In a shocking (but not so shocking) move, the new UK government under Andy Burnham has unveiled one of its biggest Whitehall shake-ups in years, scrapping the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and merging it with the Department for Business and Trade to create the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (DBIST).
At the same time, Prime Minister Burnham has elevated the role of AI Minister, giving Kanishka Narayan a seat in Cabinet.
At first glance, it sounds like technology has never been more important. But, once you dig a little deeper, it becomes clear that there’s a lot more going on here. If AI is being elevated, why has the department responsible for technology disappeared altogether?
According to Civil Service World, responsibilities for digital transformation are also being moved back into the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), further dispersing the functions that DSIT previously housed. Meanwhile, PublicTechnology reported that the changes form part of a wider government restructuring designed to align innovation more closely with economic growth and industrial strategy.
Why Get Rid of the DSIT?
The government’s argument appears to be relatively straightforward. According to them, innovation, science, trade and business all ultimately feed into economic growth, so bringing them together under one department could reduce silos and speed up decision-making.
Indeed, for supporters of the move, the problem with DSIT was never its purpose but its power. Nic Conner, Partner at Parisi, believes the department struggled to influence key decisions because many of the levers of government sat elsewhere. As he explains, “DSIT either needed to be given real powers or scrapped. It was a department full of talented people, but it simply didn’t have the levers of government to drive change.”
Others, however, see potential benefits in bringing innovation policy closer to business policy. Olivier Usher, Director of Development at Challenge Works, says that “Linking the innovation agenda closely with business in DBIST could lead to more joined-up policy.”
The theory here is that businesses looking for funding, export support, regulation guidance and innovation incentives may eventually find those services more connected than before. But, much like anything here, that’s not the whole story.
But Is AI Becoming A Substitute For Technology?
And that’s probably where your ears perk up. The government’s decision simultaneously removes a dedicated technology department while giving AI its own Cabinet-level champion for the first time ever. Ultimately, Burnham’s telling the UK that intentional or otherwise, AI has become the dominant technology priority.
But, do we need to state the obvious and say that technology is much, much broader than AI?
Semiconductors, cybersecurity, connectivity, quantum computing, digital infrastructure and advanced manufacturing all play critical roles in the UK’s future competitiveness. None of them disappear simply because AI is attracting the headlines.
Michaela Eschbach, CEO of Cambridge Wireless, warns that “it is not clear how the UK plans to support technology innovation beyond AI, which while vast, does not encompass everything.”
Similarly, Helen Crisostomo, VP Business Development at de Novo Solutions, argues that”Focusing too heavily on the AI agenda to the detriment of the many other strands of a complex UK tech sector may stunt innovation.”
The concern isn’t that AI is receiving attention, because that’s a whole different discussion. Most industry leaders agree it should. The concern is whether everything else receives less attention as a result.
The Bigger Risk Is Uncertainty
Perhaps the biggest criticism isn’t about structure at all. Rather, it’s about timing. The DSIT was only established in 2023, and since then, it’s become the government’s primary vehicle for technology policy, AI regulation, digital transformation and innovation strategy.
And now businesses must once again work out who is responsible for what. Anne Cantelo, Managing Director of Onyx Media and Communications, points out that government departments have been repeatedly renamed and reorganised over the years. As she puts it, “My clients don’t need another organisational reshuffle; they need consistency, clear accountability and confidence that long-term innovation policy is exactly that.”
According to reporting from Civil Service World, much of the coming months will involve transferring responsibilities, staff and programmes between departments. Whether that creates efficiency or distraction remains to be seen, but plenty of people are pretty sure it’s going to result in the latter.
What’s the Path Forward From Here?
For now, most experts appear less concerned about the name on the department door and more concerned about what follows. Indeed, the UK remains one of Europe’s strongest startup ecosystems and continues to attract investment into AI, fintech, life sciences and deep tech. Programmes around AI infrastructure, sovereign AI capability and research funding are expected to continue.
But the question raised by this reorganisation won’t disappear quickly. If AI now has a minister at the Cabinet table while technology no longer has a department of its own, does that mean the government sees AI as the future of technology? Or, is it at risk of treating AI as technology itself?
The answer will likely become clear not through ministerial titles or departmental acronyms, but through where funding flows, which sectors receive attention and whether Britain’s wider technology ecosystem continues to feel represented in government. Nevermind the practicality of dealing with a whole reshuffle and having to channel bureaucratic processes through these new processes and departments.
