Tech sovereignty: MPs urge UK government to act

The term ‘technology sovereignty’ refers to technology infrastructure entirely operated, located and governed within one jurisdiction. The concept is growing in prominence globally amidst a volatile geopolitical environment.

The UK government has said the UK will be “one of the top three places in the world to create, invest in and scale-up a fast-growing technology business” by 2035. In its industrial strategy last year, it pledged to design, build and maintain sovereign capabilities in areas such as AI, quantum and life sciences and “nurture the UK’s digital and technologies economy responsible for building our sovereign capability in the most strategically important areas”. It has since established an AI sovereignty fund and invested in the development of a new ‘super’ computer in Edinburgh.

However, the government has so far resisted pressure on it to list the UK’s sovereign capabilities and define its tech sovereignty ambitions, on national security grounds. In a recent report (56-page / 531KB PDF), the Science, Innovation and Technology (SIT) Committee said this has led to a lack of clarity within UK industry over what where its priorities lie and how progress towards achieving its ambitions will be measured.

The SIT Committee said the UK government should “set out … how it intends to define and pursue technology sovereignty, including the balance between domestic capability, bilateral dependencies with trusted partners, and participation in wider networks of allied nations”. It said the US government’s decision to impose export controls on Anthropic to prevent it making its latest AI models available to non-US citizens highlighted “shortcomings” with the UK’s current approach, which in part depends on leveraging alliances and partnerships.

“As geopolitics shifts, the UK is in a global race for sovereign capability across a range of technologies, whether it acknowledges it or not,” the committee said. “Achieving sovereign capability requires the government to be clear about the trade-offs and risks involved and realistic about what is achievable. Setting an ambition for what the government considers sovereign capability, in what it considers to be key sectors, is a necessary precursor for a joined-up strategy to develop key technologies. Limiting transparency around the UK’s ambitions for sovereign capabilities is unlikely to be hiding anything from competitors such as Russia and China, but it is leaving UK tech companies in the dark.”

Among its other recommendations, the SIT Committee also called on the government to do more to address the funding gap innovative companies in science and technology industries face when seeking to scale-up.

According to the committee, there are “longstanding and deep-seated weaknesses in availability of laterstage capital, including a shortage of large, specialist funds and a limited pool of investors with the technical expertise and risk appetite to lead deeptech investments”. As a result, UK companies have to seek finance elsewhere, with the result often being that their “promising scientific and technological breakthroughs” are “commercialised abroad”.

“The government should encourage the growth of specialist funds with deep sectoral expertise, including by supporting team development, attracting international talent, and enabling experienced technical leaders to transition into investment roles,” the committee said, adding that the government can also “use its own procurement more strategically to support innovative companies, providing them with early revenue, validation, and a pathway to scale within the UK”.