Andy Burnham’s move to dismantle his digital powerhouse has blown up into a political controversy almost as soon as it was announced. The Burnham tech department reorganisation — which shifts science, research and AI responsibilities across several ministries — has drawn immediate criticism from peers and industry figures worried it will fragment responsibility for Britain’s AI agenda.
Why the Burnham tech department move matters
The changes break up the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and redistribute its functions: science policy, UK Research and Innovation and the Sovereign AI Fund will transfer into the newly named Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (DBIST). The Government Digital Service returns to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Meanwhile the AI Safety Institute has been moved into the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, alongside a new central AI taskforce, and the AI minister has been elevated into Cabinet.
A rapid reversal of policy
DSIT was formed to pull together science, digital government and AI under one roof so those functions could give the sector a single voice in Whitehall. The recent overhaul largely reverses that arrangement, returning central digital functions to DCMS and scattering others across departments. Critics argue the reorganisation risks losing the coherence DSIT aimed to build.
One peer told ministers the change was a “phenomenal waste of time,” while another warned that “12 months is an eternity in AI,” underlining concerns that any pause or duplication caused by the shuffle could slow progress on regulation, investment and industrial strategy.
How responsibilities are being split
Under the new structure, DBIST will house research and trade responsibilities alongside established industrial policy areas. The Government Digital Service will again sit inside DCMS, restoring a configuration that previously placed digital policy alongside culture and media. The AI Safety Institute will be relocated into the heart of government, with the AI minister now attending Cabinet and expected to operate across both DBIST and the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Supporters inside government argue the changes embed science and technology across Whitehall rather than sealing them off in a single department. A Cabinet Office minister said science and AI should not be treated as isolated issues and that integrating them across departments will create “a more coherent, agile and effective government framework.” The business secretary has also insisted that combining research with business and trade will boost commercialisation of British innovation.
But industry groups and former advisers say embedding technology across multiple departments can dilute focus. A former adviser pointed out that moving central digital functions out of the Cabinet Office effectively removed a core capability from the centre of government, and warned that in a large business-focused department technology could struggle to command attention against issues such as workers’ rights or steel policy.
Startup Coalition and TechUK warned the dismantling of DSIT is the wrong move at a critical moment, saying it risks slowing work on the AI Safety Institute, Sovereign AI Fund, UK Research and Innovation and digital government initiatives.
Dom Hallas, executive director of a startup group, put it plainly: “The abolition of DSIT is clearly a bad thing. But if anyone could make up for it in Cabinet it would be Kanishka,” referring to the newly promoted AI minister who will now attend Cabinet meetings.
Political and industry fallout
For ministers, the reshuffle is framed as a way to put science and innovation at the centre of economic policy — a bet that attaching research and the Sovereign AI Fund to trade and commercial departments will accelerate the path from lab to market. For critics, however, the risk is fragmentation: with elements of AI policy split between DBIST, DCMS and the Cabinet Office, the lines of accountability for AI strategy, investment and regulation become harder to follow.
That fragmentation is especially concerning to those focused on attracting inward investment and competing with larger AI markets overseas. When responsibilities are split across departments, the argument goes, it can slow decision-making and create overlap or gaps precisely when the government wants to signal clarity and stability to investors.
Where the civil service fits in
Some former officials have suggested the reorganisation was driven from within the civil service, reflecting long-standing tensions over where central digital functions should sit. Bringing science and digital roles back under departments that are already crowded with industrial and cultural responsibilities risks deprioritising the technical work that underpinned the previous structure.
Those tensions are predictable: internal Whitehall battles over who controls digital policy and AI funding have been a feature of the past two years. The newly elevated AI minister will be expected to bridge departments, but critics point out that attending Cabinet is not the same as having a dedicated department focused on tech policy day to day.
What to watch next
Practical questions remain. How will the Sovereign AI Fund operate within DBIST? Will UK Research and Innovation retain the capacity to deliver timely grants and commercial partnerships while under a broader business remit? How quickly can the AI Safety Institute and the new taskforce establish clear reporting lines to avoid duplication? Those answers will determine whether the reshuffle slows the AI agenda or simply rearranges where similar work gets done.
Final Verdict
The Burnham tech department shake-up is less a tidy reorganisation and more a high-stakes bet about where scientific and digital power should sit in government. Embedding science and AI across departments can work if ministers and officials settle quickly on clear responsibilities and funding lines. But the early reaction — sharp criticism from peers, unease among industry groups and warnings from former advisers — shows the move has already raised real doubts about Britain’s capacity to deliver a coherent, high-priority AI strategy while responsibility is dispersed.