Because for a department called the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, one word still seems conspicuously absent.
Experts React
Want to know exactly what the experts had to say? Wonder no more…
- Mei Lim: Group CFO and Managing Partner at Anthemis
- Helen Crisostomo: VP Business Development at de Novo Solutions
- Ben Saunders: Co-Founder at WeBuild-AI
- Ollie Whiting: Chief Executive at La Fosse
- Olivier Usher: Director of Development, Challenge Works
- Nic Conner: Partner at Parisi
- Gareth Hoyle: Founder and Managing Director at Marketing Signals
- Erol Ayvaz: CEO and Co-Founder of Serve First
- Richard Clifford: VP of Sales and Solutions, EMEA at Salute
- Anne Cantelo: MD of Onyx Media and Communications
- Asma Bashir: Co-Founder of Centuro Global
- Kriti Sharma: CEO at IFS Nexus Black
- Abi Hill: CEO at Just Starting Out
- Andy Coussins: Executive Vice President at International at Epicor
- Liina Vahtras: Managing Director of e-Residency
- Dr. Sebastian Weidt: CEO and Co-Founder of Universal Quantum
- Tom McDanell: Managing Director at ForrestBrown
- James Cobb: CEO and Founder of Crowd Connected
- Jane Smith: Field Chief Data and AI Officer at ThoughtSpot, EMEA
- Melissa Di Donato: Chair and CEO of Kyriba
- Rachel Watkyn: OBE, Founder and CEO of Tiny Box
- Michaela Eschbach: CEO, Cambridge Wireless
Mei Lim, Group CFO and Managing Partner at Anthemis
“It’s disappointing to see DSIT lose its standalone status, just as AI has emerged as a once-in-a-generation growth shift. Reorganisations like this typically distract officials’ attention for months at exactly the moment when pace matters most. It’s however reassuring that Kanishka Narayan remains AI minister with a Cabinet seat, and I’d hope the new enlarged Department of Business Innovation Science and Trade, moves fast to continue to prioritise AI and keep ARIA, Sovereign AI, and the £1.1bn AI Hardware Plan on track through the transition.
Much of the UK’s AI momentum comes from collaborative platforms outside government – for example, the CommonAI’s of this world, who are giving founders shared access to compute, talent and IP. That ecosystem infrastructure deserves just as much continuity and backing from Burnham’s new government. If we want the UK to lead in AI, we need to make sure our founders and ecosystems are prioritised, not pushed to the sidelines by departmental restructuring”
Rachel Watkyn, OBE, Founder and CEO of Tiny Box Company
“Andy Burnham’s decision to fold the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology into a larger economic department is a signific signal about how this government views innovation. The argument will be that science, technology, innovation, business and trade should not operate in silos, and that bringing them together will help turn ideas into commercial growth more quickly.
“However, there is a legitimate concern that DSIT was only established in 2023 to give science and technology a dedicated seat at the Cabinet table. Many businesses welcomed that move because it recognised innovation as a strategic priority rather than simply a subset of business policy. The risk of reversing that decision is that technology, AI, advanced manufacturing and research compete for attention against a much broader economic agenda.
“From a business perspective, what matters most is not the departmental name but whether innovation remains central to government thinking. The UK’s future competitiveness depends on our ability to commercialise research, support entrepreneurs, scale technology businesses and attract investment. If the new structure creates stronger links between innovation and economic growth, it could prove beneficial. If it weakens the visibility and influence of science and technology within government, it could slow progress at a time when other countries are investing heavily in these sectors.
“The success or failure of this change will ultimately be judged not by the reorganisation itself, but by whether the UK becomes a better place to innovate, build businesses and bring new technologies to market.”
Helen Crisostomo, VP Business Development at de Novo Solutions
“Replacing the DSIT with a minister focused solely on AI could be a short-sighted decision if the rest of the department’s broad-ranging remit is not suitably reassigned. Tech innovation must also be considered crucial as part of the new PM’s desire for devolution. New decision-making powers for regional bodies will require strengthening oversight, data reliability, information sharing, and administrative task automation.
“Asking the public sector to continue relying on legacy tech whilst also handing them additional responsibilities is unlikely to produce the sort of efficiency and capability required, especially given the Government’s own research shows older technologies are 40% more expensive to maintain.
