Third Special Report
The Science and Technology Committee published its Third Report of Session 2026–27, Science diplomacy: Sovereignty, strategy, and the global race (HC 62), on 7 July 2026. The Government response was received on 4 September 2026, and is appended below.
Appendix: Government Response
Summary of Government action
The Government welcomes the Committee’s report which recognises the critical role of science diplomacy for the UK’s prosperity, security and international influence.
This response focuses on the recommendations in the report on: the Governments approach to:
- Strengthening the UK’s science and technology base
- Deepening international partnerships.
- Supporting research talent.
- Improving access to innovation.
- Aligning international engagement with wider industrial, security and growth priorities.
The Government is already taking forward action across the areas covered by the report, including through sustained investment in development science, technology and research; funding science and tech programmes such as the International Science Partnerships Fund; support for domestic and international talent; sector plans and delivery activity for frontier technologies; further development of the own-collaborate-access framework; strengthened technology supply-chain analysis; research security guidance and information-sharing; and specialist investment and innovation procurement.
In responding to the Committee’s recommendations, the Government has sought to balance ambition and transparency with fiscal constraints, national security, commercial sensitivities and the need to retain policy flexibility.
1. Shifting global policy – the current context
Aid
(Recommendation, Paragraph 20): In its response to this report, the government should set out its assessment of the impact of ODA cuts on international science collaboration, including on areas such as the International Science Partnership Framework (Correction – This would seem to be referring to the International Science Partnerships Fund – the reference is repeated on page 37). While recognising the pressures and trade-offs facing public finances, we urge the government to restore ODA funding for research and development across departments, given the clear strategic, diplomatic and scientific benefits of doing so.
a. Whilst ISPF ODA has reduced from c. £175m per annum during the last Spending Review period to £64m per annum from Financial Year 27/28, the Government will spend over £1.5 billion during this Spending Review period on development science, technology and research.
b. The transition to spending 0.3% of GNI on ODA demands significant shifts in the scale and shape of the UK’s ODA R&D portfolio. In response, ODA R&D will have a sharper focus on humanitarian, health, climate and nature priorities, underpinned by work to support partner countries’ economic development. ODA R&D spending departments are increasingly joined up in delivering a coherent portfolio of impacts through this expenditure, including through a single coordinated Spending Review bid.
c. The Government routinely conducts impact assessments of ODA R&D, which are published on gov.uk. Findings on strategic prioritisation, and on efficient, impactful delivery have been built into the next phase of ISPF. To make funding most impactful, ISPF is focusing more tightly on four development research challenges: AI for science and development; climate and extreme weather; clean energy; and building autonomous research capacity. It is also working with a more targeted group of developing country partners.
d. The Government intends to return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA when fiscal circumstances allow and will continue to monitor future forecasts closely.
Talent and visa policy
(Conclusion, Paragraph 27): The UK’s Global Talent Fund is a welcome initiative but lacks ambition and scale. It fails to address the high upfront costs faced by researchers coming to the UK, which our witnesses consistently identified as a key deterrent for science and tech talent. It is short-sighted to promote the UK as a destination for global talent while retaining financial barriers that make it less competitive than its peers.
a. The Global Talent Fund offers research organisations significant flexibility to recruit international talent to build capacity in line with their IS-8 growth ambitions. The fund covers both relocation and research expenses, with no requirement for match funding from research organisations. This includes full immigration costs for researchers supported by the fund, their team members and their dependants, removing significant financial and administrative barriers to relocation.
b. The Government considers the Global Talent Fund to be an important element of the UK’s wider offer to globally mobile research talent and will continue to monitor the programme’s delivery and impact. The Global Talent Fund is one of a wider set of Government-funded talent programmes open to international researchers seeking to make the UK their home, with the Government expecting to spend over £5 billion on talent over the Spending Review period.
Life sciences
(Recommendation, Paragraph 36): In its response to this report, the government should set out how commitments made under the UK-US agreement will deliver tangible benefits for NHS patients and system sustainability, rather than simply improving commercial conditions for industry. It should commit to ensuring that UK medicine policy will remain sovereign, transparent and grounded in domestic priorities, and ensure that future trade negotiations do not unduly determine core elements of UK health policy. The government should also set out how it determined that 12% of NHS spending on medicines, as set out in the UK-US agreement, is the correct amount.
a. There is already evidence of tangible patient benefits. The commitments increase access to life-saving medicines across the NHS. Already, reforms to the commercial environment for medicines have seen nine medicines approved under new pricing arrangements since April. These include treatments for a range of cancers, in addition to blood and autoimmune conditions. These medicines together benefit thousands of NHS patients, who may not have had access without this Arrangement.
b. The Government agrees that UK medicines policy must remain sovereign, transparent and grounded in domestic priorities, including patient access, value for money and NHS sustainability. Clinical and health policy decisions will continue to be made through established domestic processes. The UK-US Arrangement supports access to innovative medicines while maintaining the principle that countries should make a fair contribution to the cost of innovation.
c. The 12% medicines spend target addresses a long-term decline in the proportion of NHS spending devoted to medicines, from around 15% to 9% over the last 15 years. This is already supporting access to innovative treatments for patients across the UK and helping to attract further life sciences investment. The target was agreed in the context of the broader ambitions for the UK life sciences sector set out in the Life Sciences Sector Plan, while bringing the UK’s proportion of medicines spend closer to the European average.
