Science, Innovation and Technology Committee
Tuesday 15th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 week, 5 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:35
Chi Onwurah
-
-
Chi Onwurah
54321. Order, order! And welcome to today's meeting of the freshly renamed Science and Technology Committee. And this is our first session of this parliamentary term. And we are discussing the machinery of government changes announced before the summer recess, effectively, the abolition of thesis and its implications for the future of science, innovation and technology policy and decisions. And we're delighted to start by welcoming two witnesses with extensive experience of previous government reorganisations.
Doctor Simon Kay, who is director of policy and research at restate, and Alex Thomas, who is executive director of the Institute for government. And later this morning, we'll hear from the scientific research community and the start up and scale up community. But I'm going to start by asking each of you a very simple question, and particularly Alex Thomas. The Institute for government was rumoured to have been advocating for the abolition of dis it for some time.
Perhaps you can suggest whether that was true or not. But while seeing whether it has, whether it has been effective since its creation in 2023, and I'll come to Doctor Sam K.
Doctor Simon Kay, who is director of policy and research at restate, and Alex Thomas, who is executive director of the Institute for government. And later this morning, we'll hear from the scientific research community and the start up and scale up community. But I'm going to start by asking each of you a very simple question, and particularly Alex Thomas. The Institute for government was rumoured to have been advocating for the abolition of dis it for some time.
Perhaps you can suggest whether that was true or not. But while seeing whether it has, whether it has been effective since its creation in 2023, and I'll come to Doctor Sam K.
09:36
09:36
09:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Because we haven't. So no. And in fact, actually the and particularly the commentary and analysis we've we've carried out since the abolition of the Department. We've said that it was a mistake to, to, to, to get rid of it. But we may come on to that more in a moment. I mean, I do think where. Where I suppose when the then prime minister, Rishi Sunak, created the department, we are generally sort of you need to make a very good case for any machinery of government change.
We've done a lot of research, and again, we may come on to this into how costly, disruptive, not only in the absolute cost, but the opportunity costs of machinery, of government changes. They are. So we would generally approach any sort of stroke of the prime ministerial pen with a machinery of government change. With a bit of skepticism. I was also personally concerned when it was created that it was a. It had the slight feel of a here today, gone tomorrow Department.
Did it have a kind of strong enough locus and sufficiently kind of hefty policy responsibilities to really establish itself in the Whitehall landscape? I think I was wrong, actually, in that skepticism, because partly because of the Rishi Sunak's kind of personal advocacy of the department's agenda, and partly because of the kind of cohesive logic of bringing science, innovation and technology together. I think the department had started to establish itself, had brought quite a lot to the kind of Whitehall party.
And as I say, it was on balance, we would say it was a mistake to abolish it. When the new Prime Minister came into office. And certainly and again, we may come on to this in more detail. The fragmentation of responsibilities for science, for artificial intelligence and so on across Whitehall departments, you know, in the new setup seems to be, you know, at least potentially problematic.
We've done a lot of research, and again, we may come on to this into how costly, disruptive, not only in the absolute cost, but the opportunity costs of machinery, of government changes. They are. So we would generally approach any sort of stroke of the prime ministerial pen with a machinery of government change. With a bit of skepticism. I was also personally concerned when it was created that it was a. It had the slight feel of a here today, gone tomorrow Department.
Did it have a kind of strong enough locus and sufficiently kind of hefty policy responsibilities to really establish itself in the Whitehall landscape? I think I was wrong, actually, in that skepticism, because partly because of the Rishi Sunak's kind of personal advocacy of the department's agenda, and partly because of the kind of cohesive logic of bringing science, innovation and technology together. I think the department had started to establish itself, had brought quite a lot to the kind of Whitehall party.
And as I say, it was on balance, we would say it was a mistake to abolish it. When the new Prime Minister came into office. And certainly and again, we may come on to this in more detail. The fragmentation of responsibilities for science, for artificial intelligence and so on across Whitehall departments, you know, in the new setup seems to be, you know, at least potentially problematic.
09:38
Chi Onwurah
-
-
Chi Onwurah
Yes, yes. Thank you for that. And thank you for clarifying that that question, the Institute for government position. And yes, I think there was always been a discussion, and particularly when it was created about the trade offs between having a central organisation which could drive something and being focused on it, but might not have the political will in each department, and having something in so many departments which might not be able to be coordinated to actually achieve effective change.
Doctor Simon Kay, what is what is your view?
Doctor Simon Kay, what is what is your view?
09:39
09:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Agree, I think on the whole with what Alex just said. To the extent that the IT department represented the product in some ways of a lot of external engagement on the part of Whitehall, and the principal architects of the department seem to engage very broadly with the wider scientific and technical community while trying to arrange it. And then even those sceptics who are outside the system at that point started to engage over the course of 2 or 3 years of really hard work emanating from that department.
As Alex said, an awful lot of disruption can happen. There are always costs, opportunity, costs incurred when machinery of government changes, when structural changes occur. Would I now recreate de CET? Starting from where we are now? I don't think we want to hit those opportunity costs again. But more to the point, I think there is an underlying logic to the new arrangement as well. I think it represents government thinking about driving new distinctions in what is a really important, cross-cutting set of questions and issues for the work of government.
One's an internal versus external question. What is government's posture to AI and technology and digital externally versus the internal development of those things? And I think you can see a kind of a departmental line being drawn between those things, rightly or wrongly. And I think there's also an opportunity versus risk question being addressed by this structure as well. One of the underlying motivations, possibly, of wanting to move the question of AI development into number ten and closer to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office, is that that also brings it into closer proximity with the national security apparatus, and there are reasons why that expertise could be helpful across both of those things, as we've been hearing in recent days.
So, yes, I think it was an effective department and increasingly effective department, one that engaged effectively and broadly, but also one where I think we can make any system work now, and we should just try and stop moving the deckchairs around for a little while.
As Alex said, an awful lot of disruption can happen. There are always costs, opportunity, costs incurred when machinery of government changes, when structural changes occur. Would I now recreate de CET? Starting from where we are now? I don't think we want to hit those opportunity costs again. But more to the point, I think there is an underlying logic to the new arrangement as well. I think it represents government thinking about driving new distinctions in what is a really important, cross-cutting set of questions and issues for the work of government.
One's an internal versus external question. What is government's posture to AI and technology and digital externally versus the internal development of those things? And I think you can see a kind of a departmental line being drawn between those things, rightly or wrongly. And I think there's also an opportunity versus risk question being addressed by this structure as well. One of the underlying motivations, possibly, of wanting to move the question of AI development into number ten and closer to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office, is that that also brings it into closer proximity with the national security apparatus, and there are reasons why that expertise could be helpful across both of those things, as we've been hearing in recent days.
So, yes, I think it was an effective department and increasingly effective department, one that engaged effectively and broadly, but also one where I think we can make any system work now, and we should just try and stop moving the deckchairs around for a little while.
09:41
09:41
09:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think it's probably a bit more of the latter. Partly because civil servants who've been through a few of these machinery of government changes know how disruptive it is. I do think there's a bit of a theory that that we have that civil servants are almost too good at hiding the disruption of machinery, of government changes from ministers. So ministers see the you know, the plaque on the door is, has, has, has changed, but actually they're normally not the ones who are grappling with the either the kind of trivial length of time it takes to, to arrange, you know, the it and the human resources and, and to kind of harmonise all those sort of back office type policies or the inevitable kind of turf wars and sharp elbows that any kind of reorganization brings.
So I do think sometimes the kind of soft disruption or the behind the scenes disruption of machinery, of government changes is is appreciated by civil servants and perhaps isn't seen publicly or kind of at the ministerial level. I think I think there are opportunities in machinery of government changes for for civil servants. So some of them will have been seeing the benefits of this.
So I do think sometimes the kind of soft disruption or the behind the scenes disruption of machinery, of government changes is is appreciated by civil servants and perhaps isn't seen publicly or kind of at the ministerial level. I think I think there are opportunities in machinery of government changes for for civil servants. So some of them will have been seeing the benefits of this.
09:57
09:57
09:57
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Anything to add on that? If that's right. Yeah, I and this is something I've interpreted in my analysis as opposed to something that's come out of anyone's mouth when talking to me. But I would say that one of the defining factors of this government compared to the last and the one before, I don't know if you agree, Alex, is that this is a government that is more suspicious of the department as a unit of government that can get a lot done, that has more questions about the traditional structure of Whitehall machinery, and is therefore going to be frequently using these task force based sort of measures to cut across departmental boundaries or lifting parts of the Whitehall machine into other locales in order to create that critical distance as well.
It's an effort to learn the lessons of things like the vaccine task force. And I think that's one way of looking at the shift that we're describing, is that there's an underlying suspicion or fatigue with the wider departmental machinery norms of Whitehall.
It's an effort to learn the lessons of things like the vaccine task force. And I think that's one way of looking at the shift that we're describing, is that there's an underlying suspicion or fatigue with the wider departmental machinery norms of Whitehall.
09:58
Kit Malthouse
-
-
Kit Malthouse
So I'm chair of the all party group for Life Sciences, and I chair an AI startup focused on public protection, national security, just for integration purposes. I'm amazed you're both so relaxed in the face of what, as far as I can see, is a catastrophe for British science. I mean, what you've outlined to us is at a moment of extraordinary human advancement, right? This elliptical curve of change. We're busy talking about the bureaucracy of departmental shifting.
And that's before you get on to the argument about the Treasury kind of divide and conquer. Right. So as you I think you rightly said, now science is no one's priority. It competes with all the other priorities that they might have. And aside from anything else, the science community and it's it's wide and colourful. Horizon now has to go looking for someone across Whitehall to engage with and to talk to about what they want to do.
I don't understand how this isn't being painted for British science as anything other than a complete catastrophe. Maybe you're trying to make the the best of it, but I mean, in terms of from my experience in in government. So for example, we wanted to do quite a lot on drugs and the drugs responsibility was across the Department of Health, the Home Office, various other bits and pieces. And it was a total nightmare to get anything done because drugs and drug deaths were not a priority in the Department of Health.
So as a result, they wouldn't focus on it at all. Don't you think that this idea, the timing of this at this moment in human development is is yeah. I can't think of a better word than catastrophic.
And that's before you get on to the argument about the Treasury kind of divide and conquer. Right. So as you I think you rightly said, now science is no one's priority. It competes with all the other priorities that they might have. And aside from anything else, the science community and it's it's wide and colourful. Horizon now has to go looking for someone across Whitehall to engage with and to talk to about what they want to do.
I don't understand how this isn't being painted for British science as anything other than a complete catastrophe. Maybe you're trying to make the the best of it, but I mean, in terms of from my experience in in government. So for example, we wanted to do quite a lot on drugs and the drugs responsibility was across the Department of Health, the Home Office, various other bits and pieces. And it was a total nightmare to get anything done because drugs and drug deaths were not a priority in the Department of Health.
So as a result, they wouldn't focus on it at all. Don't you think that this idea, the timing of this at this moment in human development is is yeah. I can't think of a better word than catastrophic.
09:59
09:59
10:00
10:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I mean, so the, you know, you'll hear from people who, whose job it is to analyze and advocate for science community. The second point is, I do think it was a mistake. I mean, I'm not going to catastrophize it. There's your judgment about priorities. And I, I wouldn't I think machinery of government changes and the organization of government is really important. I would say that I work for the Institute for government.
But equally, it's not it's not a substitute for political prioritization and and drive within the system. You know, were I advocating for coherence in science and government or AI in government above all else, I would be very concerned about this. I don't think it's the ifgs job to, to, to, to take that position because we're, you know, this is this is what it's all about. But, you know, do I think that it will be harder to reach a coherent set of decisions around science in government as a result of the abolition of DC? Yes, I do as I've said, I think it will be working against the grain of the system.
And I do worry about the diffusion of responsibilities, particularly on AI. And that's why I think the role of Patrick Vallance is going to be so important in kind of driving and bringing coherence. And we were talking about the external accountability and pressure that will operate on the system around that. I think Patrick Vallance has an internal or sort of quasi internal responsibility to kind of drive that through. I do have questions about, I mean, the Department for digital, culture, Media and Sport has been doing a real hokey cokey over the last decade or so in terms of its size and responsibilities.
I was the principal private secretary to cabinet secretary when it gained digital responsibility. It grew that capability. The department itself grew. Gaining digital kind of gave that department a real sense of energy that was then removed. Fine. But now to kind of for parts of that to go back to what had become, once again, quite a small department. And, you know, one that is not at the top of the Whitehall pecking order is, you know, would would kind of raise concerns if I was advocating that.
