Prime Minister Andy Burnham has dissolved the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), marking a seismic shift in Britain’s post-industrial strategy.
Under this reshuffle, DSIT’s functions will be redistributed to existing departments to align with core economic and social agendas. The Department for Business and Trade will be renamed the Department for Business, Innovation, Science, and Trade (DBIST) and will expand its focus, ranging from AI regulation to research funding, along with supporting infrastructure through stronger links to the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Access deeper industry intelligence
Experience unmatched clarity with a single platform that combines unique data, AI, and human expertise.
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) will bring together telecoms, media, and the Government Digital Service (GDS) to continue the drive towards modernisation and public services. The DCMS will also continue efforts focused on online safety, misinformation and disinformation to keep people safe online.
The dissolution of DSIT has raised some eyebrows, particularly those within the AI sector, and this has been carefully handled by the new Prime Minister with the creation of a stronger central AI centre of gravity. The new Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (OPMC) will include an AI Taskforce and responsibility for AI strategy, public-sector AI adoption, and the AI Security Institute will move to the Cabinet Office.
This move signals a clearer central cover over priority technologies, especially AI, but more devolved ownership of digital and technology spending decisions. All of the above will be spearheaded by the new Minister for AI Kanishka Narayan MP.
Such a decision comes quite surprisingly as DSIT was considered a successful department and working completely well within its given remit. DSIT has been instrumental in implementing the AI Opportunities Action Plan, which seeks to advance computing infrastructure, establish sovereign compute capacity, and promote AI Growth Zones – while The Roadmap for Modern Digital Government (2025-2030) was also reliant on DSIT’s leadership in cross-government digital transformation and public sector AI pilots.
This dissolution could be framed by Burnham as a move to streamline government, reduce duplication, and integrate science and innovation more closely with economic or regional development priorities. Critics, however, warn of weakening the institutional focus on AI safety, global competitiveness, and coherent leadership with DSIT’s dissolution.
Pros: integrating innovation with economic strategy
Burnham’s rationale for folding DSIT into the business department centres on coherence. Labour’s industrial strategy emphasises green investment and innovation, which experts say requires wiring science into broader economic policy rather than isolating it. A standalone science ministry, they argue, made it harder to coordinate research with industry needs. By returning science and technology policy to a senior Cabinet portfolio, the government can align research initiatives directly with job creation. Embedding science within a larger department could also give it more clout in budget battles, under a powerful minister who can champion innovation.
Cons: fears of losing focus on science
Many scientists and tech leaders are dismayed by the loss of a ministry devoted solely to science and innovation. DSIT’s creation signalled an ambition to be a “science superpower”; scrapping it risks the opposite. Observers fear that without a dedicated minister; research and emerging technologies could become an afterthought. They also caution that handing off DSIT’s ongoing initiatives, such as work on AI regulation and adoption plans, could slow momentum or blur accountability as staff adapt to new leadership. Critics worry that the dissolution of DSIT will now diminish the clear vision and leadership that a dedicated tech department provided.
Implications for AI in the public sector
The reorganisation casts uncertainty over several public sector AI programmes. DSIT had positioned itself as the centre of digital innovation in government, aiming to unify data and AI expertise to modernise public services. However, this shift means the UK is moving from a standalone technology department to a more centralised model where AI and digital transformation are steered from the Cabinet Office and other core departments.
For the public sector, that should sharpen accountability for AI rollout and make adoption decisions more directly tied to government-wide priorities, but it also creates a transition period as responsibilities are redistributed.
Dwayne Stewart, Principal Analyst for Central Government, UK Public Sector at GlobalData said, “The worry is that AI adoption in government could lose momentum during the transition if leadership becomes fragmented. To prevent this, Burnham’s government will need to clearly assign responsibilities and reassure everyone that modernisation remains a priority.”
Impact on technology supplier relationships
Under DSIT, companies had a clear government contact for innovation partnerships; now they must navigate a different landscape. Functions that were under DSIT – from research funding to digital programmes – now reside under Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, whose brief now includes innovation and science. In the short term this could cause confusion as suppliers find new contacts. Some hope a single department will make it easier for businesses to work with government. But it all depends on execution – clear communication of the new system will be vital so that partnerships thrive rather than suffer disruption.
GlobalData’s principal analyst for Central Government Dwayne Stewart added: “These machinery of government changes are not just a Whitehall reshuffle; they are a signal that the UK is tightening central control over strategic technologies while demonstrating more of the day-to-day buying process. For the public sector, that means faster policy alignment and potentially faster delivery, but only if departments build enough capability to use their new freedoms well.
“For technology suppliers, it means a bigger market for AI, cyber, and shared services, but one with stricter governance, more transparency, and higher expectations of resilience. Ultimately, Burnham’s decision is a gamble: it aims to embed innovation at the heart of policy but risks a loss of focus. The coming months will reveal whether the UK can maintain momentum in AI and technological leadership under this new structure.”