2. Strategy
International strategy and Domestic policy
(Recommendation, Paragraph 48): The Government should move beyond its opportunistic approach to international agreements in science and technology. It should, in its response to this report, commit to establishing and publishing clear criteria for decisions on its science partnerships. This should include explicit strategies for engagement with the US, the EU, Commonwealth partners, other middle powers, and competitor states such as China and Russia. Within this framework, the 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;
- Its strategy for talent development and recruitment, including the balance between building domestic capability and attracting international expertise; and
- Its approach to risk, including the degree to which UK intellectual property should be protected in collaborative arrangements, and the extent to which the UK faces technological competition or hostile activity from partner and competitor states.
Based on this, the UK Science and Technology Network should be given a more significant role in setting direction, tasked with reviewing and rationalising its country portfolio in line with these priorities.
a. The Government agrees that international science and technology engagement should be strategic, evidence-led and aligned with domestic priorities. The Government is already refining and strengthening its approach through the Science and Technology Framework, the Digital and Technologies Sector Plan, the UK’s association to Horizon Europe and cross-government international prioritisation. The Government will continue to use clear criteria to prioritise partnerships where they support economic growth, security, inward investment, talent, resilience, standards-shaping and access to critical capabilities.
b. The UK S&T sector will continue to be engaged in the development of partnerships. STN has a key role to play in helping the UK take a more strategic approach to international science and technology partnerships. Through its global presence and in-country expertise, the network can provide the evidence, intelligence and relationships needed to identify priority countries, technologies, and opportunities.
c. The UK’s approach to technology sovereignty is about strengthening resilience and reducing over-dependence. It is not about pursuing isolation. The Government is strengthening UK sovereign technology capabilities in areas of strategic advantage so that the UK remains competitive and a keystone in the global technology architecture. Recent announcements include the £500 million Sovereign AI Fund, the £1.1 billion AI Hardware Plan and £2 billion of quantum investment. The Government continues to support open markets and diversified supply chains, strengthening existing alliances and forging new partnerships with the US, EU and like-minded partners. Through these partnerships, the UK is helping to shape technological change in a way that promotes sustainable and secure prosperity at home and abroad. The UK recognises the risks associated with highly concentrated markets and the need to strengthen resilience in critical technologies. The Government views this less as an issue of dependence on any single country than as a risk arising from narrow supply chains or single points of failure. The UK’s approach is therefore based on diversification, trusted interdependence and capability-building with like-minded partners. The Government is also actively engaging in multilateral fora, including the G7 and G20, to shape discussions on technology sovereignty and develop shared approaches to common challenges.
d. Global competition for research talent is intensifying, and international research talent is a strategic asset for UK growth, bringing research expertise, global networks and diverse perspectives that support innovation, commercialisation and the domestic workforce. International research talent complements, rather than substitutes for, domestic capability. The Government recognises the need for a sustained and attractive UK offer for both domestic and international researchers, combining research funding opportunities with an immigration system that secures talent for the long term.
e. The Government’s approach to risk is necessarily an all-of-government and all-of-society effort, with science and technology playing a key role. The Government has a strong set of tools and a framework-based methodology to ensure that its approach to risk is coherent and responsive. The Government recognises the risk of being overly dependent on foreign suppliers, and the National Security Strategy emphasises the need to nurture and protect high-growth sectors from harm and to develop asymmetric strengths. The Government will continue to partner with like-minded countries on science and technology, and where appropriate coordinate respective approaches and strengthen scientific collaboration. The Government considers benefits and risks and conducts a realistic appraisal of partners when deciding with whom to establish science partnerships.