Sorry,
But equally, it's not it's not a substitute for political prioritization and and drive within the system. You know, were I advocating for coherence in science and government or AI in government above all else, I would be very concerned about this. I don't think it's the ifgs job to, to, to, to take that position because we're, you know, this is this is what it's all about. But, you know, do I think that it will be harder to reach a coherent set of decisions around science in government as a result of the abolition of DC? Yes, I do as I've said, I think it will be working against the grain of the system.
And I do worry about the diffusion of responsibilities, particularly on AI. And that's why I think the role of Patrick Vallance is going to be so important in kind of driving and bringing coherence. And we were talking about the external accountability and pressure that will operate on the system around that. I think Patrick Vallance has an internal or sort of quasi internal responsibility to kind of drive that through. I do have questions about, I mean, the Department for digital, culture, Media and Sport has been doing a real hokey cokey over the last decade or so in terms of its size and responsibilities.
I was the principal private secretary to cabinet secretary when it gained digital responsibility. It grew that capability. The department itself grew. Gaining digital kind of gave that department a real sense of energy that was then removed. Fine. But now to kind of for parts of that to go back to what had become, once again, quite a small department. And, you know, one that is not at the top of the Whitehall pecking order is, you know, would would kind of raise concerns if I was advocating that.
Sorry,
10:02
10:02
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
don't I don't agree that it's a catastrophe. And I think we'll hear, as Alex said, from people more qualified to speak on this. I come out of academia. I'm something of a scientist myself in a, in a, in a small and social way. And talking to my old colleagues and talking to the people I engage with in the community, they'll say, it's always been a bit of a nightmare engaging with government. I'm not sure it moved that much.
I think it did improve over the three years of its existence, but there was an overall effort to engage. And as I said before, it's the continuity of relationships. When you talk to scientists, that's what makes a big difference over time to the quality of engagement with the government. So I hope that that can continue under the new structure. And I'm a bit old fashioned. I think any structure can be made to work if you stick with it.
I think it did improve over the three years of its existence, but there was an overall effort to engage. And as I said before, it's the continuity of relationships. When you talk to scientists, that's what makes a big difference over time to the quality of engagement with the government. So I hope that that can continue under the new structure. And I'm a bit old fashioned. I think any structure can be made to work if you stick with it.
10:17
10:17
10:17
10:17
Chi Onwurah
-
-
Chi Onwurah
To add. The government has dropped a digital ID, but digital transformation plans are dependent. Depended on a consistent way of identifying public sector users. For example, I think restate may have done some work on this. Is that do you have a view as to whether we can have digital transformation without digital ID?
10:17
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
You can certainly have digital transformation without digital ID. The advocates of digital ID point out that it probably make a lot of things a lot easier, but all the people who are involved in the political and administrative and logistical side of actually establishing a digital ID system in this country point out that that is not the easy bit. So it's a balance.
10:17
Chi Onwurah
-
-
Chi Onwurah
Great, great. Well, thank you very much for sharing your expertise with us. And we'll end this evidence session now. Order, order! 4321. Order, order. And welcome back to today's meeting of the Science and Technology Committee, where we're discussing the machinery of government changes announced in July, including the abolition of Dcit. And I'm delighted to welcome Doctor Alicia Grated, executive director of the campaign for Science and Engineering, and Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society.
And I know that George is very keen to kick us off with the first question.
And I know that George is very keen to kick us off with the first question.
10:19
George Freeman
-
-
George Freeman
Thanks, chair. Morning, both. I used to joke, as the First Minister for Life Science, my main ambition was not to be the last. It's actually the first of nine in about four years. As the First Minister of State at Dcit, I never envisaged that it would be abolished so quickly. I wanted to ask. No department is perfect. Machinery of government changes often create opportunities and challenges. I wanted to ask, firstly, what is your take on the impact really of this big change? And a number of us are including me as Minister had a view that it felt very much like an AI department.
Huge issue. But some of the other sciences, the wet science, the harder science, the metal, the. The regional clusters were a bit neglected. I wonder if that's your view and if you see positive and negative implications. So perhaps Sir Paul first and then Alicia.
Huge issue. But some of the other sciences, the wet science, the harder science, the metal, the. The regional clusters were a bit neglected. I wonder if that's your view and if you see positive and negative implications. So perhaps Sir Paul first and then Alicia.
10:20
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think it was a mistake actually quite a big mistake, I have to say. Now, why do I say that? Well, I think the primary driver was that science as a whole has a role throughout government in all departments. So it's not just business, it's health, it's defence, it's transport, it's energy, it's environment, everything. And in fact, I would say the future of our country depends upon what science can put in to all that we do.
And I personally was a big fan of De cit, as George will probably remember, because I felt we were on the first rung of a ladder that would actually recognise that and see what it actually could deliver. So giving it just a business, there are ways through that which maybe we can discuss later because it's where we are giving it just to business is restricting just what it can do. And I think that is a mistake.
What I would have done is put science and AI together in actual fact, because AI is in fact science. I don't know why that is so neglected all the time. It is part of science and in actual fact, we can do better AI if it is close to science, because AI isn't just all large language models and so on and rushing after big data bases as big as you can make. It is also about promoting creativity in science and actually generating appropriate technology.
So I had to put science and AI together to actually deal with that. Now, practically, I think there are issues with this because if we talk to the Secretary of State or the minister, I'm sure they will both say that science will be looked after properly, and I believe them that they will do as much as they can. But I think we have to recognise much of the activity of a department is with the civil servants and support.
Now I remember Buis and Bays, for example, which is not unrelated to this. When you talked to the civil servants, they see what is the what is the big thing about their department, which is business. So every time I had to speak to them, it was always about applications to a particular business objectives. They couldn't get off that. Now that is something for the Secretary of State and minister to deal with. But that is a problem.
It's not just leadership. It's also what comes underneath. And the Secretary of State, I looked it up, has nine policy areas of which only one is to do with science. So this is something we really, I think have have to deal with. What do we do now? Now we've got it. Well, because I'm sure it's not reversible at this stage. I think we have to identify all these problems to government so that they are aware they're big issues and that we should be doing something about it.
I personally would put something in cabinet that would not just be AI. You know, we now have a taskforce. I'd have science, including AI, and I think that would be a much more effective way. But what would have been more effective is the department dealing with science and AI supporting everything we do. And I think that's a mistake. Unfortunately.
And I personally was a big fan of De cit, as George will probably remember, because I felt we were on the first rung of a ladder that would actually recognise that and see what it actually could deliver. So giving it just a business, there are ways through that which maybe we can discuss later because it's where we are giving it just to business is restricting just what it can do. And I think that is a mistake.
What I would have done is put science and AI together in actual fact, because AI is in fact science. I don't know why that is so neglected all the time. It is part of science and in actual fact, we can do better AI if it is close to science, because AI isn't just all large language models and so on and rushing after big data bases as big as you can make. It is also about promoting creativity in science and actually generating appropriate technology.
So I had to put science and AI together to actually deal with that. Now, practically, I think there are issues with this because if we talk to the Secretary of State or the minister, I'm sure they will both say that science will be looked after properly, and I believe them that they will do as much as they can. But I think we have to recognise much of the activity of a department is with the civil servants and support.
Now I remember Buis and Bays, for example, which is not unrelated to this. When you talked to the civil servants, they see what is the what is the big thing about their department, which is business. So every time I had to speak to them, it was always about applications to a particular business objectives. They couldn't get off that. Now that is something for the Secretary of State and minister to deal with. But that is a problem.
It's not just leadership. It's also what comes underneath. And the Secretary of State, I looked it up, has nine policy areas of which only one is to do with science. So this is something we really, I think have have to deal with. What do we do now? Now we've got it. Well, because I'm sure it's not reversible at this stage. I think we have to identify all these problems to government so that they are aware they're big issues and that we should be doing something about it.
I personally would put something in cabinet that would not just be AI. You know, we now have a taskforce. I'd have science, including AI, and I think that would be a much more effective way. But what would have been more effective is the department dealing with science and AI supporting everything we do. And I think that's a mistake. Unfortunately.
10:24
George Freeman
-
-
George Freeman
That was, of course, part of the original rationale to bring the science portfolio that I had in bays with the digital deep tech AI portfolio. So it's interesting to hear your remarks, doctor. Alicia, you've been a great advocate through case of the broader science research, technology innovation, engineering. We
10:24
10:24
10:24
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Yeah, it's a really good question. Obviously, the big question and I actually went out to ask our members knowing that I was coming here. So we've got quite detailed feedback on this that we can summarize and give to you in writing. But just I won't say it will disagree. I would never disagree with Paul because he's very important in the sector, but I'd just give a slightly different angle that has come from our members and also from case.
I think we see there are different ways you can structure any department. And I think in this case, there are some advantages and some opportunities and some real fears in the community. So I'll summarize what I think they are. And I'd also say just building on what Paul said, that the noises from the new Secretary of State have been positive. So we felt very warm messages coming out from speaking to Jonathan Reynolds so far.
I think in terms of the opportunities that's coming from, the connections that are created through this new department, the obvious one is with business, and we've already heard about that, that alignment between basic research coming into innovation and the industrial strategy and economic growth, which can be positive. We also feel there is a real opportunity of having trade in there. So we haven't talked much about international, but thinking about R&D associated with trade and international, that's a topic I'd love to cover later if we can.
And that joining up, I know we had comments about joint roles, but the joining up between the ministerial appointment between the Department of Health and Social Care as well, there are potential opportunities there. The connection is missing that we haven't mentioned that has come out from our members as well. Is the connection with the Department for education, which obviously has responsibility for universities and higher education, and I do not need to tell you why that connection is extremely important in terms of the fears .
They build on a lot of what Paul said, but the two big ones for us and our members. The first one is that point about the deckchairs moving continuously. And I, I mean, I don't need to go into that. We know how many prime ministers we've had in ten years, but what our members are asking for is stability, whether it's in funding, strategy, policy and the reason for that. There's lots of reasons, but we need to be thinking more long term.
So what we feel is a lot of the objectives of the current departmental priorities are going to be quite short term. Where is that long term vision coming to build international partners, to bring investment in and to gain our international standing? And then the second one builds on Paul's point is that hopefully perceived about that issue, about the deprioritization of basic research. And we all know that R&D is not just R&D, it's the skills, it's the infrastructure, it's the ideas that feed into our innovation pipeline.
And again, I just want to reiterate the support for discovery science, but also the recognition of that long term vision and not being short. Termist.
I think we see there are different ways you can structure any department. And I think in this case, there are some advantages and some opportunities and some real fears in the community. So I'll summarize what I think they are. And I'd also say just building on what Paul said, that the noises from the new Secretary of State have been positive. So we felt very warm messages coming out from speaking to Jonathan Reynolds so far.
I think in terms of the opportunities that's coming from, the connections that are created through this new department, the obvious one is with business, and we've already heard about that, that alignment between basic research coming into innovation and the industrial strategy and economic growth, which can be positive. We also feel there is a real opportunity of having trade in there. So we haven't talked much about international, but thinking about R&D associated with trade and international, that's a topic I'd love to cover later if we can.
And that joining up, I know we had comments about joint roles, but the joining up between the ministerial appointment between the Department of Health and Social Care as well, there are potential opportunities there. The connection is missing that we haven't mentioned that has come out from our members as well. Is the connection with the Department for education, which obviously has responsibility for universities and higher education, and I do not need to tell you why that connection is extremely important in terms of the fears .
They build on a lot of what Paul said, but the two big ones for us and our members. The first one is that point about the deckchairs moving continuously. And I, I mean, I don't need to go into that. We know how many prime ministers we've had in ten years, but what our members are asking for is stability, whether it's in funding, strategy, policy and the reason for that. There's lots of reasons, but we need to be thinking more long term.
So what we feel is a lot of the objectives of the current departmental priorities are going to be quite short term. Where is that long term vision coming to build international partners, to bring investment in and to gain our international standing? And then the second one builds on Paul's point is that hopefully perceived about that issue, about the deprioritization of basic research. And we all know that R&D is not just R&D, it's the skills, it's the infrastructure, it's the ideas that feed into our innovation pipeline.
And again, I just want to reiterate the support for discovery science, but also the recognition of that long term vision and not being short. Termist.
10:27
George Freeman
-
-
George Freeman
Thank you very much. We've got a lot of questions. I find myself in a strange position of actually, I mean, I share some of the concerns, but I support the government's ambition actually to embed science in the growth agenda, in the regional devolution agenda, in the clusters. So we know there's a difference between high science innovation, research, technology and growth around the country. And so I, I see the challenge and chair, I know we've got a number of issues we're going to unpack.
10:27
Chi Onwurah
-
-
Chi Onwurah
10:28
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I I'd reinforce the points I've made. So the first one would be that stability and long term strategy, both in funding policy and the vision for R&D. The second one, and I can talk about this more, is around R&D capability in the UK. I'll just give the headlines now, but I'd be happy to go into this in more depth. We've got a lot of pressures on the sector at the moment and funding changes, and our Warriors case is that there's no oversight of the capability, that R&D capability in the UK for a long term objectives, not just for hitting the industrial strategy objectives.
