Department for Science, Information and Technology: Abolition

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the abolition of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the merging of its functions with other departments and; the implications of this on the future operation of (1) the AI Safety Institute, (2) the Sovereign AI Fund, (3) the Government Digital Service and (4) UK Research and Innovation.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, science and AI are having an increasingly large impact on all areas of government policy and economic growth. We should not see science and technology as an isolated issue. That is why the Prime Minister has announced a bold restructuring, including the elevation of AI to the Office for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. That will provide a more coherent, agile and effective government framework to deliver on our national priorities. A WMS has been tabled today in the name of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal outlining these changes.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, many of us welcomed the creation of DSIT and the focus that it brought on science and technology, but with the very regrettable resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who will be greatly missed, and the understandable concerns expressed by Sir Paul Nurse, the president of the Royal Society, and many university and tech leaders, what assurance do we have that that focus will be retained, particularly in developing UK digital sovereignty? Which single department will own AI safety and regulation?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a series of very important issues. First, I put on record my absolute thanks for the work done by my noble friend Lord Vallance, who it has been a pleasure and privilege to work with. Noble Lords will appreciate—there have been many comments in your Lordships’ House today—that there are ongoing appointments in government, so I cannot possibly talk about any further roles and appointments that are being made, including my own. We will deal with those as they emerge.

On the substance of the Question, the noble Lord raises an important point but the Government have decided that having science and AI sit separate and away from the rest of government means that other departments have not treated them in the way they should be. Noble Lords will appreciate that a month has not passed when I have not been asked about the impact of AI on the Cabinet Office, and every member of the Front Bench has been asked how AI is affecting the Government’s work. It is right that we are putting both science and AI at the heart of government, which is why we have the new Office for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to make sure that it is at the centre, as well as having a new specialist Minister for AI attending Cabinet.

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a real danger here of exactly the wrong signal being sent to the science community? First, there is the departure of one of the most successful Science Ministers of recent years—I say that as one of his predecessors from long ago—the noble Lord, Lord Vallance. More importantly, structurally, there is the abolition and fragmentation of DSIT. The establishment of DSIT promoted the idea that science must permeate all departments of government but now the signal is the opposite to that, which is a regrettable development. That idea is seen by many in the science community as being destroyed.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point, but it is also incredibly important that we talk about AI, and more broadly its impact on science and what is changing, as something that should be at the heart of government and central to every department. There has not been a subject matter that I have discussed in your Lordships’ House from this Dispatch Box where I have not been asked about the impact of new tech, whether that is the Cabinet Office, the Civil Service Pension Scheme, how we do resilience or even the role of ethics and integrity in the development of AI. It affects every part of my portfolio and that of every one of my colleagues. This is about making sure that AI is at the centre and ensuring that both science and technology are part of our aims and efforts to ensure that there is growth in every postcode, as the Prime Minister has made clear.

[Lord Tarassenko (CB)]

My Lords, any reorganisation like this will take of the order of 12 months, which is an eternity in AI. It is equivalent to three generations of frontier AI models. Can the Minister reassure the House that both the AI Security Institute and the sovereign AI fund will be able to keep up the momentum that is so essential to their activities during this unnecessary transition period?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important point. We are seeing technology move faster than at any point over the last 100 years, never mind in my lifetime. It is incredibly important that we keep up, which is why we will now have a dedicated Minister attending Cabinet to make sure these issues are reflected. Some noble Lords will not have had the opportunity to read the WMS that has been placed in front of your Lordships’ House but, just to reassure them, the AI Security Institute will be part of the Office for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. The UK Research and Innovation fund is moving to DBIST, the new business department, and its £9.22 billion budget for R&D will continue. The Government Digital Service is moving to DCMS and the sovereign AI fund is also moving to DBIST.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, if the House will allow me, I pay my own tribute to my noble friend Lord Vallance of Balham, whose record of public service, both as Government Chief Scientific Adviser and as Minister for Science, has been exemplary. As the noble Lord said, he will be missed. Does my noble friend agree that this reorganisation shows that the new Prime Minister has some understanding of the transformative power of science, innovation and technology, and that this new department can, in turn, have a transformative effect? Although the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Waldegrave and Lord Tarassenko, have merit, and I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving some more detail, I hope that this will achieve the aim of making science apply across all of government for the benefit of this country.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The new Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade will focus on new and emerging sectors as part of our reindustrialisation agenda. This is about building on the foundations that we have already made so that we can move further and faster to deliver for the people of the United Kingdom, which is our responsibility.

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, there is much scratching of heads about the detachment of science and technology. We hear about an AI Minister who will now be in a new office at the Cabinet Office and, some are also saying, at DCMS reporting into it, but we were talking about movement in technology: quantum computing, cyber security and what is happening in terms of investment in all forms of technology. The challenge now is: where will technology sit as a focus for this Government?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a genuinely valid point, but this is about how we mainstream everything and put this at the heart. Everything we are talking about is AI-enhanced reindustrialisation. I appreciate that there are many times when we use “AI” as shorthand for tech or science, just because of how quickly the technology is moving on. I reassure the noble Lord that we will continue to make sure that AI and science and technology are at the heart of the eight industrial priority sectors.

