MPs push for scrutiny on AI Security Institute and ARIA

The House of Commons Business and Trade Committee has written to the AI Security Institute (AISI) to request an “urgent” meeting, revealing that an initial invitation for a committee hearing went unanswered for “almost two months.”

The letter – to newly appointed AISI director Henry de Zoete, from committee chair Liam Byrne – stresses that “this is not the way we expect public institutions to work together with Parliament in the conduct of its duties.” He adds:

“This was not a trivial request; it was a request that was central to us gathering the evidence we need to conclude our inquiry into AI, business and the future of the workforce. I understand that Committee staff have now received a response from AISI. But the date proposed during the parliamentary conference recess when Members will be unavailable.”

Byrne requests a response by 15 September.

AISI was set up in order to build world-leading understanding of advanced AI risks and solutions, to” inform governments so they can keep the public safe.” Before his appointment in August, de Zoete had described AISI as “proof that government can build ambitious, mission-driven organisations, offering a model to be followed in other policy areas.”

But more recently the organisation has come in for some criticism following a test it ran in which an AI agent took “sustained, unsanctioned action directed at real people and organisations” – though AI minister Kanishka Narayan said that identifying this type of risk was “exactly what AISI was set up to do.”

Who scrutinises ARIA?

Separately, the Commons business committee has also written to Department of Business, Innovation, Science and Trade over the resignation of ARIA chair Matt Clifford, suggesting that there are still unanswered questions over the matter:

“Notwithstanding Mr Clifford’s resignation, this incident raises questions about whether existing governance frameworks are sufficiently rigorous to identify, assess and prevent actual, or perceived, conflicts of interest before appointments are approved. There is a strong public interest in understanding how such a situation arose and what lessons the Government intends to learn from it.”

Byrne also calls it “disappointing” that the business select committee was not informed directly about Clifford’s resignation by the department, which instead wrote to the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

Byrne points out that, following the machinery of government changes in July, the committee he chairs is now the one with scrutiny responsibilities for BIST and its arm’s length bodies.

ARIA chief executive Kathleen Fisher was in front of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee this morning. On Clifford’s departure, she stated that it was “a conversation between Matt and BIST” rather than a matter for the funder’s executive. She added:

“I think it’s essential that the chair of ARIA does not have conflict of interest that impede the agency.”

Other ARIA matters

Asked about the progress of new programme director recruitment, Fisher noted that there have currently been more than 1,200 applicants, despite the application deadline being 28 September. “The last round we had 400 applicants,” she observed, suggesting that this reflected ARIA’s growing profile.

Longer term, she said she was expecting to see “punctuated massive successes” over the decades ahead, where potentially one programme would be “so incredibly impactful that it easily pays the budget for Aria for a 20-year time period.”

Another line of inquiry concerned whether ARIA might change its approach to intellectual property to ensure that more breakthroughs stay in the UK. Fisher said that conversations to date about changing the current policy – whereby the funder does not take ownership of “foreground IP” – have concluded that it is the best way forward given ARIA’s broader mission, though policies were kept under review.

She also answered questions on ARIA’s regional distribution of funding, highlighting some of the revised approaches which appeared in its 2026 corporate plan following criticism that too much of its investment was flowing overseas or staying in the Golden Triangle. On the funder’s relationship with UKRI, she said that ARIA couldn’t exist without an accompanying organisation supporting long-term scientific infrastructure and blue-sky research.