And then the third one is about having a really clear international strategy, so that we obviously support devolution and the clusters and and supporting local economies. But we didn't have an international strategy. Our previous international strategy was in 2019, and a lot has happened since then. So we need to be thinking internationally. Thank you
And then the third one is about having a really clear international strategy, so that we obviously support devolution and the clusters and and supporting local economies. But we didn't have an international strategy. Our previous international strategy was in 2019, and a lot has happened since then. So we need to be thinking internationally. Thank you
10:29
10:29
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So just to say, I'm with George, obviously we have to drive growth of the country. It's just that I think that the way we doing it this way is not ideal. What are the major challenges? First of all, the research ecosystem and I emphasize the word ecosystem because it has different components a share properties, but they are different. There isn't just one bucket. If you'll forgive my.
10:29
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
We have to have discovery research, not curiosity. Curiosity is a motive. Discovery is an actual what you're trying to deliver. You then translate that which is a little more top down, and then you apply it, which is definitely top down. Now the use of the word top down. And of course, the opposite bottom up is critical here because discovery, research. And one reason and it's very important, as you rightly said, it's neglected, is that it doesn't seem to have any objectives.
And that doesn't fit well with policy makers and maybe with governments. But it is the way that it is done. I mean, you can read Popper or Peter Medawar explanation of Popper if you want, but you do discovery research by actually wanting to understand something with an idea, you test it, you find your idea is wrong, you change your objective, and you end up doing something else. In other words, it's a very reliable way of delivering knowledge and understanding.
You just don't know quite what the knowledge and understanding will be.
And that doesn't fit well with policy makers and maybe with governments. But it is the way that it is done. I mean, you can read Popper or Peter Medawar explanation of Popper if you want, but you do discovery research by actually wanting to understand something with an idea, you test it, you find your idea is wrong, you change your objective, and you end up doing something else. In other words, it's a very reliable way of delivering knowledge and understanding.
You just don't know quite what the knowledge and understanding will be.
10:31
10:31
Freddie van Mierlo
-
-
Freddie van Mierlo
Yes. So Paul, you said the B word bucket. So I'd like to go into that if I may. What do you think these machinery changes of government leaves for the Bucket framework? What kind of impact do you think it will have? Ukri distributes a very large sum of money to research. And with it now sitting in a different department, what kind of impact do you think that will have on that framework?
10:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well, I think the idea of buckets is not a bad one. And and I think Ukri needed some energy and we are seeing some energy there. So I think that's a good thing. I think what the concerns are is clarity of thought about what the buckets are and what's in them. And I think we have work to do to more properly define what, for example, is called curiosity research, though I call it discovery research and what is in fact a government initiative.
Is it a particular thing like making some widget, or is it an area? And we haven't had enough addressing the problems of what? The definitions, if I can put it that way. So I think buckets are okay if we know what they are and what's going in them. And then I think there needs to be clarity of thought about the how. Not only those things are, are, are defined, but what, what is happened to the budget because we have no idea what the budget, how the old budget applies to the new budget.
And if you're in a change environment, that's crucial if you want to bring people with you. And it's so obvious that it's something that you would, I think, obviously be concerned about it. And if we're going to talk about it, I'll talk about QR as an example, but I'll shut up there in case that's saying too much.
Is it a particular thing like making some widget, or is it an area? And we haven't had enough addressing the problems of what? The definitions, if I can put it that way. So I think buckets are okay if we know what they are and what's going in them. And then I think there needs to be clarity of thought about the how. Not only those things are, are, are defined, but what, what is happened to the budget because we have no idea what the budget, how the old budget applies to the new budget.
And if you're in a change environment, that's crucial if you want to bring people with you. And it's so obvious that it's something that you would, I think, obviously be concerned about it. And if we're going to talk about it, I'll talk about QR as an example, but I'll shut up there in case that's saying too much.
10:33
10:33
Samantha Niblett
-
-
Samantha Niblett
Talk a little bit about capability. The point I raised before. So what we feel is with the cry buckets. One of our members described this as narrowing the research base. And I'd agree with Paul that the philosophy is focusing on outputs and value to society and the economies. We agree with that . But when you focus, you then have to narrow. Don't you?
10:33
10:33
10:34
10:34
Samantha Niblett
-
-
Samantha Niblett
And they're making very serious choices about staffing and what departments they're going to continue to have. The combination of that, if you take it to its extreme, could mean that we lose actual. disciplines in the UK. It could mean I mean, I'm not saying it does mean that, but it could. But what we feel no one's got oversight of that. Who's taking responsibility for that? And if we just stick to the near term objectives, the industrial strategy, which again is important, that's fine.
But we as our as discovery research, we have to be thinking way beyond that. We should be thinking 30 years down the line. So I just think we need to think about the wider context that . That
But we as our as discovery research, we have to be thinking way beyond that. We should be thinking 30 years down the line. So I just think we need to think about the wider context that . That
10:34
Freddie van Mierlo
-
-
Freddie van Mierlo
sits in. But I agree with all Paul's points as well. While we've got you. You'll be aware that cuts to stfc are something that this committee is really concerned about. Do you think there's any chance with the moving of, of, of. Ukri to revisit those cuts specifically to FC neighbouring my constituency? I've got three of the most. important UK wide.
facilities Diamond Light Source, ISIS, Neutron source and the Central Laser facility, all of which potentially face deep cuts. Do you think that's worth.
facilities Diamond Light Source, ISIS, Neutron source and the Central Laser facility, all of which potentially face deep cuts. Do you think that's worth.
10:35
Samantha Niblett
-
-
Samantha Niblett
Revising under this under this new government? I'm really glad you've asked that question. So I'd say, firstly, we recognise that a funder, I used to work in funding and you have to make difficult decisions. So we recognise that has to happen and we're in a constrained. environment and they need to be transparent and well communicated. And I'm. underlining the well. communicated because that has improved. But it hasn't always happened on facilities.
The first thing I would say is we focus on the sort of physics stfc community. But those facilities you're talking about, they are national critical facilities that support different disciplines. So in discovery research, but they're also supporting small companies, big.
The first thing I would say is we focus on the sort of physics stfc community. But those facilities you're talking about, they are national critical facilities that support different disciplines. So in discovery research, but they're also supporting small companies, big.
10:35
10:35
Samantha Niblett
-
-
Samantha Niblett
They're supporting innovation. Right. And as Kate, we we know because diamond is a member of that, that, for example, they have fixed costs, quite large fixed costs. So when they have cuts, especially if they've been ongoing and now we've got a big cut, where where are they going to cut? It's going to be the people. And at some stage we are going to get to the stage where these facilities won't be operational.
And our worry is that that hasn't been properly. analysed or.
And our worry is that that hasn't been properly. analysed or.
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
But I mean, I don't know what every individual knows exactly. I suspect they do because it's had so much air time in the media. And that's good. But it's also bad because it's not just stfc that's a problem. The problem is actually across the whole board. And if the money does go to Stfc and I felt there should be a being some solutions there, then it will come from somewhere else.
And in that situation, what you need is. transparency in what you're doing. And so that the the difficult decisions can be absorbed. If there is no. transparency in how the decisions have been made, then that's a real difficulty. And we have to. remember the. percentage of. GDP that the UK spends on government supported. research at.
And in that situation, what you need is. transparency in what you're doing. And so that the the difficult decisions can be absorbed. If there is no. transparency in how the decisions have been made, then that's a real difficulty. And we have to. remember the. percentage of. GDP that the UK spends on government supported. research at.
10:37
10:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Is well down the OECD. Last time I did a. calculation in the bottom half when other countries like Germany and so on are nearly twice as much, we do not have the money in the system to actually support it properly. I mean, I repeat it, we don't have the money there to support it properly. And so it isn't just an stfc system. And I completely agree with . All the
10:38
10:38
10:38
Samantha Niblett
-
-
Samantha Niblett
The amount of money. And I do want to give a figure here because I'm worried I give the wrong figure. I do have a figure written, but I'd like to check it first. It's actually quite a small figure when you look at government budgets. So on the facilities, I think that is specifically something we need to look at, but also agree . With
10:38
10:38
10:38
George Freeman
-
-
George Freeman
Thank you. Thanks very much, George. You can come back to you. Mr.. On the budgets. My biggest concern over the is over the years reshuffle changes of department. The Treasury is the big winner because it becomes impossible then to allocate where the budget. So I fought like a tiger in 2021 to secure budgets. And when it was created I had to fight again. I think that is a real a real issue.
I wanted to ask just on the public, the research funding and the infrastructure funding. It seems to me we have a problem in the country where the Treasury normally are quite quick to give you as a minister capital, but no revenue. So we've tended to build buildings and infrastructure, but we don't have the revenue and the expertise often to support them. And I inherited a couple of those. A V Mick was a big empty factory on the M4 without the revenue.
Isn't it time that we developed a better model of building specialist facilities in life science today? You don't just need a fume hood and a laptop. You need really big infrastructure where we could do private public funding through the catapult network and bring industry expertise in alongside academic expertise. Isn't isn't the stfc crisis an opportunity to really do something a bit more radical in terms of . How we do
I wanted to ask just on the public, the research funding and the infrastructure funding. It seems to me we have a problem in the country where the Treasury normally are quite quick to give you as a minister capital, but no revenue. So we've tended to build buildings and infrastructure, but we don't have the revenue and the expertise often to support them. And I inherited a couple of those. A V Mick was a big empty factory on the M4 without the revenue.
Isn't it time that we developed a better model of building specialist facilities in life science today? You don't just need a fume hood and a laptop. You need really big infrastructure where we could do private public funding through the catapult network and bring industry expertise in alongside academic expertise. Isn't isn't the stfc crisis an opportunity to really do something a bit more radical in terms of . How we do
10:39
Samantha Niblett
-
-
Samantha Niblett
that ? Partnership with industry is particularly what I want to ask. I just see a brief because you probably have loads of good things to say. Just a brief comment is when I read the responses from our members, it was interesting because what came out really strongly was the we call it, well, I'm not going to say what we call it, but the bucket for it's like the underpinning forgotten bucket is the people and the facilities. And we're focusing a lot on the bucket one, two and three.
But really that four bucket, which relates to what you're talking about, is absolutely critical. And that needs a lot more thought and care, because . That really
But really that four bucket, which relates to what you're talking about, is absolutely critical. And that needs a lot more thought and care, because . That really
10:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
is what. underpins everything. Paul. Sorry. Yeah. So it's the batteries issue, isn't it? We've got a nice shiny bit of equipment and no batteries to run it. And I think the Treasury likes that sort of spend because it's a one off and they don't have to worry about the future, but they let us worry about the future because it is a worry for the future.
So there is.
So there is.
10:40
10:40
10:41
10:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
we were. 20% down on our running money. And I had to stop all recruitment and dead for three years. And that's because we didn't have the batteries. Bright, shiny new building. We show it off to everybody that visits. 25% empty, or we have to rent it to somebody just to make the money. This is lunacy. I'll repeat, it's lunacy.
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
Chi Onwurah
-
-
Chi Onwurah
10:41
10:41
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
Kit Malthouse
-
-
Kit Malthouse
The unfolding disaster? They're kind of illustrative of the problem that we're concerned about. Right. So this is the Stfc is a subset of a subset of a subset. within the Department of Business. So do we really think it's going to be a priority for the Secretary of state? It's just another one of the wasps that's spinning around the head. Whereas in the past we had Liz Kendall sitting here.
We were able to pin her down on it, and she actually told the committee there wouldn't be any cuts. At Stfc yes, here we are with the laser unit possibly closing. Right. And isn't that what sits at the heart of this concern? I guess my my question to you is where is the guiding mind now on on the government science policy, what does the future look like? And particularly given, Sir Paul, as you said, the interaction between AI and life sciences and.
engineering and all those other bits of science, who, what, who's making the policy now?
We were able to pin her down on it, and she actually told the committee there wouldn't be any cuts. At Stfc yes, here we are with the laser unit possibly closing. Right. And isn't that what sits at the heart of this concern? I guess my my question to you is where is the guiding mind now on on the government science policy, what does the future look like? And particularly given, Sir Paul, as you said, the interaction between AI and life sciences and.
engineering and all those other bits of science, who, what, who's making the policy now?
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We'll lose it completely. So my having. complained and so on, you've heard me. We have to work for a way. forward and we have to work with what we have. I think we have a secretary of state and minister who is. genuinely trying to do the right thing. They may be diluted in all these things. So, I mean, we'll complain about that. But I think.