“Focusing too heavily on the AI agenda to the detriment of the many other strands of a complex UK tech sector may stunt innovation. The Government must support the entire sector, and recognise the intrinsic links between technology and the success of its devolution plans.”
Ben Saunders, Co-Founder at WeBuild-AI
“Andy Burnham’s decision to dismantle the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology in his first days as Prime Minister runs the risk of sending the wrong message, at precisely the wrong time. The United Kingdom is trying to convince global investors, founders and technologists that this is a serious place to build and to scale and breaking apart the one department built specifically to champion science, AI and digital innovation contradicts that ambition directly.
“Confidence follows clarity, and dismantling the clearest signal of intent the UK has built over the last three years does real damage to the story it is trying to tell the world about our AI aptitude.
“There is genuine merit in retaining a Cabinet level Minister for AI, and a federated model across departments can work well, in the same way that many large organisations choose to embed technology capability within business units rather than centralise it entirely.
“But that approach only succeeds when there is a shared layer underneath it, a common capability that allows departments to reuse what has already been built rather than each recreating it from scratch. Without that discipline, a federated model becomes an excuse for duplication rather than a genuine efficiency, and government risks ending up with parallel AI systems across departments that cannot see one another, cannot share data, and cannot learn from what the others have already solved.
“That risk carries a particular irony, given how much of the current thinking around agentic AI is built on the promise of systems that reason across boundaries, hand off work to one another, and operate as a connected whole rather than isolated tools. It would be a genuine shame if the government’s own approach to AI ended up recreating the very siloed structure of Whitehall that agentic AI was meant to help dissolve, with each department running its own version, none of them able to talk to each other, proving the opposite of what the technology was supposed to demonstrate.
“There is also a finer point worth noting. The technology that DSIT exists to champion is exactly the technology that could support Mr Burnham’s own welfare agenda, through smarter case management, sharper fraud detection, and systems that help move people from dependency into sustainable work more effectively than the status quo.
“It seems a shame to step back from the department best placed to help deliver on that ambition, just as its potential to do so is becoming clearer.”
Ollie Whiting, Chief Executive at La Fosse
“Businesses don’t particularly care what a department is called – but they do care about whether government is easier to work with, if decisions are made more quickly and whether the UK remains an attractive place to invest, innovate and create jobs.
“If bringing business, innovation, science and technology closer together removes silos and speeds up decision making, then that’s a positive step. Importantly, technology isn’t a sector in its own right anymore – it’s an enabler of almost every industry.
“What businesses don’t need is another cycle of departmental reshuffling every few years. The UK needs consistency and long-term thinking, giving businesses the confidence to invest and plan ahead.
“In the end, this decision won’t be judged on the name of the department. It’ll be judged on whether businesses see better outcomes through clearer policy, faster decisions and a government that works well with the UK’s businesses.”
Olivier Usher, Director of Development, Challenge Works
“Linking the innovation agenda closely with business in DBIST could lead to more joined-up policy. R&D funding, regulation and policy changes (for instance around rolling out smart data) being done in one department, rather than sitting in different silos, makes sense and might lead to more nimble action by government.
“But that coherence mustn’t mean a one-size-fits-all approach – an innovative approach to innovation itself is important. I hope this reorganisation becomes an opportunity to look at how government can become a better enabler of private and third-sector organisations that are experienced and best placed to support innovators.
“If serious powers over funding and governing are devolved, that too could be a fascinating opportunity to try new things in innovation policy. With a greater focus on the business potential and purpose of innovation, and a more diversified portfolio of funding approaches, we should be better placed to unlock growth nationwide.”
Nic Conner, Partner at Parisi
“DSIT either needed to be given real powers or scrapped. It was a department full of talented people, but it simply didn’t have the levers of government to drive change. Too often its role was limited to producing analysis or overseeing quangos while the key decisions sat elsewhere in government.
“Many lobbyists and trade bodies loved DSIT because it immersed itself in the sectors but understanding a problem isn’t the same as being able to solve it. The sector needs more than good vibes.
“The UK struggles to scale invention partially because powers to support the sector sit across multiple departments. Starmer tried to bridge the decision-making gap by giving figures such as Lord Vallance cross-government roles, but the workarounds didn’t work.