(Recommendation, Paragraph 49): For the six frontier technologies in the Digital and Technologies Sector Plan, and for space, the government should bring forward detailed, cross-government strategies accompanied by clear delivery plans. The forthcoming Plan for Space provides an important opportunity to do this. These strategies should set out national capability priorities, funding commitments, responsible departments, and measurable targets, as well as which technologies should be controlled by government, by UK industry and institutions, by non-UK firms operating in the UK, and whether our goals in each are leadership, competitiveness, or capacity. The strategies should move beyond high level ambition to provide a clear framework for execution, ensuring that investment is targeted, decisions are prioritised, and the UK is positioned as a credible and consistent international partner.
a. The Government published the Digital and Technologies Sector Plan in 2025 as the UK’s national strategy for supporting growth in the digital and technologies sector. The sector plan forms part of the wider cross-government Industrial Strategy and covers the factors affecting business growth across multiple departments, including investment, skills, infrastructure, regulation and access to international markets. It focuses on frontier technologies where the UK has world-leading strengths and which offer the greatest potential to drive economic growth, strengthen national security and enhance the UK’s strategic advantage. The plan will continue to develop over time, and the Year One Update sets out progress made against measurable targets during the plan’s first year. A Digital and Technologies Sector Statistics Volume 1 has also been published, setting out how the sector is measured. The Government will continue to build on this work to support growth and reindustrialisation across the UK.
b. Alongside the sector plan, UKRI is developing delivery plans for each frontier technology to inform priorities and approaches to delivery in these areas. As this work progresses, UKRI will continue to communicate programme priorities, activities and funding opportunities. The Government has also published a number of technology-specific strategies that set out UK ambition, accompanied by measurable targets, including:
i. The Government’s response to the AI Opportunities Action Plan (2025) set out 50 actions across three priorities and identified responsible departments and delivery timelines, with implementation backed by over £2 billion through to 2030. The subsequent Compute Roadmap (2025) set out a ten-point plan for a world-class and resilient compute ecosystem, and the AI for Science Strategy (2025) set 15 actions to build leading AI-enabled science capabilities. In January 2026, the Government published a One Year On report and public dashboard.
ii. The AI Hardware Plan (2026) set out how the Government will secure Britain’s future capability in chips and the semiconductor technologies that underpin AI. This includes identifying national capabilities to build on, a clear set of interventions, funding commitments and responsible departments.
iii. The Government intends to publish the National Cyber Action Plan this year. The Plan will set out concrete actions on tackling the growing threat, strengthening collective resilience and harnessing the opportunity for the UK’s world-leading cyber sector to support economic growth.
iv. The Government’s ambition for quantum technologies is set out through the five National Quantum Missions. The recent Spending Review settlement has provided the funding to support delivery of those ambitions, including over £1 billion for the National Quantum Technologies Programme and a future procurement commitment of up to £1 billion for quantum computers.
v. Building on extensive work undertaken since the 2021 National Space Strategy, further clarified in the 2024 Space Industrial Plan, the Government is seeking to ensure a coherent and consistent offer to the sector, delivering vital outcomes for the UK. Space remains an essential part of the UK’s critical national infrastructure and an opportunity for economic growth, recognised in the 2025 Industrial Strategy’s Advanced Manufacturing Sector Plan. The Government intends to bring forward a new UK Space Strategy later this year, accompanied by a delivery plan setting out the actions it will take across government to deliver it.
3. Sovereignty
Own-collaborate-access
(Recommendation, Paragraph 62): The government should set out how it intends to protect its sovereignty in AI, in particular, in the face of fast-changing geopolitical and technological developments. The government should work with industry and academia to define sovereign capability for the five critical technologies outlined in its 2025 Science and Technology Framework. This should include setting a clear and consistent definition of sovereignty, supported by detailed analysis of technology supply chains to identify critical components, dependencies, and areas of comparative UK strength. This should be published—or at least shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee—and used to guide investment, procurement, and research funding decisions.
a. The Government agrees that the UK must protect and strengthen sovereign capability in AI and other critical technologies in a fast-changing geopolitical context. The Government is also strengthening existing alliances and forging new partnerships with the US, EU and like-minded partners to shape technological change that promotes sustainable and secure prosperity.
b. This means building domestic capability where the UK has strengths and can create leverage; collaborating with trusted partners where this strengthens UK access, advantage and influence; and maintaining secure access to critical capabilities where frontier access is essential and domestic ownership is neither realistic nor desirable. The Government is already taking action through the AI Opportunities Action Plan, the Sovereign AI Fund and the AI Hardware Plan to build out critical infrastructure and support UK AI companies at key parts of the AI value chain.
c. Ministers have set out the UK’s approach to AI sovereignty in public statements. The Government will continue to develop its evidence base on critical technology supply chains, dependencies and UK strengths, and will share relevant developments with Parliament through established routes, while recognising national security and commercial sensitivities.
