Digital downgrade: Andy Burnham's fragmentation of tech policy is a backward step for the UK

It’s taken a few days to work out exactly what has happened to technology policy and digital delivery in the aftermath of new prime minister Andy Burnham’s day-one scrapping of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT).

Scant announcements were made, lots of rumour and speculation permeated, and it took an urgent question in the House of Lords – unlike the Commons, not yet on its summer recess – to get some of the details.

Frankly, it’s a mess. It’s difficult to conclude anything other than Burnham has significantly downgraded the importance of technology in his government.

Former DSIT AI minister Kanishka Narayan has been promoted to, erm, AI minister. He will attend Cabinet – not with a seat at the Cabinet table, but as someone who sits on a chair at the edge of the room -and his reporting lines have been split between the Cabinet Office and the newly enlarged Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (DBIST).

Note how the enlarged departmental name has taken on from DSIT the science and innovation titles, but not technology. These are not superficial decisions.

Many of the policies related to the technology sector have moved into DBIST, but the Government Digital Service (GDS), cyber security, digital skills, telecoms infrastructure, and what’s left of digital identity – a controversial policy also scrapped on day one by Burnham – are going to the renamed Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). There is little logic for placing them in DCMS, other than it used to own some of those policies before DSIT existed.

Putting GDS into DCMS, in particular, makes little sense – how much clout will DCMS have in pushing out the much-needed digital transformation of public services to Whitehall departments that have resisted such change for many years?

Confused? You won’t be the only one. Don’t underestimate the impact of these “machinery of government” changes on the civil servants responsible for delivering them – it’s an enormously disruptive process, and one that had barely concluded in the three years since DSIT was first established.

None of this is meant to suggest that DSIT was a success. It never quite functioned as a coherent department, with a coherent vision and coherent delivery. It was a mish-mash of teams and groups, occasionally rowing in broadly the same direction.

It was poorly led – sacked technology secretary Liz Kendall never wanted the job and saw it as a demotion. Industry insiders say she never really engaged with the brief – Narayan was seen as the true champion and enthusiast.

Her predecessor, Peter Kyle, was one of a succession of digital ministers who saw the brief as little more than a stepping stone to somewhere more important. Burnham sacked him, too.

And within DSIT’s officials, there was constant upheaval in leadership – the department eventually gave up trying to recruit a chief digital officer to lead GDS and push the digital agenda across Whitehall, ending up with a series of interim leaders until DSIT permanent secretary Emran Mian absorbed responsibility into his role, which was never a long-term solution. There was frequent turnover in other key leadership roles too, such as chief data officer and chief technology officer.

At one point, five of the eight members of the DSIT management team with digital remits were listed as “interim”.

Perhaps the writing was already on the wall for DSIT when Keir Starmer removed digital identity policy from its remit – a clear sign of frustration. But that’s gone now, too – the controversy around the policy seen as too much of a distraction to worry about when Burnham has other priorities.

Elements of digital ID remain – One Login, the Gov.UK Wallet, presumably the mobile driving licence – although it feels like they will be lower priority. Perhaps that’s not a bad thing – allow the UK’s burgeoning digital ID providers to establish the market without competition from a government app.

But DSIT was important and valuable simply because it existed. It showed that the UK government was serious about technology and recognised its role as the primary driver of economic growth and social improvement in the coming decades. These things matter.

Having AI in the Cabinet Office and an AI minister attending Cabinet feels like a bit of a sop – an acknowledgement that it’s something that needs attention, but without the resources and institutional foundations needed to drive a consistent approach and commitment across Whitehall.

There are bright spots in the government’s AI strategy – the AI Security Institute has established a solid reputation (well, the US AI companies seem to respect it) – but huge questions remain over whether anything the UK does in AI will really matter on a global stage given the vastly greater funding and resources being thrown at AI by the US and China. Both are making serious efforts to own the whole AI stack – the UK is, at best, trying to grab small leadership roles in a few specific elements of the stack.

Support for accelerated datacentre roll-out was welcomed and the concept of AI Growth Zones cheered – but already, practicalities are overpowering policies and casting doubt over the feasibility of such objectives being achieved.

DSIT was also seen as too close to the big US tech companies – Computer Weekly has long encouraged ministers and officials to spend more time with the tech experts implementing AI in business, such as corporate CIOs, rather than the companies selling it.

The UK will never own the technology stack – full digital sovereignty is a myth. But we can still be a global leader in the way companies implement AI and deliver the economic benefits across society – so why doesn’t the government spend more time talking to the people responsible for that?

The fragmented approach implied by the Burnham changes does little to suggest much will improve.

It’s a shame – a huge disappointment for the tech community and the many people who encouraged successive administrations to give the digital economy the profile it deserves.

It feels like we’ve taken a backward step – one the government may come to regret. Please, prime minister Burnham – prove me wrong.