“While the loss of a dedicated Cabinet department for science and technology is a shame, what matters most now is ensuring less bureaucracy and more action to help the UK move from being an incubator economy to one that successfully scales world-leading businesses. ”
Gareth Hoyle, Founder and Managing Director at Marketing Signals
“As Prime Minister Andy Burnham sets out his first Cabinet, scrapping DSIT in favour of folding digital policy into a broader business department sends the wrong message at a critical moment for the UK economy.
“Giving the AI minister a seat at Cabinet sounds good on paper, but a minister without a dedicated department risks becoming little more than a spokesperson. At Marketing Signals, we work with UK businesses every day as they adapt to AI-driven search and rapid digital transformation. What these companies need is a cohesive, institutional front door in Whitehall, not an administrative shake-up that ties up senior tech officials in months of departmental reorganisation when time is of the essence.
“Streamlining Whitehall is understandable, but abolishing DSIT risks making British tech policy compete with traditional industries for focus and budget. If the UK wants to retain its edge in AI and search ecosystem innovation, we need stable, central digital leadership with real teeth, not a diluted setup that drives digital investment to markets in Europe or North America.”
Erol Ayvaz, CEO and Co-Founder of Serve First
“For hospitality, retail and other multi-site businesses, the real AI opportunity is practical, not headline-grabbing tech projects. AI can help teams spot where standards are slipping, identify patterns across different locations and act before a problem costs them a customer.
“The high street is adapting, not dying, but many operators still have valuable information trapped across separate feedback, audit, review and operational systems. The government can make a real difference by helping companies adopt proven tools, build the right skills and use AI in a way that improves day-to-day performance, particularly where there is no large in-house tech team.”
Richard Clifford, VP of Sales and Solutions, EMEA at Salute
“The decision to bring the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology into the business department has understandably prompted questions across the technology sector about the UK’s position as a global authority on AI.
“While there are legitimate concerns about losing a standalone department focused on digital and innovation, the appointment of an AI Minister at Cabinet level is an important and positive signal.
“From our perspective at Salute, what matters most is whether AI and digital infrastructure continue to receive consistent, senior-level attention; particularly at a time when growth sits at the top of the UK government’s agenda.
“Investors and infrastructure providers look for clarity, stability and long-term commitment. They want confidence that AI remains a strategic priority and that decisions can be made collaboratively and quickly.
“DSIT helped demonstrate that focus by bringing together digital policy, innovation and technology under one roof. As responsibilities evolve, it will be important that this focus is maintained and that AI continues to have a strong voice at the centre of government.
“A Cabinet-level AI Minister has the potential to provide that leadership, ensuring AI remains high on the national agenda and that the UK grasps its place on the world stage.
“What we have to make sure is that this translates into the opportunity for the UK to seize the initiative on AI, not simply watch that revenue realised elsewhere.
“The opportunity in front of the UK remains significant. As demand for AI infrastructure continues to grow, countries that provide clear direction, supportive policy and long-term certainty will be best placed to attract investment.
“The priority now is ensuring that the new structure delivers that confidence, so organisations across the AI ecosystem can continue investing in the infrastructure, skills and innovation that will drive future growth.”
Tom McDanell, Managing Director at ForrestBrown
“While Andy Burnham’s ambition to make the UK the world’s leading innovation nation is welcome, the decision to abolish DSIT raises concerns about how that ambition will be delivered. The previous government left strong foundations, and there is naturally a risk that sudden upheaval could slow investment across the tech sector. With the US doubling down on support for mission-critical industries including data centres, AI and energy infrastructure, the UK needs a clear and consistent innovation strategy to compete globally. Kanishka Narayan’s appointment gives AI a welcome voice at Cabinet level and brings a strong recognition of the UK’s startup ecosystem into government. That said, this focus must not come at the expense of science and other high-growth sectors.
“Direct grant funding has an important role to play, but governments cannot always predict where the next breakthrough will come from. Broader incentives such as R&D tax relief remain essential, giving businesses across the economy the confidence to innovate while complementing targeted public investment.”
Anne Cantelo, MD of Onyx Media and Communications
“I spent more than a decade working in the Department of Trade and Industry and its successor organisations before moving into technology PR. Since 2007 alone, the department has been reorganised or renamed seven times. Every machinery-of-government change means months of uncertainty while officials, businesses and investors work out who is responsible for what.
