Will the government’s AI action plan be a success?

In January 2025, the UK government unveiled an action plan to boost its role in developing and deploying artificial intelligence. 

The AI Opportunities Action Plan consists of 50 recommendations to strengthen Britain’s role in leading the artificial intelligence revolution. Led by technology entrepreneur Matt Clifford, and endorsed by Sir Keir Starmer, the plan aims to drive economic growth and benefit working people through investment in infrastructure, education and use in the public sector.

Having reviewed the report and industry reactions to it, the University of Leicester’s Associate Professor of Applied Analytics and Digital Economy, Dr William Darler, explains what parts of the plan he thinks are workable, and which might be problematic:

Is the AI plan broadly deliverable? 

The plan is certainly ambitious but whether it can be delivered remains to be seen. Ultimately much more detail is needed about the scale of investment, the timelines for implementation and its integration with wider Government strategies. Although the general sentiment is positive, some experts have expressed concerns about the beneficiaries of the plan, the geographic rollout of the resources, as well as economic, regulatory, and social challenges.

Forbes reported that some AI business leaders have questioned whether the investments in infrastructure may benefit research institutions and established businesses rather than encourage innovation. This may be of particular concern to small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups which comprise a large chunk of the AI marketplace but have felt underrepresented in policy conversations, funding and in last year’s budget. Tim Flagg from UKAI (the industry body for AI businesses) commented that that the Government needs to broaden its focus to include smaller businesses, creative industries and geographical areas which are not currently renowned for the technology prowess. Two specific areas which were identified included the need to address everyday AI skills (rather than just focusing on advanced technical skills), and the protection of intellectual property (IP) which disproportionately affects the creative sector (in which the UK is a global leader).

Shadow Science Secretary, Alan Mak, has accused Labour of sending conflicting messages by presenting AI as a way of cutting public spending but undermining this with their economic policies (by which he may be referring to recent tax hikes which have hit business confidence). So, it will be interesting to see if any incentives are announced in the Spring 2025 spending review. Much more detail is needed to elaborate on the economic incentives to attract AI companies and talent to the UK, as well as to stimulate growth across priority sectors. There is also an emphasis throughout the plan on using AI to increase the efficiency of public services (which is sorely needed given recent challenges with NHS waiting lists, public infrastructure and disaster resilience too). Historical underinvestment, inability to attract appropriate talent, and wider macroeconomic issues have all contributed to these problems though, so AI needs to be integrated within a connected package of interventions to really make a difference here.  

The UK and Europe are seen as world-leaders in AI regulation, which is a double-edged sword for attracting AI organisations and talent. There can be tensions between a world-leading regulatory environment and fostering innovation in AI technology. Particularly when the UK is competing with technology powerhouses such as the US and China who have very different policy and legal environments. For example, Meta, Apple and TikTok were conspicuously absent from the signatories of 2024’s EU AI pact, leading some to question whether over-regulation is stifling the region’s ability to compete in AI at a global level. Meta, Apple and X have held back on rolling out new AI features on their platforms and devices over concerns about EU regulations (such as GDPR) so the government will need to be conscious of these when trying to incentivise organisations to operate, innovate and grow within the UK. Compliance with regulations can be particularly costly to smaller organisations and start-ups which are vital for stimulating innovation within the country too (particularly if the government has ambitions to foster a home-grown ChatGPT).

How would my AI plan differ? 

It’s hard to say how my approach would differ until I see more detail about the resources committed to recommendations underpinning the UK AI Opportunities Action plan, the timescales for the implementation for each recommendation, and how this fits in with the wider Industrial Strategy Digital Technologies Sector Plan. I would expect to see more detail within the next few months after the Spring 2025 Spending Review, further announcements about initiatives across the AI growth zones, and comments from technology organisations after they have had time to digest (and evaluate) the current announcement.

I do agree with some of the initial concerns from AI professionals and policymakers regarding the potential beneficiaries of the plan, the economic and regulatory incentives, and skills or knowledge resources required. I’d like to see a more detailed breakdown of the Government spending commitment (and timelines), elaboration about how small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups will benefit (and contribute to future AI spending plans), and more detail about addressing everyday AI skills to increase productivity across the UK workforce. 

Attracting businesses and AI talent still remains a challenge in the current economic and regulatory landscape too. We need some firmer details about how we aim to attract, retain and develop organisations and individuals. We’ve seen that large companies such as Apple, Meta, and X have reservations about rolling out AI in the current UK regulatory landscape, so this needs to be negotiated. The Government needs to address these concerns through balancing incentivisation with regulation. Developing and retaining home-grown talent also needs to be balanced with attracting expertise from overseas too.