10:43
10:43
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
They want to do the right thing and we have to help them to do the right thing. And I think our various. organisations should actually do that. And we have to take the public with us now, I think something worth. emphasising is the UK is. brilliant at science. Yes. Despite the fact that it's been underfunded for years and years and years, all my lifetime.
It is brilliant at science. It is a good news story. We have amazing discoveries all the time. We don't apply them properly and so on. That needs to be dealt with. But let's not get complacent about how . Good we
It is brilliant at science. It is a good news story. We have amazing discoveries all the time. We don't apply them properly and so on. That needs to be dealt with. But let's not get complacent about how . Good we
10:44
Kit Malthouse
-
-
Kit Malthouse
are. It's really so we need to inspire people, is what I'm saying. It wasn't really my question. My question was, how is science policy now going to be. formulated in your view? If you were to go in and see the Prime Minister say, okay, Prime Minister, we think this is net damaging, but we're here to help you sort it out.
10:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Here's what we think you need to do to give some coherence to science policy. What would you say? I would say this the structure isn't ideal, but we have if we have good people, good people can make bad structures work better. And so we have to help them to work better in what for me is not a perfect.
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
Samantha Niblett
-
-
Samantha Niblett
right, but you take it seriously and drive it well, I also think, I mean, we would be dealing with the Secretary of State, Jonathan Reynolds, and the minister like Chris McDonald. That's who we generally deal with and the relevant civil servants, which as far as we know, most of them have not changed the people we would speak with directly. I think it's about having really strong messaging. And I do you know how strongly I feel about the public opinion? One, but I think the pressure on the community has made us work much more.
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And I said that should be expanded to science. And I have in the past suggested, I mean, there are 2 or 3 positions in cabinet which are more. general and having some facility of that sort might give a. corrective to the problems that we're discussing. So that's what I meant by saying, really, I . Didn't have the
10:47
Samantha Niblett
-
-
Samantha Niblett
right words in trying to get away from many a little comment as you started your question by saying the Stfc debacle was a sort of reflection of what was happening more widely. I would say we don't really understand what actually happened in the Stfc debacle. So I think there is a question about us really understanding what happened in terms of governance and decision making at that time, so we can make sure that those mistakes do not happen again.
That is quite a specific point, but . I think we
That is quite a specific point, but . I think we
10:47
Kit Malthouse
-
-
Kit Malthouse
call it a debacle. But we need to be really we need to move. I mean, I sort of think George is right, as some of us smell the dead hand of the Treasury in this thing. And my concern is that there's no Prime Minister. appreciation of the critical. dependencies within, like the stfc within the science community that need addressing.
10:47
10:47
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:49
10:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
it's bought out by the US and then we lose it. Why does that happen? Why do we not invest? Well, I'm not an economist, but, you know, they tell me that the. conservatism with a small C, a. conservatism of the of the investment like pensions and so on is stopping it. That could be corrected with almost a small. percentage of pension funds that are invested in that, because the the sums in pension funds and so on are very large.
So I think part of it is, is. unlocking the the longer term investment. That's one thing. The second will sound. strange to you. The thing about translation, which is this bit in the middle from. discovery to.
So I think part of it is, is. unlocking the the longer term investment. That's one thing. The second will sound. strange to you. The thing about translation, which is this bit in the middle from. discovery to.
10:50
10:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Is mission oriented, but sort of still. discovering that needs to be top down controlled. You need to be ruthless with what you throw out. They drag on far too long and things just they, they're spending a time trying to get money into it and so on. You have to be utterly ruthless with discovery. If you've got decent people that discover something good with translation, you have an objective. If you're not getting to that objective, cut it.
So I think you need efficiencies there as well. So two answers, more ruthlessness at.
So I think you need efficiencies there as well. So two answers, more ruthlessness at.
10:51
Samantha Niblett
-
-
Samantha Niblett
Translation and proper funding when you're applying. And the other thing I would I agree with that. The other thing I would add to that is my previous comment about international. I think we're focusing a lot on our national capabilities. The UK is tiny. I spent a lot of my life working overseas. The UK is this little country. We need to be super clear about where we have strengths. We have to be super clear about where we want to.
10:52
10:52
Samantha Niblett
-
-
Samantha Niblett
we want to compete. I mean, the AI is the amazing example at the moment, but there's there's. examples right across R&D and innovation. And at the moment, I mean, the geopolitical context has changed so much in the last since the last international strategy. That's seven years we've had. I mean, I really feel we need to position ourselves if we want . To bring
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:55
10:55
Emily Darlington
-
-
Emily Darlington
Namely me. Declaration of interest there. But also there were dedicated people within. It was a priority for both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. And at the Treasury there were a there was a key unit that we worked with very closely led by John Kingman, and had that voice. Do you think so? I'm going to ask you less about debit, whatever it's called now, and more about. Do you think that there is that focus from the.
Chancellor and from the Prime. Minister that we had back in . Those
Chancellor and from the Prime. Minister that we had back in . Those
10:56
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
That science really matters for growth and productivity. But across. everything that we do, it is. absolutely obvious, but it gets lost. somewhere in the noise. Friends in Treasury, as you're implying, would really help a Prime minister who would be committed to it. And we have had Prime ministers in the past who really talk about it.
10:58
10:58
10:58
10:58
Samantha Niblett
-
-
Samantha Niblett
One simple sentence. Can I add just quickly to that? So I wasn't involved. I was I'm not going to say I was too young because I'm not young. I just think I was doing a different job. But anyway, but I think the point that Paul said before about public opinion and voters and what they care about is really important. And we had a case. I don't want to plug us too much, but we have done a lot of work on public opinion.
So much Florence led, and that has been really powerful for us to engage with politicians because ultimately, who is paying for all this and who is it for? So I think we need to really. recognize the importance of the public and the taxpayer and the voter. I think, secondly, there is an. opportunity around. devolution and clusters and regional innovation where R&D and a lot of our. institutions sort of anchor institutions lie at the heart of that.
And again, the public are super supportive of place and R&D and innovation in their own local communities. So that is a great opportunity for us. So we should be taking that and working together . Collaboratively
So much Florence led, and that has been really powerful for us to engage with politicians because ultimately, who is paying for all this and who is it for? So I think we need to really. recognize the importance of the public and the taxpayer and the voter. I think, secondly, there is an. opportunity around. devolution and clusters and regional innovation where R&D and a lot of our. institutions sort of anchor institutions lie at the heart of that.
And again, the public are super supportive of place and R&D and innovation in their own local communities. So that is a great opportunity for us. So we should be taking that and working together . Collaboratively
11:00
Chi Onwurah
-
-
Chi Onwurah
and collaboratively and making the best of that opportunity. Thank you. Thanks very much for that, Emily. Just building on that briefly. So, Sir Paul, your slogan, if we want growth, invest in science. But we know that that investment will take some time to reap the rewards. And the Prime Minister has said that he's very concerned about bread and butter issues. You know, the cost of living, the concerns of constituents on the doorstep, as it were.
Would you in a sentence , say why we should be spending money on. science .
Would you in a sentence , say why we should be spending money on. science .
11:01
11:02
11:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
A massive increase of. 20% on that would be only. 0.1% of the total GDP. So one thing I would. emphasize is that actually it's not a huge sum, and it makes a difference for all the things that everybody does. They just have to look around them when they use their iPhone, when they are listening to the radio, when they turn on central heating, everything that they do is connected to science.
And we have a. responsibility in the scientific. community to. identify that and to. communicate that. And there's something else, too. One other thing is just the beauty of it. It if you put it on the. They tell me on the BBC that science always goes down well,
And we have a. responsibility in the scientific. community to. identify that and to. communicate that. And there's something else, too. One other thing is just the beauty of it. It if you put it on the. They tell me on the BBC that science always goes down well,
11:03
11:03
11:03
Samantha Niblett
-
-
Samantha Niblett
should, we've got loads in one sentence, but I'll forgive you, sir. We've got a lot of data and evidence and research that we'd be happy to share. But I think the public actually are quite supportive of money going into R&D. The challenge is, is when they can't get a GP appointment and can't pay for their shopping bill. Yeah. How do you support that? And the issue is, is people don't know the benefits.
And the closer you get to someone's individual life, the less they feel the benefits. So it's not up to us to sort of tell them or for them to look around. It's for us to .
And the closer you get to someone's individual life, the less they feel the benefits. So it's not up to us to sort of tell them or for them to look around. It's for us to .
11:04
11:04
11:04
George Freeman
-
-
George Freeman
Genuinely care. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now, George. Well, I'm just gonna make the observation that to be fair to the Treasury, which is not something I'm known for, but they are managing a massive debt, a massive structural deficit. We're spending 500 billion a year on debt interest. So to circle back to where we started, Sir Paul, I love listening to your picaresque summaries of the power of beautiful science as much as anyone, but I do think we've got to make the case that it is science, research, technology and innovation that's driving new industries, jobs, opportunity around the country and the clusters.
And I to come back to this question, I was pleased to see the Prime Minister declare Innovation Nation as the ambition. It's a good phrase. I coined . It with
And I to come back to this question, I was pleased to see the Prime Minister declare Innovation Nation as the ambition. It's a good phrase. I coined . It with
11:06
11:06
11:06
11:06
George Freeman
-
-
George Freeman
do it, George. It's used even before that. We're trying to push. We're trying to we're trying to push science into an economy which is still largely a service economy. Our public services are not very good at pulling innovation through the city, is largely by overseas investors and not actually we don't have many companies. We have a few Rolls-Royce and others. But isn't there a deeper problem in our economy that we've got this amazing science, but we really don't have the pillars of an innovation economy pulling it through,
11:07
11:07
11:07
11:07
11:07
11:07
11:07
Samantha Niblett
-
-
Samantha Niblett
that is definitely a risk. I just feel in a VAT, and our bucket sort of. structure is supporting what you're describing. So do you think that's the direction we're going in? But again, I reiterate what your point is that all the parts of the system are critical. Like if one part falls over and charities are included in that as well, they're all dependent on each other. And that is what we need to ensure is that all those different.
blocks . Are
blocks . Are
11:08
11:08
11:08
Freddie van Mierlo
-
-
Freddie van Mierlo
working well together. Thank you very. Yeah, just I think to build off what some of what Kate was saying earlier around the role of the Secretary of State and whether they will have the bandwidth to, to look at what the money is being spent on. When we had previous Secretary of State for before us, she told us she wasn't really wasn't her responsibility to know what Ukri was spending its money on. They just allocated the pot to.
Ukri and then they distribute it and via the via the research councils. And actually, when you look at what some of the research councils Stfc, for example, is spending the money on, it is nationally important infrastructure, really important stuff. I mentioned diamond earlier. They were responsible partly for the development of the Covid 19 vaccine. Do you think it is actually the. responsibility of a Secretary of state to know what that money is being spent on, and to ensure the.
Ukri and then they distribute it and via the via the research councils. And actually, when you look at what some of the research councils Stfc, for example, is spending the money on, it is nationally important infrastructure, really important stuff. I mentioned diamond earlier. They were responsible partly for the development of the Covid 19 vaccine. Do you think it is actually the. responsibility of a Secretary of state to know what that money is being spent on, and to ensure the.
11:10
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:12
11:12
11:12
11:12
11:12
11:13
11:13
Chi Onwurah
-
-
Chi Onwurah
are being difference is political cover. Yeah. That's true. That's true. I think I think the the difference is. accountability and being able to set it out to both the science community and to the general public and to Parliament , what what has happened. But I want to thank thank you very much for joining us. And we've . When the Secretary of State was here last time, we agreed to move away from the from the buckets.
11:14
11:14
11:14
11:14
11:14
11:14
11:14
11:14
11:14
11:15
11:17
Chi Onwurah
-
-
Chi Onwurah
Order, order. And welcome back to the final part of our session today, where we're discussing the the machinery of government. changes announced in July, particularly the abolition of Dcit. And now I'm. delighted to welcome Doctor Laura Gilbert, the senior director for AI at the Tony Blair. Institute and executive. director of the Startup Coalition.
11:18
11:18
11:19
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
your main concerns are? I'll take that one first. It's not particularly the closure of Dcit in itself. It's the mechanism by which these operations take place that I'm particularly critical of. We've seen over and over again new governments coming in and very quickly announcing structural changes. I'm sure you're all familiar with Chesterton's fence, the idea that you shouldn't break something when you don't know why it's there. It's you know, I think if you look at.
professional professionals in the space of reorganizing.
professional professionals in the space of reorganizing.
11:19
11:19
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
They never come in. And on day one, just restructure everything because you're breaking things that you don't really understand what the knock on effects will, will be, particularly when you're doing that to solve a problem that you perceive as being caused by the previous government making a structural change. It felt sort of quite on the nose, really. There. There are a number of ways that you could structure sort of digital and tech in the government, and I've got views on how that's best done.
