Andy Burnham’s DSIT Scrap Plan Sparks Backlash

Key Points

• Incoming prime minister Andy Burnham has asked officials to draw up plans to abolish the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) as part of a wider Whitehall reshuffle.
• The proposals have not been formally approved but have already caused significant unease among officials, MPs and technology experts.
• Under the plans, much of science and technology policy would move to a strengthened business department, expected to be led by chief whip Jonathan Reynolds.
• Oversight of artificial intelligence use in the public sector would reportedly shift to cabinet secretary Antonia Romeo rather than remain with a dedicated minister.
• Matt Clifford, a former AI adviser to both Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak, warned the move risked wasting time at a “critical moment” for the tech sector.
• A Labour MP described the plan as “getting rid of the department of the future.”
• Startup Coalition executive director Dom Hallas said a merged “mega business department” would leave technology competing for attention with sectors such as steel.
• Technology investor Barney Hussey-Yeo said Britain’s scientific capacity was a major competitive advantage that risked being squandered.
• The backlash comes alongside wider unease in the Labour party over Burnham’s early decisions, including the expected appointment of Shabana Mahmood as chancellor.
• Burnham is finalising his top team over the weekend before formally becoming prime minister on Monday, with policy announcements, including on the cost of living, expected later in the week.

Westminster (Britain Today News) July 18, 2026 — Incoming prime minister Andy Burnham’s plan to scrap the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has triggered an angry backlash from MPs, Whitehall officials and technology experts, just days before he is due to formally take charge of the government.

Burnham has asked officials to draw up plans to abolish DSIT as part of a broader reorganisation of Whitehall departments. The proposals have not yet been signed off, but they are already causing significant disquiet among figures inside and outside government, with critics warning that scrapping the department could disrupt Britain’s approach to artificial intelligence at a pivotal moment for the technology.

Sources familiar with the discussions said Burnham’s advisers had asked officials to work up plans to hand over much of science and technology policy to a more powerful business department, expected to be led by chief whip Jonathan Reynolds. Responsibility for overseeing the use of artificial intelligence within the public sector would, under the proposals, pass to cabinet secretary Antonia Romeo rather than remain the responsibility of a dedicated minister.

The plan has unsettled figures across the political and technology spectrum, many of whom argue that folding DSIT into a larger department would slow decision-making at a time when artificial intelligence is expected to dominate policy debates for years to come.

What exactly has Andy Burnham proposed for the technology department?

Burnham, the MP for Makerfield, is preparing to become prime minister on Monday and is understood to be finalising his top team and departmental structure over the weekend. As part of that process, he has asked officials to explore abolishing DSIT entirely, folding its core functions into an expanded business department.

Under the reported plans, oversight of science and technology policy would largely transfer to the business department, while responsibility for artificial intelligence governance within Whitehall itself would move to the cabinet secretary. The proposals represent one of the most significant structural changes being considered as Burnham assembles his government, and would reverse the creation of DSIT as a standalone department focused specifically on science, innovation and technology policy.

No final decision has been confirmed, and the plans remain subject to change as Burnham completes his preparations before entering Downing Street.

Why has the plan triggered such a strong backlash?

The proposal has provoked concern from multiple directions, with critics warning that dismantling DSIT risks derailing Britain’s technology strategy at a moment when artificial intelligence is central to economic and national security considerations. Officials, MPs and industry figures have all voiced unease, arguing that reorganising government structures at this stage would consume time and resources that should instead be directed towards substantive policy work.

The scale of the reaction reflects the perceived importance of DSIT as a symbol of the government’s commitment to technology as a priority area, following its creation as a dedicated department in recent years.

What did Matt Clifford say about the reorganisation?

Matt Clifford, who has advised both Keir Starmer and his predecessor Rishi Sunak on artificial intelligence policy, was among the most prominent critics of the plan. Posting on X, Clifford said:

“This would be a big mistake. Right now is a critical moment for tech as an economic and national security issue. Tying up our most senior science and tech officials in a reorganisation wastes time and energy that’s desperately needed for the actual substance.”

His intervention carries particular weight given his role advising two successive prime ministers on artificial intelligence strategy, and reflects concern that structural upheaval could distract officials from urgent policy questions surrounding the technology.

How would responsibilities be redistributed under the proposed changes?

According to sources familiar with the plans, the bulk of science and technology policy would be absorbed into a business department under Jonathan Reynolds, the current chief whip who is expected to be given the role. Meanwhile, oversight of artificial intelligence within government itself would shift away from a dedicated ministerial role and instead fall under the remit of Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary.