“My clients don’t need another organisational reshuffle; they need consistency, clear accountability and confidence that long-term innovation policy is exactly that.
“If there is a compelling reason for yet another restructuring, it needs to be clearly communicated. Otherwise, it risks looking like Whitehall rearranging the deckchairs while innovative businesses are simply trying to build products, attract investment and create jobs.
“Ministers can change overnight. Departmental structures shouldn’t. Businesses invest over years, not parliamentary terms, and innovation depends on stability as much as ambition.”
Asma Bashir, Co-Founder of Centuro Global
“Combining business, science, innovation and trade under Jonathan Reynolds could correct a longstanding UK weakness: we are exceptionally good at producing research and promising technology, but considerably less successful at turning them into globally scaled British companies. Putting innovation alongside investment, exports and commercial policy could finally connect invention with execution.
“However, abolishing the dedicated Department for Science, Innovation and Technology sends an ambiguous signal at precisely the wrong moment. Government structures communicate priorities. International investors will not study the Whitehall organogram, but they will notice if AI policy loses momentum, funding decisions slow or technology companies must compete with every other industry for ministerial attention.
“The appointment of a dedicated AI minister attending Cabinet is therefore important, but status alone is insufficient. The test is whether that minister has genuine authority over compute capacity, skills, regulation, procurement and investment – not simply a seat in the room.”
Kriti Sharma, CEO, IFS Nexus Black
“Andy Burnham is right to want a fresh start. His decision to break up the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has rightly alarmed tech leaders and investors, who warn it risks unsettling Britain’s standing as a global AI hub. The debate so far has missed the bigger risk. If Labour wants “good growth in every postcode,” it needs a coherent plan for AI, skills and industrial policy.
“Britain’s engineers, technicians and frontline workers are retiring fast, taking decades of operational knowledge with them that no frontier model can recover. DSIT, whatever its flaws, was the only department mandated to treat AI as a capability for the whole economy. Now split between the Department for Business and Trade and DCMS, Britain risks losing the thread on energy, utilities, and manufacturing — undercutting the reindustrialisation message.
“We have one to two years to embed that expertise into AI systems before it’s gone for good.”
Abi Hill, CEO at Just Starting Out
“As Founder and CEO of Just Starting Out, I don’t think most entrepreneurs are concerned about what a government department is called. What matters is whether it makes life easier for businesses that are trying to grow.
“If bringing business, innovation, science and trade together creates a clearer route to funding, skills, exports and support, then it has the potential to be a positive move. Too often, founders spend valuable time trying to work out which organisation or scheme they should be speaking to. Simplifying that journey would be welcomed by many SMEs.
“However, restructuring alone won’t deliver results. The real test will be whether start-ups and small businesses notice quicker decisions, less bureaucracy and better access to practical support.
“The UK has no shortage of innovative entrepreneurs. What they need is a government structure that helps them spend less time navigating systems and more time building successful businesses.”
Andy Coussins, Executive Vice President, International at Epicor
“A new Prime Minister will, of course, bring changes to the structure of government. But one thing we hope remains consistent is the UK’s commitment to digital transformation across the industries that form the backbone of our economy.
“Manufacturing, logistics and distribution may not be the first sectors that spring to mind when the government is considering changes to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but they should be. Technologies such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), AI and automation are transforming supply chains, helping businesses become more productive, agile, and resilient.
“As government priorities over the next few weeks become clear, it is important that the focus on technology remains. Ensuring traditional industries continue to embrace digital transformation will help drive economic growth and strengthen UK competitiveness.”
Liina Vahtras, Managing Director of e-Residency
“There’s been a lot of discussion about what the cabinet reshuffle means for the UK’s AI ambitions. From a founder’s perspective, the conversation is more practical, looking at whether the UK will continue to make it easier to build and grow a business.
“There’s a good case for bringing AI closer to business and trade. It’s changing how companies hire, build products and compete, so it makes sense that it sits much closer to wider economic policy. The key will be making sure that focus isn’t diluted as AI becomes one of many competing priorities.
“You can clearly see why this is important. Our research found almost nine in ten UK founders say skills shortages have held back growth, particularly in AI, data science and cybersecurity. Seven in ten say fragmented or unclear regulation is making it harder to operate and scale. Those are the pressures SMEs are dealing with every day, and they’ll only become more important as founders build AI-first operations from day one.