But the process by which these changes take place, I think is actively quite harmful. It's harmful in the and this is not this particular machinery of government changes. This reference is really the way this process works. The communication is often confusing. The people that are impacted have no warning to prepare for it. That's inside the government. And also, you know, in the in the public and the commercial and business.
But the process by which these changes take place, I think is actively quite harmful. It's harmful in the and this is not this particular machinery of government changes. This reference is really the way this process works. The communication is often confusing. The people that are impacted have no warning to prepare for it. That's inside the government. And also, you know, in the in the public and the commercial and business.
11:21
11:21
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
The way that the humans are. treated when a machinery of government change happens is very damaging. And there are quite, I think, predictable knock on effects of that, you know, and having been in the system for the last one, the messaging is really. received as the powers that be, both in the civil service and the political side of government, don't really care about you as people. They haven't given you any thought.
They think that you're fungible. It doesn't matter where you are or what you're doing or what your skills are, you're just a piece to be moved. And in this particular.
They think that you're fungible. It doesn't matter where you are or what you're doing or what your skills are, you're just a piece to be moved. And in this particular.
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:23
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
happens is you take a bunch of teams who are trying to do something, sometimes really well, sometimes not so well. And you say to them, right, what we're going to do is we're going to put you in a different building. We haven't decided which one. You're going to have a new email address. You haven't set up the servers yet. There's going to be a new office somewhere, and it's definitely going to be a. bunfight of who can get themselves into the best office.
And we're not totally sure what your remit is. There's probably a hiring freeze. You're not going to be able to backfill roles, and you don't know who your political sponsorship is anymore. And that's going to take months to two years before that washes through the system. Now, very predictable effects. What happens? Well, people are dissatisfied. They start looking for jobs in other departments. They start looking .
For
And we're not totally sure what your remit is. There's probably a hiring freeze. You're not going to be able to backfill roles, and you don't know who your political sponsorship is anymore. And that's going to take months to two years before that washes through the system. Now, very predictable effects. What happens? Well, people are dissatisfied. They start looking for jobs in other departments. They start looking .
For
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:25
Maya Ellis
-
-
Maya Ellis
operates. It's the process in itself. And there are ways to do that. Well, okay. And thank you for sharing that and appreciate that broader picture. Could you just elaborate a little bit that on on that. foundation then looking at DC itself, there's. specific concerns that you have in terms of how that will change now with the . Particular
11:25
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
impacts that it might have, given everything you just said? Well, at the moment, what we've done is we've. separated the policy and the delivery, which is always my main concern. When you take the people with who know how to do the thing away from the people who are. deciding how the thing ought to.
11:26
11:26
11:26
11:26
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Cost that comes with separating two things and not having them together. And in my personal opinion, a lot of the reasons, a lot of the things that could be improved about government, I think I said it last time I was here, would be having technical people who understand how to do the build right next to things like policy and. procurement and directly advising on them, as in, how much would it cost us to do this ourselves? How long would it take to build? And therefore, if you're procuring, what's a reasonable cost? And the same thing in the policy space, what would be the real knock on effect to engineers in .
businesses if we set the regulations this way? And when you separate those two people into two teams with no line management in common, with the exception of one obviously excellent AI minister, in many cases that's a real problem and it's a cost that doesn't go away. So I have real issues. I think with that I think as well you've moved, you know, you've moved the part that interfaces with industry broadly into DCMs, which doesn't at least have the. historical links with that kind of industry.
So you're looking to that department to. really reframe dramatically if you want it to succeed, and for industry to understand how to connect in with a completely new organisation without really thus far any guidance on that, there's another, you know, a number of other reasons that I don't think that science, tech, AI delivery, etc. should be separated. But there's a real thing about looking to the future as well. You've taken the frontier.
technology away from the people who have the best. experience of going through frontier technology transformation.
businesses if we set the regulations this way? And when you separate those two people into two teams with no line management in common, with the exception of one obviously excellent AI minister, in many cases that's a real problem and it's a cost that doesn't go away. So I have real issues. I think with that I think as well you've moved, you know, you've moved the part that interfaces with industry broadly into DCMs, which doesn't at least have the. historical links with that kind of industry.
So you're looking to that department to. really reframe dramatically if you want it to succeed, and for industry to understand how to connect in with a completely new organisation without really thus far any guidance on that, there's another, you know, a number of other reasons that I don't think that science, tech, AI delivery, etc. should be separated. But there's a real thing about looking to the future as well. You've taken the frontier.
technology away from the people who have the best. experience of going through frontier technology transformation.
11:29
11:29
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:30
Maya Ellis
-
-
Maya Ellis
good delivery. I could sort of go on, but it's really, really helpful. Thank you. And it's a similar question, Dom, but just if you could also then expand a bit around the. We have we had some lovely comments earlier from Doctor Paul Nurse where he was very much about looking to the future as well. So just interested if you could summarize kind of your concerns, but also in these first few weeks afterwards, have you .
Seen
Seen
11:31
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
some shoots? What's your optimism about how it could work? Yeah, definitely. I mean, first of all, other than that, Laura thinks it's great. So no, I, I think I think that so look, we, we came out at the time and said we thought it was the wrong change at the wrong time, along with our kind of compatriots, frenemies at tech UK, however you want to describe it. I think that the sort of a few things.
So Laura's kind of very effectively covered off the machinery of government stuff. I think I can talk a little bit more about the policy and then and then how our community sees it. I think there are three areas where we see the policy impact most clearly. One is what I would describe as the risk of kind of crowding out of big. questions in a big, much bigger department. So, you know, the truth is the business secretary covers an awful lot of ground and has always covered a lot of ground.
And so adding an even more ground means that it's even harder to cover. And, you know, I was a civil servant, and I know just how much that department ends up covering and kind of, you know, steal bailouts and everything from this whole spectrum of issues. And understandably, a lot of those things are very politically salient. They're very high priority. And in those moments, understandably, they need an awful lot of political cover. And so you end up kind of boxing and coxing and moving around and trying to cover as much as you can at that moment and putting out fires fundamentally.
And I think the nature sometimes, and the fear in my mind is that amid all of that, amid all the kind of account management job that the business secretary has to do with, with really, really important business stakeholders across the. spectrum that the science and tech community, and especially the kind of start ups and scale ups that we represent, might get get squeezed out a little bit. I do think to be fair, and I think this is actually on the green shoots, but I think to be fair to both Jonny and the wider team, but but also the wider kind of governmental structure, they've really made an effort in this first kind of period of time to, to try and address that and make sure that that's not the case.
So actually, I've been relatively. encouraged at that. But I think the point is that
So Laura's kind of very effectively covered off the machinery of government stuff. I think I can talk a little bit more about the policy and then and then how our community sees it. I think there are three areas where we see the policy impact most clearly. One is what I would describe as the risk of kind of crowding out of big. questions in a big, much bigger department. So, you know, the truth is the business secretary covers an awful lot of ground and has always covered a lot of ground.
And so adding an even more ground means that it's even harder to cover. And, you know, I was a civil servant, and I know just how much that department ends up covering and kind of, you know, steal bailouts and everything from this whole spectrum of issues. And understandably, a lot of those things are very politically salient. They're very high priority. And in those moments, understandably, they need an awful lot of political cover. And so you end up kind of boxing and coxing and moving around and trying to cover as much as you can at that moment and putting out fires fundamentally.
And I think the nature sometimes, and the fear in my mind is that amid all of that, amid all the kind of account management job that the business secretary has to do with, with really, really important business stakeholders across the. spectrum that the science and tech community, and especially the kind of start ups and scale ups that we represent, might get get squeezed out a little bit. I do think to be fair, and I think this is actually on the green shoots, but I think to be fair to both Jonny and the wider team, but but also the wider kind of governmental structure, they've really made an effort in this first kind of period of time to, to try and address that and make sure that that's not the case.
So actually, I've been relatively. encouraged at that. But I think the point is that
11:34
11:35
11:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
now you have a situation where potentially it's split across multiple different departments. And if you take AI, you could have a situation where the harms or online safety, however you want to describe it, aspects that at DCMs, you have a task force that is ostensibly responsible for a lot of those conversations. And if you look at the discussions today that I'm sure everyone in this room is tracking around what's happening at the frontier and and potential regulation. People are looking to the AI minister who's directly involved in the task force to see what what they're going to say.
And then at the same time, you have this department that's going to think about the regulation of that in, say, an industrial setting or the wider Regulation Regulatory Innovation Office, or how it impacts other sectoral regulators. And so you have this sort of split function in different ways. And frankly, like we've interacted with all those departments over a different period of time. They have different views, as in they have different views because of the stakeholders they serve.
And so, you know, there is a genuine tension or and these pros and cons, but there is a tension of whether you want to resolve that within one department or whether you want ultimately to kind of have people fight it out in Whitehall. And, you know, I don't think there's a right answer to that. But I think from our community's.
And then at the same time, you have this department that's going to think about the regulation of that in, say, an industrial setting or the wider Regulation Regulatory Innovation Office, or how it impacts other sectoral regulators. And so you have this sort of split function in different ways. And frankly, like we've interacted with all those departments over a different period of time. They have different views, as in they have different views because of the stakeholders they serve.
And so, you know, there is a genuine tension or and these pros and cons, but there is a tension of whether you want to resolve that within one department or whether you want ultimately to kind of have people fight it out in Whitehall. And, you know, I don't think there's a right answer to that. But I think from our community's.
11:36
11:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
What you can end up with is much more kind of chaotic landscape. And then I think the third thing, and this is, you know, Laura kind of touched on this a little bit, but but I'll build on it is around the use of technology in government, where you have now, again, this split, I think, between a lot of kind of the GDS type functions that now sit at DCMs. And then at the same time you have an AI task force whose job it is to spread AI across government, and it sits at the Cabinet Office.
And I think that, you know, paradoxically, I think I would hope that they will collaborate really closely. And that's obviously ideally what you want. But there's a risk that you kind of have this sort of sexy end of the technology and AI that's at the Cabinet Office with all the kind of cool, sexy people. And then you have the bread and butter technology being delivered at DCMs. And frankly, if I'm a an official leading some of the work at GDS, like I don't know what that tells me about my work, right as a very base level.
And I think that, you know, as Laura rightly said, there are some very talented people who are oftentimes could get paid a lot more in the private sector who are looking at themselves now being like, hang on, I've been moved from from pillar to post. I do think like a sort of base level, though. We're really keen to get this right. At the end of the day, there's no point in crying over spilt milk, right? And I think that tech founders and the community we.
represent just get up and get on with it. But the one thing I would say, and I, I do, I don't want to dwell too much on the pure machinery of government at all. But from our community perspective, I think it's really worth kind of reflecting on what this means and looks like to.
And I think that, you know, paradoxically, I think I would hope that they will collaborate really closely. And that's obviously ideally what you want. But there's a risk that you kind of have this sort of sexy end of the technology and AI that's at the Cabinet Office with all the kind of cool, sexy people. And then you have the bread and butter technology being delivered at DCMs. And frankly, if I'm a an official leading some of the work at GDS, like I don't know what that tells me about my work, right as a very base level.
And I think that, you know, as Laura rightly said, there are some very talented people who are oftentimes could get paid a lot more in the private sector who are looking at themselves now being like, hang on, I've been moved from from pillar to post. I do think like a sort of base level, though. We're really keen to get this right. At the end of the day, there's no point in crying over spilt milk, right? And I think that tech founders and the community we.
represent just get up and get on with it. But the one thing I would say, and I, I do, I don't want to dwell too much on the pure machinery of government at all. But from our community perspective, I think it's really worth kind of reflecting on what this means and looks like to.
11:39
11:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
As in, you know, everyone in this room is very familiar with the idea that government departments move around and things like sort of, you know, okay, someone's going to sit over there now or there's complete changes. But our founders, when they heard about this, their question is like, is this work going to exist anymore? Like it's like, do these people get sacked? What happens? Like, you know, they don't understand, right? Isn't it a base level? It's not their job to follow politics every day.
And that's before, frankly, eventually the answers to exactly what were sitting where came through after everyone maybe got their email addresses, as Laura said, and I've also been through that process as a civil servant. Wasn't wasn't fun. So you have this sort of, you know, a version of this conversation that we need to have about how you think about government functioning. And then you have a version that other people, including our companies, perceive from the.
outside that is, you know, yeah, almost even more challenging from their perspective and even more opaque. But look, I think that every structure has pros and cons, like there are huge opportunities with the structure that's now been created, whether you look at the best kind of landscape in that journey from, you know, like R&D funding to business finance to growth, like there are clear opportunities in the structure as well. There is no right answer to this.
