.

The department does not use automated decision-making systems to make, or support the making of, decisions relating to staff, citizens or recruitment where outcomes are determined without meaningful human involvement. Similarly, the department does not use automated decision-making systems to make employment-related decisions concerning civil servants. This includes decisions relating to performance management, disciplinary action, or the allocation of work. Accordingly, the specific issues raised regarding automated decision-making, human review, oversight arrangements, bias mitigation, trade union consultation, challenge mechanisms and compliance with the provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 are not applicable to the department’s current operations.

The department keeps its use of digital technologies under review and would ensure that any future deployment of automated decision-making systems complies with data protection legislation, regulatory standards and guidance, including requirements relating to transparency, accountability, fairness, human oversight and individuals’ rights to review and challenge decisions where relevant.

The department does not use automated decision-making systems to make, or support the making of, decisions relating to staff, citizens or recruitment where outcomes are determined without meaningful human involvement. Similarly, the department does not use automated decision-making systems to make employment-related decisions concerning civil servants. This includes decisions relating to performance management, disciplinary action, or the allocation of work. Accordingly, the specific issues raised regarding automated decision-making, human review, oversight arrangements, bias mitigation, trade union consultation, challenge mechanisms and compliance with the provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 are not applicable to the department’s current operations.

The department keeps its use of digital technologies under review and would ensure that any future deployment of automated decision-making systems complies with data protection legislation, regulatory standards and guidance, including requirements relating to transparency, accountability, fairness, human oversight and individuals’ rights to review and challenge decisions where relevant.

The department does not use automated decision-making systems to make, or support the making of, decisions relating to staff, citizens or recruitment where outcomes are determined without meaningful human involvement. Similarly, the department does not use automated decision-making systems to make employment-related decisions concerning civil servants. This includes decisions relating to performance management, disciplinary action, or the allocation of work. Accordingly, the specific issues raised regarding automated decision-making, human review, oversight arrangements, bias mitigation, trade union consultation, challenge mechanisms and compliance with the provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 are not applicable to the department’s current operations.

The department keeps its use of digital technologies under review and would ensure that any future deployment of automated decision-making systems complies with data protection legislation, regulatory standards and guidance, including requirements relating to transparency, accountability, fairness, human oversight and individuals’ rights to review and challenge decisions where relevant.

The department does not use automated decision-making systems to make, or support the making of, decisions relating to staff, citizens or recruitment where outcomes are determined without meaningful human involvement. Similarly, the department does not use automated decision-making systems to make employment-related decisions concerning civil servants. This includes decisions relating to performance management, disciplinary action, or the allocation of work. Accordingly, the specific issues raised regarding automated decision-making, human review, oversight arrangements, bias mitigation, trade union consultation, challenge mechanisms and compliance with the provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 are not applicable to the department’s current operations.

The department keeps its use of digital technologies under review and would ensure that any future deployment of automated decision-making systems complies with data protection legislation, regulatory standards and guidance, including requirements relating to transparency, accountability, fairness, human oversight and individuals’ rights to review and challenge decisions where relevant.

The department does not use automated decision-making systems to make, or support the making of, decisions relating to staff, citizens or recruitment where outcomes are determined without meaningful human involvement. Similarly, the department does not use automated decision-making systems to make employment-related decisions concerning civil servants. This includes decisions relating to performance management, disciplinary action, or the allocation of work. Accordingly, the specific issues raised regarding automated decision-making, human review, oversight arrangements, bias mitigation, trade union consultation, challenge mechanisms and compliance with the provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 are not applicable to the department’s current operations.

The department keeps its use of digital technologies under review and would ensure that any future deployment of automated decision-making systems complies with data protection legislation, regulatory standards and guidance, including requirements relating to transparency, accountability, fairness, human oversight and individuals’ rights to review and challenge decisions where relevant.