“Businesses know government priorities will shift. What they need is consistent delivery on the fundamentals – skills, progressive regulation, and modern digital infrastructure. Get that right, and SMEs will invest for the long term, regardless of how the wider landscape changes.”
Dr. Sebastian Weidt, CEO and Co-Founder of Universal Quantum
“Departmental structures come and go. What matters to companies building long-term technologies is certainty, pace and a government that treats innovation as central to growth, because deep tech firms decide where to scale based on the signals governments send. Our hope is that the new Prime Minister keeps emerging technology at the core of his plans for the economy, and that Britain’s strengths continue to be backed with the focus it has earned.
“Britain’s research heritage is the bedrock of its next generation of companies. Universal Quantum spun out of the University of Sussex, and there are hundreds of firms like ours turning world-class research into jobs, exports and entirely new industries. That pipeline from lab to economy is a national asset, and it deserves a strong voice at the heart of government.”
James Cobb, CEO and Founder of Crowd Connected
“Andy Burnham says this moment must be a circuit breaker for Britain. But if that is to mean more than a change in tone, the Government must also break with the false divide it has created between people, business and the technologies that will shape both.
“For a long time now, Labour has seemed to hold a binary view of the world that there are people and there is business. As an entrepreneur, I’ve watched rhetoric aimed at ‘fat cats’ sweep up every startup founder and family business in the country alongside the FTSE 100.
“Scrapping of the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology, and filing it along with ‘business’, reinforces exactly that mistaken view. Science, innovation, and technology are three different things and none of them is simply business. They’re how Britain creates the businesses, jobs and public services of the next future.”
Jane Smith, Field Chief Data and AI Officer at ThoughtSpot, EMEA
“The ministerial reshuffle is not unduly concerning for leaders running large-scale data and AI programmes. Their primary concern will be whether any governmental changes will make it easier or harder to operate global, audited, multi-jurisdictional AI architectures. Most organisations have spent the last few years aligning their governance and compliance frameworks with the EU AI Act. Any significant divergence in the UK’s approach could mean businesses having to revisit those frameworks just as they thought they had a clear path forward.
“There are industry-specific implications too. Chief Data and AI Officers in logistics and supply chain will be watching closely to see whether any changes affect the cross-border data-sharing arrangements their global operations depend on. In healthcare and life sciences, there may be cautious optimism if the new structure helps accelerate secure access to NHS data for areas such as genomic testing and AI-enabled research.
“Until there’s more clarity on how the government’s AI strategy will be implemented, many organisations are likely to take a wait-and-see approach. Large AI programmes are planned years in advance, so businesses will want confidence that today’s governance decisions won’t need to be revisited six months from now.”
Melissa Di Donato, Chair and CEO of Kyriba
“In tech policy, the structures matter less than the passion of the people at the top. Having served on the DSIT board, I’ve seen their ambition for making the UK a tech superpower up close. While it’s sad to see DSIT go, it’s great to see the UK Government’s continued commitment to AI. Making Kanishka Narayan the first AI minister to attend Cabinet is a signal that tech is now central to the Government’s plans – and he is the right person to take that forward.
“What happens next matters. The government must continue to engage, challenge and be challenged by a range of voices in the industry. It’s right that tech is at the heart of this Government’s growth strategy, and strong dialogue will ensure the UK has a regulatory landscape that promotes growth and grows our reputation as a global tech leader.”
Michaela Eschbach, CEO, Cambridge Wireless
“The move to elevate AI in the cabinet is an acknowledgment of the critical importance of AI for the development and growth of the UK, and very welcome. Whether the new role will deliver, remains to be seen. Yet, it is not clear how the UK plans to support technology innovation beyond AI, which while vast, does not encompass everything – we need more information fast to ensure other critical technologies are not neglected.
“Areas such as future connectivity, semiconductors and cleantech are crucial to the competitiveness of our nation and sovereign capability. This is a sector where speed, coordination and clear national leadership matter, and removing the central home for all areas of technology and innovation risks sending the wrong signal to investors, founders and researchers alike.
“The UK should be strengthening the architecture that supports growth in advanced connectivity, AI and deep tech — not fragmenting it. The move to merge Science and Innovation with business and trade may emphasise the focus on driving much-needed investment into science and innovation. However, whether this truly strengthens innovation or divides the attention, depends on the execution and remains to be seen.”