And that's before, frankly, eventually the answers to exactly what were sitting where came through after everyone maybe got their email addresses, as Laura said, and I've also been through that process as a civil servant. Wasn't wasn't fun. So you have this sort of, you know, a version of this conversation that we need to have about how you think about government functioning. And then you have a version that other people, including our companies, perceive from the.
outside that is, you know, yeah, almost even more challenging from their perspective and even more opaque. But look, I think that every structure has pros and cons, like there are huge opportunities with the structure that's now been created, whether you look at the best kind of landscape in that journey from, you know, like R&D funding to business finance to growth, like there are clear opportunities in the structure as well. There is no right answer to this.
11:42
11:42
11:42
Maya Ellis
-
-
Maya Ellis
Are, and how we make sure, therefore, that we sort of take take those opportunities. Thank you. Just finally picking up on the second point you made really interesting around the different views within Whitehall and actually who is going to arbitrate over that. I guess my question to you is linking it to the, you know, the people who you represent. Who do you think should arbitrate?
11:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And realistically, who do you think will end up arbitrating regardless of your first answer? Yeah. So you're getting into like, who makes decisions in Whitehall? If I knew that, I'd be doing a much better at my job. No, I mean, look, I think in reality, every kind of policy discussion within the government ends up being about winning coalitions of people in government, depending on which side. So, you know, I sort of see our work at the Startup Coalition has split into the work we do on kind of broadly economic policy, which is, you know, the tax landscape, the business landscape, and then often the technology landscape and then wider regulation.
And I think that what it tends to be is that on the economic policy landscape, it doesn't matter how many ideas outside departments have the Treasury and kind of not ruling the roost, but certainly having a pretty strong say. And I think that like oftentimes, if you look at therefore, you think about the potential impact is in some of these areas, I think it's fair to say that on the economic policy side, like obviously this is going to be really important, but you're clearly going to have very strong input from Treasury and elsewhere.
I think the actual challenge on the policy side, and I think this is a really important question for.
And I think that what it tends to be is that on the economic policy landscape, it doesn't matter how many ideas outside departments have the Treasury and kind of not ruling the roost, but certainly having a pretty strong say. And I think that like oftentimes, if you look at therefore, you think about the potential impact is in some of these areas, I think it's fair to say that on the economic policy side, like obviously this is going to be really important, but you're clearly going to have very strong input from Treasury and elsewhere.
I think the actual challenge on the policy side, and I think this is a really important question for.
11:44
11:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Not just in outside departments, but at the centre as well, is who is going to make those decisions about some of the big questions? You know, we're here on the day that clearly we're having deep conversations around AI. regulation and that the God's honest truth is, I'm not 100% sure who is like driving that conversation from the centre at the moment. There are definitely people working on it, like, no doubt about it. But but the key is actually like that, that decision has to be taken politically fundamental level.
Like there are people, people voted for someone to take that decision. And so I think that like, you know, it's sort of an open question is the honest answer. And it will change issue to issue. But I'm sure that the answer will be very important.
Like there are people, people voted for someone to take that decision. And so I think that like, you know, it's sort of an open question is the honest answer. And it will change issue to issue. But I'm sure that the answer will be very important.
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:47
11:47
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
AC in i.ai and GDS. So in AC, AC and in the incubator, GDS, those sorts of engineering teams, I think that they have the deepest understanding of the technology because they actually build it. There is huge expertise in the policy teams. And I think one of the things about DS, it was that that was knitting together over time, where they were really starting to learn from each other, and there's possibly an advantage in spreading that out so that that .
Learning
Learning
11:48
11:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
team, where have you found the best understanding of AI? Yeah. So look, I agree with Laura to some extent. I think that when you look at the technical teams, there's certainly capability there that's really, really important when it comes to the sort of policy perspective. I think the the honest answer is that it's spread in disparate ways. And you find individuals who are really talented and have a deep understanding. And that can be, you know, crucially, that's not, oh, they're super senior and they have a good understanding.
Like quite the opposite actually. You have a real mix of mix of talent. I think that like what in some ways the strength of it as a, as a concept was precisely that you were trying to draw as many of those people together and therefore have a, you know, a sort of cluster of talent that would then uplift and the rising tide would lift the wider boats, like because clearly, you know, if you look at the task force and the people that are being drawn together, actually, you know, we hosted dinner with Oli, who's running the task force yesterday and obviously extremely talented set of civil servants working on these questions that have thought about it deeply that are, you know, really at the top of the tree.
And frankly, if you're running a, like I said, a sexy government task force at the Cabinet Office, you're going to attract incredibly good talent. The question that I sort of and I think the thing that matters the most from from your question at some level is, are the people who are going to be thinking about some of the more disparate questions when it comes to AI and the impact on both the, you know, the economic landscape, our companies, but also on, on government.
Like quite the opposite actually. You have a real mix of mix of talent. I think that like what in some ways the strength of it as a, as a concept was precisely that you were trying to draw as many of those people together and therefore have a, you know, a sort of cluster of talent that would then uplift and the rising tide would lift the wider boats, like because clearly, you know, if you look at the task force and the people that are being drawn together, actually, you know, we hosted dinner with Oli, who's running the task force yesterday and obviously extremely talented set of civil servants working on these questions that have thought about it deeply that are, you know, really at the top of the tree.
And frankly, if you're running a, like I said, a sexy government task force at the Cabinet Office, you're going to attract incredibly good talent. The question that I sort of and I think the thing that matters the most from from your question at some level is, are the people who are going to be thinking about some of the more disparate questions when it comes to AI and the impact on both the, you know, the economic landscape, our companies, but also on, on government.
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Samantha Niblett
-
-
Samantha Niblett
seems a bit strange because, well, for various reasons it seems a bit bit strange. Emily and I were discussing this yesterday briefly. So my question to you is, how much of an impact can the external. organisations have, like particularly within your network and the start up coalition? Don Dom, how much of an impact can they have on, on insisting that government make sure that it continues to prioritise it? As the founder of Labour Women in Tech, as the chair of diversity in Stem, I have written to the Prime Minister saying, can we please make sure this particular task force has got a cabinet level.
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
working on this project, and I just wonder, like, what's happening to them? I'm happy to say that I think we've had direct conversations about that with with some folks in government, like my colleague, my former colleague Venus. Now she left on Friday, but my former colleague Venus, like sat on the task force on, on, on our behalf. And I know that in the kind of immediate post restructure conversations, it was a case of exactly, as you say, like to what extent do we want it to sit DCMs or would it be more effective as sort of spread across departments in the wider way in which the technology community is? My understanding is that for various reasons in government that we don't quite quite appreciate that people want it where it is.
And I think that there is a you know, if you step back and look at the way in which the broadly, the machinery of government structure has segmented, that means it's in within a kind of digital inclusion brief. And like, frankly, from a personal.
And I think that there is a you know, if you step back and look at the way in which the broadly, the machinery of government structure has segmented, that means it's in within a kind of digital inclusion brief. And like, frankly, from a personal.
11:55
11:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
think that's completely irrational. I think we have to be clear that, like the role of women in technology is not an inclusion question alone. Actually, you know, the fact that women can't raise venture capital really matters. And like the teams that are working on it as good as they are, and the inclusion brief within DCMs are not responsible for those things. Now, like my hope and, and we have had conversations with ministers about this that have been positive, to be fair, is that there is a deep.
understanding elsewhere in government at best, more generally in other places, that will take on the constituent work that the task force would have been doing. And obviously there's natural cross cross collaboration in government. But yeah, look, I mean, I think that that's a really good example of something that has been split because the, the sort of department has been split, and I'm not sure . In
understanding elsewhere in government at best, more generally in other places, that will take on the constituent work that the task force would have been doing. And obviously there's natural cross cross collaboration in government. But yeah, look, I mean, I think that that's a really good example of something that has been split because the, the sort of department has been split, and I'm not sure . In
11:57
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
its more fragmented form will have the same impact as it perhaps could have done. Could I just I think one of the. So completely agree with with everything you've said, I think that one of the things that we sometimes forget about when we're discussing these kinds of. situations is that this is a very, very. human sort of issue, and it's been driven by. individuals and the.
11:57
11:57
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And, you know, we need to be a bit realistic about what that looks like when you're performing a change of this magnitude. The people responsible for it have an awful lot to deal with. There are things that are at the bottom of the pile and don't get handled, and it took a while to get them in in the first place. Yeah. And that is very much, you know, the way that that is. It's not that sort of the government broadly is just kind of as a unit, kind of dropping the ball on something.
It's more that. individuals who are tasked with this have got this set of priorities. They're probably very busy. They're probably pretty tired. They're under a lot of scrutiny. And, and it just doesn't make it to the priority list. So I think it's it's a couple of things. One of them is public pressure, basically drawing light on it, getting enough people to weigh in to make a difference. And the other thing is probably thinking very carefully about the timing and when is the right time to sort of draw people's attention.
So it's somewhere between the immediate panic and before everything is settled, is, is the right time to do that. But I think that just bringing attention to the things that really matter, and it's certainly not the only thing that's been dropped as well. There are a bunch of advisory boards that don't know where they sit and whether they've got any impact anymore. And lots of people, again, individuals in the civil service who are not just this Mogg, but I've seen it with previous mogs who hold something in great .
Passion and have
It's more that. individuals who are tasked with this have got this set of priorities. They're probably very busy. They're probably pretty tired. They're under a lot of scrutiny. And, and it just doesn't make it to the priority list. So I think it's it's a couple of things. One of them is public pressure, basically drawing light on it, getting enough people to weigh in to make a difference. And the other thing is probably thinking very carefully about the timing and when is the right time to sort of draw people's attention.
So it's somewhere between the immediate panic and before everything is settled, is, is the right time to do that. But I think that just bringing attention to the things that really matter, and it's certainly not the only thing that's been dropped as well. There are a bunch of advisory boards that don't know where they sit and whether they've got any impact anymore. And lots of people, again, individuals in the civil service who are not just this Mogg, but I've seen it with previous mogs who hold something in great .
Passion and have
12:00
12:00
12:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
gone. Yeah, I think it is. Sorry, can I just come in on that for one second? Cheers. All right. I think actually one thing that's really important is this distinction between things that are machinery of government questions and the restructure questions and things that are ministerial change questions. And actually, I think that the split part, I think, is a really good example of something where, you know, it's a machinery of government question, whereas obviously like a ministerial.
reprioritisation thing and the stacking the pile thing that you mentioned, I think is really important can happen as well.
reprioritisation thing and the stacking the pile thing that you mentioned, I think is really important can happen as well.
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
really change for all this? There's a there's a, there's a what will change what we want to change. And the, the point is obviously to push to what we want to change. So, you know, a good outcome would be revamped. procurement that supports. particularly small. businesses to succeed and proliferate and grow quickly with the right kind of backing, it would look like much more effective procurement so that we spend the public's money much better on the right things, where we don't have to abandon them.
After four years, I think it would look like an.
After four years, I think it would look like an.
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:04
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And arguably in the policy space, there's a huge conversation. I'm obviously quite AI focused, but there's a huge conversation at the moment about this sort of safety and risk and whether or not there's a space for the United Kingdom to be up at the front of that. And, and I think the investment in science and technology as well, we've got this very strong. university sector and a pipeline into business that stays rooted in the UK is something that we could really work to .
12:05
12:05
12:05
12:05
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
There is an argument, and we sort of saw this in the past two years that the the tensions and trade offs of what the government might need to do on AI in, say, energy is a good example. Actually, what happened was over the past two years, they the Energy Department wheeled in and was like, well, no, that's not going to happen. Whereas having a task force at the centre that has, you know, Prime Minister oversight and drive like could maybe smash through some of those barriers.
You know, I think that's and I think that if you talk to some people in the system, I think that is, in theory, the way in which that could operate.
You know, I think that's and I think that if you talk to some people in the system, I think that is, in theory, the way in which that could operate.
12:07
12:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I'm more skeptical about whether that would be the case, just because I think that some of those trade offs are inherent. And like we have to acknowledge that some of that is about political will and, you know. genuinely political choices, whether or not they're the right or wrong one. Obviously, I have a view in my job, but look, like I, I think so much of what my. community and international investors, certainly VCs care about so much is what I loosely characterize as vibes.
And, and.
And, and.
12:08
12:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Like getting rid of a government department that has science and technology on the tin gives gives bad vibes. But, but I think that what government can do and what they've been trying to do, and what we've been encouraged by is elevate people that that the community and the community I represent recognize as talented and effective and understanding of their work. You know, I think Johnny has done a done a really good job of that and kind of going and doing the outreach.
