.svg)
UK MPs’ probe into the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in financial services demonstrates their ongoing scrutiny of the issue, but does not seem to have any significant regulatory implications at this time.
In letters dated September 17, 2025, the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee wrote to six major artificial intelligence providers: Amazon, Meta, Anthropic, Google Cloud, Microsoft and OpenAI.
The move forms part of its ongoing inquiry into the use of AI in the UK financial services sector, which launched earlier this year and is examining both the opportunities and risks presented by the technology.
In the letters, MPs posed a series of detailed questions on how the firms’ AI systems are being used in financial services and what safeguards they have in place.
Among the issues raised are:
- The likely impact of AI on financial services;
- Whether the companies have specific AI strategies for the sector;
- How they audit or check the outputs of their models;
- Measures to ensure transparency in AI-driven decision-making;
- Steps to prevent bias and discrimination in areas such as credit and insurance;
- Contingency plans for failures or outages in AI systems.
The committee also highlighted concerns from regulators, including the Bank of England and the Financial Stability Board (FSB), that AI-driven trading could heighten market volatility and contagion risks. It asked what action, if any, the companies have taken to mitigate such dangers.
The letters also examined the firms’ interactions with the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) on AI. They also asked how the organisations would respond if HM Treasury designated them as “critical third parties” under the forthcoming regime for essential service providers to the UK economy.
The inquiries signal growing parliamentary scrutiny of the role played by large technology and AI companies in financial services, as the government and regulators consider how to oversee rapidly developing AI systems in areas affecting consumers and market stability.
Financial services can relax – for now
Although the MPs’ probe is not to be ignored, it is unlikely to trigger significant regulatory implications in the foreseeable future.
Other legislators around the world have also taken an interest in this subject. For example, in 2024, the European Commission asked financial services companies to provide information to inform its regulation of AI in the sector.
In May 2025, a member of the European Parliament warned the Commission that it risked overregulation, in a report described as both industry friendly and ambitious about AI’s potential for the financial services industry in the EU.
The report concluded that, despite rapid advancements, most AI applications in finance remain limited in scope, with few customer-facing use cases and no fully autonomous decision-making systems.
“We are far from experiencing a financial system run, or heavily dependent on, autonomous, auto-pilot AI models that threatens financial stability and consumers’ interests,” said Kokalari, who sits with the centre-right Moderate Party.
The MEP concluded in the draft report that “the reality is the opposite”.
“The sector is so heavily regulated, and the fiduciary responsibility of financial institutions so highly regarded, that the lion’s share of use cases are both low-risk and include a human expert in the loop,” she said.
The UK government is currently focused on the benefits of AI, especially for growth and efficiency. It has taken a hands-off approach to regulation, avoiding the kind of legal framework and guardrails introduced in jurisdictions such as the EU.
Sending letters like this does not automatically signal that new rules are on the way. In the UK system, the role of select committee inquiries is mainly scrutiny and evidence-gathering rather than policymaking.
Committees do not draft legislation; they examine issues, hear from witnesses and produce reports with recommendations for the government of the day. Ministers can then accept, reject or ignore those recommendations.
In this case, MPs are in a fact-finding phase, seeking to understand how major AI providers interact with UK financial services, what risks exist and what safeguards are already in place.
HM Treasury and the regulators, including the Bank of England and the FCA, are already developing a critical third-party regime and pursuing their own AI workstreams. The committee may be feeding into that process rather than calling for new laws.
Even if the committee ultimately urges tighter oversight, that is not the same as the government introducing new regulation. Its findings may increase political pressure, but they do not create rules.
