The £400 billion AI boost that UK ministers have cited for two years as a reason to embrace artificial intelligence was largely derived from a study commissioned by Google, according to a recent parliamentary disclosure. The admission has prompted questions about the reliability of the economic case presented to the public.
AI minister Kanishka Narayan told Parliament that the estimate of £400 billion ($538 billion) in economic gains was taken from a publicly available 2023 report commissioned by Google and produced by the consultancy Public First, now known as PF Global. The government’s own more recent assessment places the potential benefit at between £55 billion and £140 billion by 2030, with a central estimate of £120 billion—less than a third of the earlier figure.
How the £400 billion figure entered government messaging
For almost two years, under two different governments, departments and agencies repeated the £400 billion figure. It was used to reassure the public that AI would not cause widespread job losses or economic disruption. Even after ministers received the lower estimate in November 2025, at least one government body, Skills England, continued to publish the old number four months later.
Narayan’s written answer marked the first recorded instance of the government placing the two figures side by side and acknowledging that the report had been commissioned by Google. The answer did not retract the £400 billion figure or declare it incorrect.
Slower adoption blamed for the gap
Jonathan Dupont, head of economics at PF Global, said the difference between the two estimates was partly due to slower-than-expected adoption of AI. In a statement, he explained that AI is a fast-moving technology and that models must be updated as new information emerges. The government’s current numbers assume a much slower rate of take-up than the 2023 model considered possible.
PF Global said its central estimate for the potential achieved by 2030 is now much closer to the government’s figure, with growth expected to accelerate in subsequent years. The firm also pointed to greater top-down adoption and integration of AI into civil service workflows as ways to improve take-up.
Criticism from parliamentarians and researchers
Dame Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, said the government is right to promote AI’s potential to improve public services, but warned that overstating benefits risks undermining the case for change. She identified hype as a central barrier to digital transformation and called for realism and transparency about potential savings.
Lord Holmes of Richmond, a Conservative peer who asked ministers in January 2025 about the origins of the £400 billion claim but received no response, said it was unfortunate that the figure had been used repeatedly and then significantly adjusted. He added that robust data is critical because billions of pounds of public money and deployment decisions depend on it.
Sumedha Deshmukh of the Ada Lovelace Institute welcomed the revised estimates but expressed concern that they arrived after nearly two years of ministers citing research paid for by Google. She described this as part of a wider pattern in which precise-looking AI figures often contain assumptions and incentives, and industry frequently funds or shapes the underlying research. Deshmukh urged the government to test numbers before building policy on them, fund independent research, and measure whether promised gains are delivered.
A wider debate over boosterism
The discrepancy between the £120 billion and £400 billion figures feeds into a broader debate about the line between government support for technology and promotional exaggeration. Former technology minister Peter Kyle also used the £400 billion figure while promoting AI’s benefits, while many parliamentarians outside government have raised questions about potential risks.
The Cabinet Office, the department responsible for AI in government, and Google were approached for comment. PF Global said its work for Google continues but that all research is independent and all judgments and assumptions are its own.