I think, you know, Kanishka and his understanding of AI more generally, but certainly in the community has a lot of respect. And so as much as could be done within the framework of a restructure, I think is being done. The question is like, yeah, you know, to go back to the the starting point that . Laura
I think, you know, Kanishka and his understanding of AI more generally, but certainly in the community has a lot of respect. And so as much as could be done within the framework of a restructure, I think is being done. The question is like, yeah, you know, to go back to the the starting point that . Laura
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
Emily Darlington
-
-
Emily Darlington
read this because I get really confused. So the Cabinet Office now has. responsibility for public sector AI adoption. DCMs has been tasked with driving. modern normalisation of government and public services via the government Digital Service and the office of the Prime Minister and the cabinet will pursue. opportunities for public sector transformation. Where does this leave the public sector.
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes. And my. understanding do you so, so so look, I think that it's worth kind of stepping back and saying there's, there's almost there's been when you think about the history of the machinery of government change when it comes to science and technology policy broadly, you had both the creation of Disa as a department, and then you had the move in of GDS separately from that. So you had the creation of, you know, as a department under the last government pre-election.
And then obviously, when the storm won the election, you had this the movement of GDS into it as part of the restructure. Then I think that the the. challenge is, you know, there are there are certainly civil servants within the system who actually want to take very strong ownership over this agenda. And they think it's really important. I think you can see that in as part of the AI task force work. Like it's quite clear the cabinet secretary has been very clear that she sees this as really important, and that's why she wants to have more grip over it at the centre.
And I think that that is really encouraging. It's really, really important that that we do that effectively. I think the question is like how, you know, and I worked when I worked in Whitehall, I worked at the Department for Exiting the European Union, which was set up intentionally to serve a task. But what happened was, in fact, it was deeply underpowered. It was, you know, frankly, outmuscled by larger departments. And we, you know, it was a bloody nightmare, to be honest.
And I think that, you know, quite candidly, like the challenge is that if you don't have then departments that are capable of, of arguing through and driving some of that.
And then obviously, when the storm won the election, you had this the movement of GDS into it as part of the restructure. Then I think that the the. challenge is, you know, there are there are certainly civil servants within the system who actually want to take very strong ownership over this agenda. And they think it's really important. I think you can see that in as part of the AI task force work. Like it's quite clear the cabinet secretary has been very clear that she sees this as really important, and that's why she wants to have more grip over it at the centre.
And I think that that is really encouraging. It's really, really important that that we do that effectively. I think the question is like how, you know, and I worked when I worked in Whitehall, I worked at the Department for Exiting the European Union, which was set up intentionally to serve a task. But what happened was, in fact, it was deeply underpowered. It was, you know, frankly, outmuscled by larger departments. And we, you know, it was a bloody nightmare, to be honest.
And I think that, you know, quite candidly, like the challenge is that if you don't have then departments that are capable of, of arguing through and driving some of that.
12:10
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
you do have a bit more chaos. And I think that right now that chaos still exists for the time being. I think that uncertainty still exists. I'm sure it will bed in, and I think that there will be an answer to the question that you've asked, like in the coming months, partially just out of kind of, you know, the rules of the road being set by default, right? I think people are working and operating within the system. But I, but I do think that that's probably the area where in my .
Mind,
Mind,
12:10
12:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
DCMs and then not in the Cabinet Office? I was quite. surprised by that one. It it evidently fell into there's a bit of a fray when these things happen. If people with. Again, it's a human thing with people with competing interests, making arguments for what they want, both on the political side and the senior civil service side. And it's difficult to know whether somebody won that fight and therefore won GDS or it was more.
incidental and it was sort of played off against something else. I was genuinely quite surprised by it. Are you you can see an overarching argument for sort of putting delivery into one place, but we I think GDS was. significantly disempowered. initially when it was moved into a new department from sort of right at the centre of government, and I was surprised to see it being moved further away, given how . Important
incidental and it was sort of played off against something else. I was genuinely quite surprised by it. Are you you can see an overarching argument for sort of putting delivery into one place, but we I think GDS was. significantly disempowered. initially when it was moved into a new department from sort of right at the centre of government, and I was surprised to see it being moved further away, given how . Important
12:10
12:10
12:10
Emily Darlington
-
-
Emily Darlington
to, you know, the government's agenda. Really. Yeah. And I'm equally surprised because those kind of detailed. conversations tend to happen from perm sect to perm sect with the cabinet secretary. So she would have been involved in those discussions. So I'm a bit confused. That tends not to be the political decision. It tends to be done at that level of government.
12:10
12:10
12:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Politically not understanding of why that happened. Well, it's you know, obviously the move of GDS was, was something that happened at a political transition. I think there's something that that I would personally really like to understand more, which is the access talks, which is sort of where these decisions take place. And they, in my experience, a very narrow and don't take, you know, don't take tend to take into account expert leadership. So certainly, you know, with the, the original transition of GDS into de CIT, as far as I'm aware, there wasn't a conversation at the access talk levels with with the senior leadership of those teams that were actually moved.
And I would like to see that happen because then they could say, well, here are the pros and cons and this is the real this is the point about divorcing the policy or the strategy from the.
And I would like to see that happen because then they could say, well, here are the pros and cons and this is the real this is the point about divorcing the policy or the strategy from the.
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
should make sure do land somewhere? Well, I'm coming from bias again. I'm on the GDS, I. responsible responsible AI panel. So the reason the question sort of came up to us is that immediately that the whole thing was announced was, do we go with GDS or is it more of a policy advisory sort of function?
12:10
12:10
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
committees. I could certainly go and find them. Yeah. I was going to say on the advisory committees, the one that I'm on got abolished. So it's like chairing the the sort of expert group on the, on the national data library. The one thing actually just, I do think would be really interesting from an advisory. perspective that that was something that existed previously, but I think the government could now reconsider and help to paper over some of the cracks in terms of the governance and structure of technology, is bringing back what used to be called the Digital Economy Council.
Now, to be totally honest, I think that that's maybe a little bit of an old fashioned framing. I don't think, you know, people we have a digital economy now, frankly. But but I certainly think that idea of having a moment in time where and a sort of structure within the Whitehall machine where you had both the leadership from an industry and then maybe wider civil society perspective on. technology in the room with the relevant senior.
Now, to be totally honest, I think that that's maybe a little bit of an old fashioned framing. I don't think, you know, people we have a digital economy now, frankly. But but I certainly think that idea of having a moment in time where and a sort of structure within the Whitehall machine where you had both the leadership from an industry and then maybe wider civil society perspective on. technology in the room with the relevant senior.
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
Maya Ellis
-
-
Maya Ellis
well. Yes. I just want to go to my quickly as I know she has to leave. Yeah. Just a quick question around sort of regional innovation. devolution and innovation where we're up to on that. So on a bigger picture, given all these changes, we also know that local growth is is obviously an Mhclg now. So just wondering where you feel it's at. And particularly I'm interested in non mayoral areas like Lancashire where I am.
And we've got a top ten research university, Lancaster University for example. We've now lost about 200 jobs from there in terms of that innovation rollout, because all the eRDF and subsequently SPF has gone. So in terms of the state of play, what is your view on where government should be heading now in terms of making sure that we don't lose those innovation. ecosystems and . Particularly
And we've got a top ten research university, Lancaster University for example. We've now lost about 200 jobs from there in terms of that innovation rollout, because all the eRDF and subsequently SPF has gone. So in terms of the state of play, what is your view on where government should be heading now in terms of making sure that we don't lose those innovation. ecosystems and . Particularly
12:10
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
But just within that whole devolution agenda. Yeah. So I mean, I think that's one where in my mind, the, the tying up then of the kind of business financing landscape that sits at best with the science funding and R&D landscape actually is a good opportunity. Quite candidly, I think that there's clearly been this like tension and we speak to businesses all over the country every day between the idea of, okay, so you might go and get grant funding or loan funding support from, say, innovate UK, but it doesn't necessarily translate to private financing.
Once you've had the opportunity to build something and you know you have a functional product, and what does that mean? And I think quite. clearly that that is a tension that exists more deeply in, you know, outside of London and the Golden Triangle and where there's like less sort of abundant private venture capital. And I think that, yeah, understanding that landscape more effectively in that context and working with, you know, Mhclg and other departments clearly like that, that that all sits at best is a good opportunity.
So yeah, I think there's definitely sort of more that could be done there. The other area that actually on the devolution side that I where I think that there's potentially really interesting opportunity here, and it ties in with, again, more things sitting within the business department is in understanding some of the questions when it comes to, you know, and the task force as well is when, when, when you think about kind of AI infrastructure development, for example, actually, how do we have a more candid, devolved conversation around those.
things that acknowledges that communities have to actually benefit from stuff, frankly. And, and I think that when you have more of those discussions in one place and when you're able to coordinate more effectively, in theory that that should work more effectively. So I think there are opportunities there. I . Think that the
Once you've had the opportunity to build something and you know you have a functional product, and what does that mean? And I think quite. clearly that that is a tension that exists more deeply in, you know, outside of London and the Golden Triangle and where there's like less sort of abundant private venture capital. And I think that, yeah, understanding that landscape more effectively in that context and working with, you know, Mhclg and other departments clearly like that, that that all sits at best is a good opportunity.
So yeah, I think there's definitely sort of more that could be done there. The other area that actually on the devolution side that I where I think that there's potentially really interesting opportunity here, and it ties in with, again, more things sitting within the business department is in understanding some of the questions when it comes to, you know, and the task force as well is when, when, when you think about kind of AI infrastructure development, for example, actually, how do we have a more candid, devolved conversation around those.
things that acknowledges that communities have to actually benefit from stuff, frankly. And, and I think that when you have more of those discussions in one place and when you're able to coordinate more effectively, in theory that that should work more effectively. So I think there are opportunities there. I . Think that the
12:10
12:10
12:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
plays out. Thanks very much. Have you had anything to add? Yeah, I mean, I think there's something in Shared learnings. We could really power up the idea of sharing learnings, sharing things, you know, to do with procurement. processes a little bit that I won't go on about, but there's a space for a lot more open source delivery. Yes, I won't, I won't get too much into it because my big thing, but a lot more open source solutions requiring a lot more open source, because that way you build it in one place.
And then when you translate it to a different area, a local business there can pick it up, tweak it so that it meets your local needs and quickly deploy.
And then when you translate it to a different area, a local business there can pick it up, tweak it so that it meets your local needs and quickly deploy.
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
Tom Collins
-
-
Tom Collins
Open source. Never talk too much about that. Very good. Yeah that's excellent. Thank you chair. We've mentioned it a few times. We have the new AI Task Force, which will be chaired by Lord Vallance and headed by Minister Narayan and who's also going to attend cabinet. You've talked a little bit already about that being internally focused or externally focused. And previously , Sir Paul.
Nurse talked about possibly expanding that scope to bring science in as well, so that science and AI complementary and paired. But what . Would you
Nurse talked about possibly expanding that scope to bring science in as well, so that science and AI complementary and paired. But what . Would you
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Arts of science and tech into pre-existing silos. And it's very, very difficult to get out of silos. And that's, you know, for reasons of culture, reasons of where, you know, the water cooler also, you know, each department is on a different technology system. They're not interoperable. So my inclination would be to power that up pretty. significantly to give it a strong remit,
12:10
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
it is strongly tasked to meet. I would definitely put that analytical and tech capability into it. People who really know how to build the things that they have really good advice and, and I would try to turn that into that delivery and oversight body over the whole piece to draw those threads back together again. And I would give them an internal tech budget so everyone can be on the same Slack . Channels
12:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
and, you know, and actually collaborate properly. Brilliant. I really like that's really good. Thank you. So I think I'm a little bit squeamish about the idea of almost like looking at the structure that's been now built and saying, okay, how can we make it more like the last one? Right, right. Because I think there's a risk that that like, quite candidly, you lose the benefits of the existing structure whilst not necessarily gaining the benefits of the previous one.
And so I, you know, far be it for me to disagree with Paul as eminent as he is, but I think in reality, like trying to sort of pile more stuff into a task force that is.
And so I, you know, far be it for me to disagree with Paul as eminent as he is, but I think in reality, like trying to sort of pile more stuff into a task force that is.
12:10
12:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
You know, I think they're going to have like 50 staff or something, you know, super narrow, I think is a recipe for a bit of bit of kind of everything ism, right? In reality, I think it's much more about, okay, like, what are the, the core questions when it comes to both AI, both for the state and then also for our domestic capacity, overall and sovereign capacity or however you want to frame it. And how do we smash through as many of those barriers as possible? I think that, to Laura's point, the question of what then a team and the task force will require in order to be able to do that work, I think is really interesting.