[Lord Dixon of Jericho (LD)]

My Lords, there are five areas where a country or a company can lead in artificial intelligence: people, chips, models, infrastructure and deployment. The leading global companies are spending about £500 billion this year on it; our spending as a country will be roughly 0.3% of that. Given the scale of our investment compared with others, do the machinery of government changes reflect the Government choosing to focus on an area where we can have stronger comparative advantage as a country, or do they mean that we will still continue to try to lead on all those areas?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that we are talking about how technology and the advancements in it are going to fuel economic growth. That is a priority for the Government, as the Prime Minister has made clear. The prioritisation of that will come in the coming days, but our key here is about making sure that reindustrialisation, through these tools and using these levers, can work for every single corner of the United Kingdom, so that there is no longer a postcode lottery and that people have the opportunity to invest and make best use of these tools.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I am grateful. My Lords, for those of us in the scientific community there is concern about the erosion of funding for basic discovery science, which, of course, is the bedrock of all future applications of science. Can the Minister provide reassurance that, in this reorganisation, UKRI will not reduce further the support for basic discovery science?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I very much want to be able to reassure the noble Lord and can do so. The £9.22 billion that UKRI has for 2026-27 will continue to be distributed across three buckets: basic curiosity-driven research, foundational research, and research targeted to addressing strategic government and societal priorities, working to support the growth of innovative companies. That will remain the case.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted that Kanishka Narayan, who is a great Minister, has gone into the Cabinet but it is obvious that the abolition of DSIT is a phenomenal waste of time. It will take three months of civil servants’ time when they should be focused on policies. The Government Digital Service should obviously be in the Cabinet Office, by the way. Can the Minister tell us where Sovereign AI will sit? I also gather that only £100 million of the £500 million announced has been allocated, so can she guarantee that the other £400 million will be allocated over the next two years?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, the sovereign AI fund will sit in DBIST. As the noble Lord is very aware, we announced the £500 million fund on 16 April. I have nothing to suggest that we will not be spending every penny of it.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the point here that this country is brilliant at innovation, thanks to our wonderful science base, but that we are hopeless at adoption and taking advantage of it? So many British inventions are being developed with investment overseas. Surely putting science and technology within the business department is the way to ensure that when we have these future inventions, we actually get the resources to develop them and take advantage of them in this country.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. These changes are to make sure that we can align the science and research base directly with commercial application and job creation. Noble Lords will be aware that the new Prime Minister has announced the No. 10 of the north; this is to co-ordinate a growth-based strategy for every corner of the United Kingdom, using the tools available to us so that we can use the levers of government to deliver for every postcode.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

I hear what the Minister has said about AI and I presume that it now sits within the department for business. Given that the Minister wears another hat, which I very much hope she continues to wear in Northern Ireland, will she meet me, because we do not have an AI growth zone? Despite the fact that all the rest of the UK has growth zones, we do not have one and I think she will want to ensure that we develop that.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right about my commitment to and passion about Northern Ireland. I will of course take every opportunity to have a cup of coffee with her. I plan on being in Northern Ireland over the Recess, subject to events, and we will do so then.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, this appointment of an AI Minister to Cabinet indeed gives a timely prominence to AI policy-making, but does the Minister accept that it also removes a good deal of clarity? Who owns AI policy between DBIST, the Cabinet Office and the Minister himself? What will the AI taskforce do that these ministries will not, and is the purpose to develop new AI policies or to execute existing ones?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Viscount is more than aware that the role of the Cabinet Office is to co-ordinate policy across government, hence the establishment of an AI taskforce to make that sure and to support the work of the new Minister. The Office for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet is being overseen directly by both the Prime Minister and the new First Secretary in the Government, while operational matters will be overseen by the Cabinet Secretary. This is about making sure that the Minister, who will obviously have responsibility for the co-ordination and ownership of AI policy, has the support he needs at the top levels of government.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, spoke about messages sent, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, spoke about concerns within the research community. Whatever the Minister thinks, does she accept that the response of the research community to this has been bad, and that it is upset and worried about the implications? Does she also accept that the Government have a big job to do in raising morale and explaining to the research community how this is going to work for it?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I cite the new Prime Minister, who said that we will choose hope to build a fairer society. “Hope” is definitely the word of the day so, on that basis, I absolutely agree. The new Business Secretary was very clear on this morning’s “Today” programme that he will reach out to all parts of the science community to reassure them and make sure they understand that they will now be at the heart of government. That is why we have made these changes.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister can answer this simple question: is she not embarrassed that the only way we have been able to discuss this important matter is through a Private Notice Question? Should these issues not be brought in front of Parliament to be discussed? It is a disgrace that these steps are being taken. The legislature is being overrun by those who are in charge.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, the last time I checked I was a Member of Parliament, in the broadest sense, and, as a Member of the Houses of Parliament, I am in front of Parliament. We have tabled a Written Ministerial Statement, as is normal, and taken a PNQ, which is normal. We have done exactly as we would at any other point to address and update your Lordships’ House. I want to be very clear to the noble Lord and your Lordships’ House: I am not embarrassed by my Government; I am very proud of them.