Treasury AI strategy sparks debate over tech influence

Published: 26 February 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The government’s ambitious Treasury AI strategy has drawn both praise and sharp criticism this week. Ministers have turned to senior figures from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and leading technology firms for advice on embedding artificial intelligence across public services. The move signals a bold attempt to accelerate reform, yet it has also triggered warnings about conflicts of interest and corporate influence.

The meeting was chaired by James Murray, chief secretary to the Treasury. Around the table sat the director of AI at the Tony Blair Institute, the UK chair of IBM, and senior representatives from Faculty AI, now owned by Accenture. Also present was Dex Hunter-Torricke, previously a communications adviser to global technology leaders.

According to the Treasury, the discussion focused on accelerating the use of artificial intelligence to improve productivity and cut waste. Officials believe the Treasury AI programme can streamline procurement, modernise data systems and reduce administrative burdens across departments. Ministers argue that external expertise is essential if the state is to match private sector innovation.

Speaking after the meeting, Murray said the participants were uniquely placed to offer candid guidance. He stressed that their insights would feed directly into efficiency planning ahead of the next spending review. He also suggested that fresh perspectives could help Whitehall prioritise investment more effectively.

The government’s wider ambition is clear. Last month, technology secretary Liz Kendall declared that Britain should become the fastest AI adoption country in the G7. That goal places the Treasury AI initiative at the heart of economic reform and digital transformation. Ministers see artificial intelligence as a driver of growth and improved public services.

Critics, however, are uneasy about the concentration of corporate influence. The campaign group Foxglove described the meeting as further evidence of what it called an overly cosy relationship between government and Big Tech. Its advocacy director, Donald Campbell, warned that suppliers should not enjoy privileged access to decisions about procurement.

Campaigners argue that inviting companies to shape AI policy risks blurring lines between advice and commercial interest. They say safeguards must be robust, transparent and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. For them, the Treasury AI agenda should prioritise public accountability above speed.

Government officials counter that engagement does not equate to endorsement. They insist that consultation with industry leaders is standard practice in complex policy areas. Artificial intelligence, they argue, demands technical insight that civil servants cannot develop alone.

The debate also reflects broader concerns about Whitehall’s capacity. Some insiders acknowledge that the civil service struggles to recruit and retain high-level AI specialists. Private firms can offer salaries and resources beyond government reach. That disparity raises questions about whether ministers rely too heavily on external voices.

In recent months, the UK has signed memorandums of understanding with leading AI developers. Agreements have been reached with OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind. These partnerships aim to foster research collaboration and responsible deployment.

The government has also accepted funding from Meta to support expert teams working on advanced AI solutions for national security and defence. Meanwhile, contracts with Palantir Technologies span health, policing and defence data systems. Each arrangement has sparked separate debate about oversight and transparency.

Supporters of the Treasury AI push point to tangible benefits. Automated document processing can shorten waiting times for benefits decisions. Predictive analytics may improve hospital resource planning and reduce backlogs. Digital court systems could handle routine administrative tasks more efficiently.

This week, foreign secretary David Lammy highlighted plans to expand AI use across the court system during an event hosted by Microsoft in London. He described technology as a tool to modernise justice and improve access. Critics responded that judicial safeguards must remain paramount.

Among those advising the Treasury is Laura Gilbert, a former Downing Street AI specialist who now leads artificial intelligence initiatives at the Tony Blair Institute. Her involvement underlines the close ties between policy thinktanks and government departments. Supporters see continuity of expertise, while detractors question independence.

The Tony Blair Institute itself has received substantial backing from the Ellison Institute of Technology, funded by Larry Ellison. The scale of that support has attracted attention, particularly given Ellison’s status as co-founder of Oracle Corporation. Although no wrongdoing is alleged, critics say transparency remains essential.

At the centre of the argument lies a tension between urgency and caution. The UK faces economic pressures, fiscal constraints and rising public expectations. Ministers believe Treasury AI reform could unlock savings and drive long-term efficiency. Opponents worry that haste may compromise democratic safeguards.

Public trust will depend on how decisions are documented and reviewed. Experts suggest publishing detailed minutes of advisory meetings and clear procurement criteria. Independent oversight bodies could examine contracts before final approval. Such steps may reassure sceptics without slowing progress unduly.

There is also the question of data protection. Expanding AI across public services inevitably involves sensitive personal information. The UK’s regulatory framework, including the Information Commissioner’s Office, will play a crucial role. Ensuring compliance with privacy law is not optional but fundamental.

International comparisons further shape the debate. The United States and several European nations are investing heavily in government AI. Britain risks falling behind if it hesitates excessively. Yet it also risks reputational damage if ethical lapses occur.

Within Whitehall, some officials privately acknowledge lessons from past digital projects. Previous technology reforms have suffered from fragmented procurement and limited scalability. Ministers appear determined that the Treasury AI initiative avoids repeating those mistakes. Scaling successful pilots into nationwide systems remains a priority.

Economic analysts note that artificial intelligence could support broader productivity growth. Automated systems may free civil servants to focus on complex decision-making. Over time, savings could be redirected toward frontline services. That narrative resonates strongly with fiscal planners.

However, campaigners maintain that democratic governance requires visible checks and balances. They argue that public consultation should accompany major technological shifts. Citizens deserve clarity about how algorithms influence daily interactions with the state.

The coming spending review will likely test the strength of ministerial resolve. Funding allocations will reveal whether Treasury AI ambitions translate into sustained investment. Parliament may demand further debate before large contracts proceed.

For now, the government insists that collaboration with industry reflects pragmatism, not favouritism. Ministers frame the strategy as a necessary partnership to modernise public administration. Whether that approach strengthens public services or fuels deeper scepticism remains uncertain.

What is clear is that artificial intelligence will shape Britain’s administrative future. The Treasury AI programme sits at the intersection of innovation, accountability and political judgment. Its success will depend not only on technical expertise but also on public confidence.

As discussions continue, both supporters and critics recognise the stakes. Efficient services, responsible governance and economic resilience all hang in the balance. The government’s challenge is to prove that ambition and integrity can advance together.

Check our latest news