And so, you know, maybe it does require an analytical capacity. It currently doesn't have maybe it does require more technical capacity. But but I think really clearly focusing on those core tasks as opposed to what we want to do is try and basically rebuild a science and technology . Ministry,
And so, you know, maybe it does require an analytical capacity. It currently doesn't have maybe it does require more technical capacity. But but I think really clearly focusing on those core tasks as opposed to what we want to do is try and basically rebuild a science and technology . Ministry,
12:10
12:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
of that task force rather than, you know, trying to expand it. Yeah. And I think weirdly and, and it goes to Emily's previous question, a little bit about the rationale of the, the where GDS sits today in DCMs and elsewhere. I think we have to be clear that the very intention of setting up the task force in the way in which it's been done is to give it agility. And actually, I think that you can look at the GDS decision in that context.
Actually, it's that what they didn't want was this, you know, GDS is a big delivery function fundamentally. And it's like and that's not necessarily what has been moved into the Cabinet Office. Now, again, you can have a much wider argument about whether you could have had a task force and then still had GDS in the Cabinet Office, but it was separate, or you could have, you know, but then where would it have sat? Ministerially would it have sat with the minister? You've just put in the you know, all that sort of stuff.
There are you know, we can all kind of play football manager when it comes to the structure. But I think in, in, in.
Actually, it's that what they didn't want was this, you know, GDS is a big delivery function fundamentally. And it's like and that's not necessarily what has been moved into the Cabinet Office. Now, again, you can have a much wider argument about whether you could have had a task force and then still had GDS in the Cabinet Office, but it was separate, or you could have, you know, but then where would it have sat? Ministerially would it have sat with the minister? You've just put in the you know, all that sort of stuff.
There are you know, we can all kind of play football manager when it comes to the structure. But I think in, in, in.
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
in a world where this pace really matters and then leverage that the most effectively, we can come back. It's a really it's a really good point. I think we've we've had in government a few very, very good taskforces doing, you know, driving meaningful change, Covid task force vaccine delivery. We've also seen a lot of task forces that we can't . Remember
12:10
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
names, but they were definitely there for quite long periods of time. And the difference between those, those two groups, I think, is that outcomes focus. You've mentioned the need for urgency. I think they will need to be very clear about what is the. actual thing that you're delivering and how do you know when it's done. And that . Is quite
12:10
12:10
Tom Collins
-
-
Tom Collins
generic as AI. Yes. Okay. And so you're talking about keep that scope sharp and, you know, be really clear on outcomes and purpose. Are there any other, you know, important emerging technologies or areas that you mentioned silos. already in this, but are there other areas that you think are also very important, but might miss out as a result of this . Particular
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
area of focus and the priority it's been given? It's a difficult one. I mean, there are lots of different areas of technology. You know, quantum obviously coming up, there's an awful lot in the cyber space. There will be new technologies that we don't know about coming, and they'll be coming fast. So I do worry a little bit when when there's a strong focus on just AI, not least because you end up solving things with AI that you didn't need it for.
There's also something that I think we miss a little bit in government, which is it gets talked about a lot, but that kind of legacy idea that an awful lot of government's problems could be. meaningfully improved or solved with just sorting out the basics, the data sharing, the ability to communicate across departments. You know, that the sort of the good standard technology underpinning decent HR software, you know, those sorts of things. And we . Do
There's also something that I think we miss a little bit in government, which is it gets talked about a lot, but that kind of legacy idea that an awful lot of government's problems could be. meaningfully improved or solved with just sorting out the basics, the data sharing, the ability to communicate across departments. You know, that the sort of the good standard technology underpinning decent HR software, you know, those sorts of things. And we . Do
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
Martin Wrigley
-
-
Martin Wrigley
Which is is very important to me. And I think the Prime Minister's now committed to back British business by default. And we've heard various statements before in the chamber making Britain Britain's best customer. Do you think these changes have helped that put it back and if it's changed, what do we need to do? And particularly, what do we need to do to bring startups into actually get.
12:10
12:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Anchor contracts from government that they can then use to build businesses? Yeah. So, I mean, this is really, really important to us. We're doing a ton of work on this at the Startup Coalition now, as you would imagine. And we're really supportive of the agenda from government. I think, first of all, why is it important? It's because more than 80% of government tech spend is currently on 150 companies, and most of those aren't British.
And so clearly right now, that's not for want of talented people building technology products in the United Kingdom. And so, you know, we see this as a question of the system and how is it functioning effectively. I think that from our point of view, like the political attention is really, really important. And, you know, we've had a very clear message, both from the PM, also the Chancellor as well. That kind of by British is the way they want to go.
The detail of exactly how that policy is structured really matters. You know, for.
And so clearly right now, that's not for want of talented people building technology products in the United Kingdom. And so, you know, we see this as a question of the system and how is it functioning effectively. I think that from our point of view, like the political attention is really, really important. And, you know, we've had a very clear message, both from the PM, also the Chancellor as well. That kind of by British is the way they want to go.
The detail of exactly how that policy is structured really matters. You know, for.
12:10
12:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The the framing of the social value based procurement that the government is. considering is around job creation. Now, I'm also all for job creation, but we have to be clear that actually kind of more productive firms actually often create less jobs, ironically, when it comes to technology products than, than others. And so understanding what we're actually really trying to aim for there and the impact it could have on, on certainly smaller firms who don't necessarily tick all the boxes as effectively, quite candidly, but ultimately so, so I think that political attention is really, really important, but it's important precisely because the system itself, as it's day to day.
12:10
12:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Does not not deliver the outcomes effectively. And that is not necessarily a senior political level. It's not necessarily a senior civil servant level. It's quite often like people who are making very rational process based decisions every day. And they're, you know, nobody gets fired for buying IBM type stuff. Right. And I think it's really, really important that in order to genuinely change this conversation, in order to genuinely move it forward, we have to get to that level.
And both change the the sort of incentives that drive that both in policy and in and in outcome, and then also change the culture. And I think that that's extremely difficult. We have to be totally candid about that. It's really, really hard. There are some really interesting green shoots of examples where we're seeing that sort of things being tried effectively. We think that there's much more work you could do on pre-market engagement, so you actually understand what's out there in the market before you make decisions about kind of taking yourself down a certain road, that often puts you in the position of buying an incumbent supplier by default.
So it's really, really important we do that too. There's also a lot more for smaller firms that can be done about direct awards of.
And both change the the sort of incentives that drive that both in policy and in and in outcome, and then also change the culture. And I think that that's extremely difficult. We have to be totally candid about that. It's really, really hard. There are some really interesting green shoots of examples where we're seeing that sort of things being tried effectively. We think that there's much more work you could do on pre-market engagement, so you actually understand what's out there in the market before you make decisions about kind of taking yourself down a certain road, that often puts you in the position of buying an incumbent supplier by default.
So it's really, really important we do that too. There's also a lot more for smaller firms that can be done about direct awards of.
12:10
12:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
you don't have a situation where you're kind of faffing around for for two years to convince yourself to spend. £75,000 of money on something that you should have spent. £75,000 of money on to begin with. And instead you've spent half a million deciding to spend £75,000. And it's like, which happens far, far too often. And so there's a huge amount that can be done in that space. I think we're super, super supportive of it.
12:10
12:10
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
everything from the biggest American company you can find? I think Dom's really addressing the problems here, and the government does something quite useful things. So, you know, MSF and the sovereign AI fund are looking at earlier stage companies. They put direct government investment in, you know, they sometimes own a shareholding, and they appear to be aiming to directing that to government, you know, procurement. So you get some sort of guaranteed sale. And of course, government is the buyer is the strongest market mover.
I think there is something really in in. enabling smaller businesses because, you know, as Tom said, actually big tech doesn't necessarily bring a lot more jobs. But what does is more companies. So, you know, more companies proliferating, doing different things. And the kind of new technology wave we've seen enables you to do more and uncover markets that we haven't seen before. And doing it here means we can lead the world and sell out, as well as selling inward.
I think there is something really in in. enabling smaller businesses because, you know, as Tom said, actually big tech doesn't necessarily bring a lot more jobs. But what does is more companies. So, you know, more companies proliferating, doing different things. And the kind of new technology wave we've seen enables you to do more and uncover markets that we haven't seen before. And doing it here means we can lead the world and sell out, as well as selling inward.
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I'd like to see a lot more of it, and I'd like to see a little bit of a revamp of the procurement rules that makes it easier to to purchase. And I think that one thing that we're missing, and I'm going to shoehorn in what I'd like this committee to do at this point, we have a method for telling if things work, which is an.
12:10
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And we have a magenta book in government that tells you how to do those evaluations. We've been running a bunch of machinery of government changes, and nobody's ever gone away and evaluated. Did it do the thing it was supposed to do? What did it cost and what was the impact? We could run that for previous and current machinery of government changes, and we could learn from that, and we could build a structure that says, next time we want to make a change, what is the correct or best way to do that? That takes into account the cost, the impacts, you know, the recurring costs.
And I think we should do exactly the same thing in procurement. We haven't really run an evaluation. That said, when we procured in this way, what were the outcomes? What did it cost? How many of them did we end up having to kill or they did not drive any value? Where did that money go? Did it promote local growth and local jobs? Did it promote national productivity, etc.? And I know those are difficult to do, but I would like I would like to see that work done so that we .
And I think we should do exactly the same thing in procurement. We haven't really run an evaluation. That said, when we procured in this way, what were the outcomes? What did it cost? How many of them did we end up having to kill or they did not drive any value? Where did that money go? Did it promote local growth and local jobs? Did it promote national productivity, etc.? And I know those are difficult to do, but I would like I would like to see that work done so that we .
12:10
12:10
Chi Onwurah
-
-
Chi Onwurah
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
it? And do you understand why that's the case? I can take that one. I mean, I think clearly there is some intention to align around where regulators sit. And so it was, you know, you have a kind of Ofcom based discussion when it comes to telecoms and others. I think personally, in the way in which we see the market and the area that we're most focused on, which is around things like AI infrastructure, for example.
In reality, I'm not sure that's necessarily the best place for some of those things to work. But what I guess based on our. conversations and sort of a little bit what I mentioned earlier, the question will be if the task force, as you know, in its sort of highest ambition way, is designed, is able to address some of our questions when it comes to how we speed infrastructure development, for example, through its closeness to the top of.
government in a way that then means that the . Where
In reality, I'm not sure that's necessarily the best place for some of those things to work. But what I guess based on our. conversations and sort of a little bit what I mentioned earlier, the question will be if the task force, as you know, in its sort of highest ambition way, is designed, is able to address some of our questions when it comes to how we speed infrastructure development, for example, through its closeness to the top of.
government in a way that then means that the . Where
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
exactly these things sit within government doesn't necessarily matter as much as it would have done otherwise. I think that's right. I think it's the accountability point. So, you know, when I first joined government, Boris Johnson's government was rolling out broadband. And, you know, it was a dashboard that we built in number ten with 35 things the Prime Minister cared about. And once a week he looked to see how it was going. And that's very motivating.
So I think maybe I'm less worried about exactly where it sits. I'm more worried about is it funded? Who personally, who is who is an. individual talented is driving this thing forward? And how accountable do the people feel who are actually delivering it? Are they in . The
So I think maybe I'm less worried about exactly where it sits. I'm more worried about is it funded? Who personally, who is who is an. individual talented is driving this thing forward? And how accountable do the people feel who are actually delivering it? Are they in . The
12:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
spotlight? Do they feel empowered and can they therefore do their job? And I think the one tiny bit that I would add to that, and I think because we haven't talked about it this far and we talk understandably, given our focus, I guess I've spoken a little bit more about the kind of bis side of this. One of the things I think is really challenging about the DCMs structure, as currently constituted, is you have a bunch of different ministers who have really .
important jobs within the wider DCMs cohort. And then one bit of digital tactic. Yeah. And you know, that one bit can be the entirety of digital government and GDS in the case of Steph, or it can be online safety in the case of Ian or and you know, and those things are really important in their own right. But, but they're going to be really important and you're also doing the arts. Right. And suddenly I think that it becomes, you can't have it be the sort of odd man out.
And so yeah, understanding how to keep that political focus in order to make sure that the work that some very good civil servants will be .
important jobs within the wider DCMs cohort. And then one bit of digital tactic. Yeah. And you know, that one bit can be the entirety of digital government and GDS in the case of Steph, or it can be online safety in the case of Ian or and you know, and those things are really important in their own right. But, but they're going to be really important and you're also doing the arts. Right. And suddenly I think that it becomes, you can't have it be the sort of odd man out.
And so yeah, understanding how to keep that political focus in order to make sure that the work that some very good civil servants will be .
12:10
Chi Onwurah
-
-
Chi Onwurah
Doing is being consistently driven and supported, I think will really matter. Thank you. Thank you very much. And that will be part of our role as the Science and Technology Committee to ensure the digital, the political focus on the issues that matters. But for the moment, thank you so much for sharing your . Expertise
12:10