Question follow-through · 82268
Artificial Intelligence: Economic Growth
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, whether the criteria relating to (a) environmental sustainability, (b) energy delivery and (c) local economic benefit for assessing proposals to host AI Growth Zones have been formally
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
- Tabled
- 15 Oct 2025
- Target answer date
- 20 Oct 2025
- Answer
- 24 Oct 2025 · 9 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
15 Oct 2025
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, whether the criteria relating to (a) environmental sustainability, (b) energy delivery and (c) local economic benefit for assessing proposals to host AI Growth Zones have been formally
20 Oct 2025
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
24 Oct 2025
Answer published
The AI Opportunities Action Plan set out how the UK can lay the foundations for AI growth, including the creation of AI Growth Zones. To be considered, sites must be capable of delivering at least 500 MW of power for AI workloads by 2030, offer a minimum ...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.