The department does not use automated decision-making systems to make, or support the making of, decisions relating to staff, citizens or recruitment where outcomes are determined without meaningful human involvement. Similarly, the department does not use automated decision-making systems to make employment-related decisions concerning civil servants. This includes decisions relating to performance management, disciplinary action, or the allocation of work. Accordingly, the specific issues raised regarding automated decision-making, human review, oversight arrangements, bias mitigation, trade union consultation, challenge mechanisms and compliance with the provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 are not applicable to the department’s current operations.

The department keeps its use of digital technologies under review and would ensure that any future deployment of automated decision-making systems complies with data protection legislation, regulatory standards and guidance, including requirements relating to transparency, accountability, fairness, human oversight and individuals’ rights to review and challenge decisions where relevant.

The department recognises both the opportunities and risks presented by generative artificial intelligence in education. Evidence on the direct educational and health implications of pupils using generative AI is still emerging, and we continue to work with the education sector, experts and other government departments to build our understanding of safe and effective use. The department has set out its position on generative AI in education, which states that we see fewer risks from staff use of generative AI, as well as the need for schools to protect pupil and staff data, manage safeguarding and online safety risks, and ensure that AI use supports, rather than replaces, professional judgement. We have also published free support materials for schools and colleges to help staff and leaders use AI safely and effectively.

Working closely with the Bank of England, the Financial Conduct Authority and other relevant bodies, the Government continues to monitor the opportunities and risks associated with the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology across the economy.

The Government's current view is that the existing regulatory framework is well placed to manage the evolving risks associated with AI, while supporting innovation and growth. Firms remain responsible for managing the risks arising from their activities, including the use of AI systems, and insurers continue to assess and price risks in accordance with existing legal and regulatory requirements.

The safe adoption of AI by the financial services sector is a major strategic opportunity, with the potential to power growth across the UK. As set out in the government’s Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy, the ambition is to make the UK ”the world’s most technologically advanced global financial sector”, leveraging the UK’s dual strengths in FS and AI to drive growth, productivity, and so deliver customer benefit.

This Government is deeply concerned by the devastating impact online fraud can have on victims, both financially and emotionally, including that which is artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled.

That is why, under the Online Safety Act (OSA), the Government has taken action to ensure online platforms and services are required to implement robust preventative measures to stop fraudulent content from reaching potential victims. AI content is treated no differently to other types of content under the OSA – if it is fraudulent in nature, platforms are required to prevent it from reaching users and take swift action if it does appear.

From mid-2027 the largest in-scope companies will also be required to take greater steps to prevent fraudulent adverts from appearing, including those that are AI-enabled.

The Government’s ambition is to make the UK a global leader in AI. Encouraging safe adoption is an essential part of realising that ambition. We will continue to work closely with regulators and industry to ensure innovation proceeds safely and responsibly and that any risks to financial markets are identified and mitigated.

In particular, the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee (FPC) is responsible for identifying, monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks to the UK financial system. The FPC’s April 2025 Financial Stability in Focus publication set out potential risks to financial stability that could result from increasing AI use, including market related risks, and their response to these.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators and the Office for Legal Complaints (OLC), operates independently of government. Legal services providers handle complaints about their services in the first instance. The OLC administers the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) scheme, which considers service complaints that have not been resolved by providers, while the legal services regulators consider concerns about professional conduct. The Legal Services Board (LSB) oversees the legal services regulators and the OLC.

The Government has not undertaken a specific assessment of the impact of AI-generated complaints. However, through its regular engagement with these bodies, the Ministry of Justice is aware that AI can help consumers articulate and pursue complaints but may also increase demand and place additional pressure on complaints-handling services.

For example, the LeO has reported a record 37% increase in new complaints in 2025–26. It has identified increased use of AI as a driver of this demand and also as a factor increasing the complexity of the complaints it receives. The OLC is responding through operational improvements and a longer-term transformation programme, using technology and AI.

The recently published independent review of the LSB also recognises the importance of maintaining effective consumer redress and ensuring the legal services regulatory framework is equipped to respond to emerging risks, including those associated with technology and AI. The Government is considering the review's recommendations and will set out its response in due course.