This redistribution would mark a departure from the current model, in which DSIT operates as a distinct department with its own secretary of state focused specifically on science, innovation and technology matters.

What are Labour MPs saying about the proposal?

The plan has caused unease within Labour’s own ranks. One Labour MP, referring to the proposed abolition of DSIT, described it as “getting rid of the department of the future,” reflecting concern among some backbenchers that the department’s specific focus on emerging technology would be lost if its functions were absorbed into a larger, more general business department.

The criticism from within Labour comes at a sensitive time for Burnham, amid broader unease in the party about some of his early decisions as he prepares to take office, including the anticipated appointment of Shabana Mahmood as chancellor.

Why is artificial intelligence considered such a critical policy priority right now?

Much of the criticism directed at Burnham’s plan stems from the belief that artificial intelligence is set to dominate government policy decisions over the coming years, making this an inopportune moment to disrupt the department responsible for overseeing it. Supporters of DSIT argue that a stable, dedicated structure is essential to allow ministers and officials to focus on substantive questions around AI regulation, investment and public sector use, rather than being diverted by organisational upheaval.

What has Yvette Cooper said about AI as a foreign policy issue?

Foreign secretary Yvette Cooper has previously signalled the scale of the challenge posed by artificial intelligence, having recently said that she believed AI would be the major foreign policy question of the next two years. Her comments underline the extent to which technology policy has moved to the centre of government thinking, adding to concerns that abolishing a department focused on the issue could send the wrong signal at a critical juncture.

How did Keir Starmer previously describe the importance of AI?

The current emphasis on technology policy builds on remarks made by outgoing prime minister Keir Starmer, who last year described artificial intelligence as “the defining opportunity of our generation” during a speech setting out plans for a significant public sector rollout of the technology. That framing has shaped much of the government’s approach to AI policy in the period since, making the prospect of dismantling the department most closely associated with delivering on that ambition particularly contentious among supporters of the current structure.

Advocates of maintaining a strong, independent technology department point to the success of British artificial intelligence company DeepMind, which was acquired by Google in 2014, as evidence that the United Kingdom is capable of playing a leading global role in the sector. Others, however, have pointed to the recent technology deal signed between the UK and the United States under Starmer as evidence that the British AI industry risks becoming increasingly dependent on the American technology sector, a dynamic they argue makes a dedicated, empowered department more important, not less.

What did Dom Hallas say about merging DSIT into a business department?

Dom Hallas, executive director of the Startup Coalition, was among the industry figures to publicly criticise the plan. Posting on X, he said:

“Changes to DSIT (which I’ve been getting calls about) would be a mistake.”

He went on to argue:

“A mega business department would mean British tech competing with British steel for attention. And waste 6 months reorg-ing when time is of the essence. Not good.”

His comments reflect a broader concern within the startup and technology investment community that folding DSIT into a larger department focused on wider industrial and business concerns could dilute the attention given specifically to science and technology policy, at a time when the sector argues it needs focused, dedicated ministerial attention.
Explore More about Technology:
Cyber Security and Resilience Bill Faces Lords Second Reading
Marshall Unveils Acton IV and Stanmore IV Home Speakers With Auracast Technology

What did Barney Hussey-Yeo say about Britain’s scientific advantage?

Technology investor Barney Hussey-Yeo also expressed concern about the potential closure of the department, describing himself as saddened by the prospect.

“The UK has a major competitive advantage in its scientific capacity,”

he said. He added that turning that strength into economic power — which he described as DSIT’s job — would be his “idée fixe” as prime minister, underscoring the view among some in the investment community that a dedicated department is essential to translating Britain’s research strengths into tangible economic gains.

What happens next as Burnham prepares to take office?

Burnham’s team is understood to be finalising plans for government over the course of the weekend, ahead of Monday, when the MP for Makerfield will officially take over as prime minister. He is expected to spend Monday afternoon making his most significant cabinet appointments, before setting out a series of policy announcements later in the week.

Those announcements are likely to include a package of measures aimed at addressing the cost of living, which could involve action to reduce the costs of housing, energy and transport for households across the country.

Despite the strength of the reaction to the reported DSIT plans, some figures within the technology industry believe there remains a window for Burnham to reconsider the proposal to abolish the department over the next 48 hours, before decisions on departmental structures are finalised. Whether that reconsideration takes place is likely to become clear only once Burnham’s full cabinet and departmental arrangements are confirmed in the days ahead.