(Recommendation, Paragraph 64): The Government should operationalise the own–collaborate–access framework by applying it at the level of specific capabilities within technology stacks, rather than to technologies as a whole. It should publish assessments setting out which components the UK seeks to own, where it should prioritise collaboration, and where access will be required. These priorities should be aligned with the broader international strategy for science and tech, as outlined in the previous chapter.
a. The own-collaborate-access framework is a useful tool for analysing the UK’s sovereignty needs within technology stacks and is already in use as part of technology policy-making. The Government will continue to develop and refine this approach, applying it within technology stacks to strengthen understanding and decision-making.
b. The Government will continue to consider how best to articulate outcomes and UK priorities publicly as part of its wider approach to technology sovereignty and international strategy, recognising national security and commercial sensitivities.
Decision-making and specialisation
(Recommendation, Paragraph 69): The government should provide greater clarity on its approach to technological specialisation. This should include setting out, in specific terms, the capabilities and sub-sectors it intends to prioritise within broad fields such as space and quantum. It should also publish the criteria and evidence base used to inform these decisions, including how considerations such as market opportunity, existing strengths, sovereign capability, and international competition have been weighed. Greater transparency would strengthen confidence in these choices and help ensure that public and private investment is directed effectively.
a. The Government has made long-term commitments to developing UK leadership in frontier technologies where the UK has world-leading strengths and the greatest potential to support economic growth. This is set out across the Industrial Strategy Sector Plans. These technologies are at different levels of maturity and require different approaches to specialisation. The following section sets out how the Government has identified and supported specific capabilities and subsectors within them.
i. Advanced Materials. To drive developments in strategic advanced material sectors, government has supported academic and industrial communities in developing roadmaps to increase materials innovation translation and application. Through the National Material Innovation Programme, over £80 million is being invested to support the development and adoption of new and improved strategically important materials in priority high-growth sectors and build strong domestic capability and industrial ecosystems in key strategic materials areas. The industry-led National Materials Innovation Strategy also includes an assessment of the UK sector.
ii. Advanced Connectivity Technologies (ACT). The Government recently published an externally commissioned sector study to provide a fuller assessment of the scale, profile and economic contribution of the sector. Through the £240 million ACT R&D Programme, the Government will drive greater ACT development in the UK with an increased focus on commercialisation, leveraging UK strengths and priority applications such as defence, transport and future telecoms networks, including satellites.
iii. Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Government is specialising in parts of the AI value chain where the UK can turn its strengths in research, talent, data and start-up formation into lasting economic and strategic advantage, rather than seeking to replicate every layer of the global AI stack. Sovereign AI, backed by £500 million, is supporting promising AI companies to scale and remain anchored in the UK. Its priority domains include compute and infrastructure, novel model development, AI for health and life sciences, AI for scientific discovery, and AI trust, safety and assurance. An updated AI sector study is also expected to be published in autumn 2026.
iv. Cyber Security. The UK government publishes an annual Cyber Sectoral Analysis that includes a taxonomy of the sector. The cyber sector is still predominantly services based with 80% of firms working in that subsector, and has emerging specialisms in post-quantum cryptography. The UK has globally recognised expertise in quantum-safe cryptography, centred around firms such as PQShield and Arqit, alongside strong academic research from Oxford, Bristol, Royal Holloway, and other universities. The NCSC has established dedicated PQC migration programmes and assurance schemes to build UK capability. A rapidly emerging strength is securing AI systems and applying AI to cyber defence. The Sectoral Analysis has identified 111 UK cyber security firms operating in this subsector, an increase of 45 firms from the previous year demonstrating that it is a rapidly growing technology area.
v. Engineering Biology. £643m is being invested into supporting the ecosystem for Engineering Biology including R&D, infrastructure and regulatory reform, to realise the potential of engineering biology across multiple applications. Within this, is the Value Chain Growth Fund which aims to support foundational capabilities in engineering biology.
vi. Quantum. The UK has developed strengths across a broad range of quantum technologies and capabilities. As the sector matures, maintaining international competitiveness will require investment to be increasingly focused on the capabilities, infrastructure and supply chains most critical to long-term growth and strategic advantage. This approach is reflected in the five National Quantum Missions which set long-term outcomes for the sector focused on the most promising areas of economic growth and security that could be delivered by nascent UK industrial capability. Each Mission has funding and delivery interventions calibrated to the maturity of different technologies and markets, recognising that opportunities and priorities will continue to evolve over time. In quantum computing, for example, the Government continues to support a range of technology approaches while there remains uncertainty over which modalities will ultimately prove the most commercially and technically successful. The ProQure programme will allow us to rapidly identify the most promising approaches and target investment over time to deliver cutting-edge capability in the UK. This approach ensures that future prioritisation is informed by technological progress, market developments and the UK’s areas of comparative strength.
vii. Robotics. The UK has leading firms in robotics software, simulation and design, robot surgery, and autonomous vehicles with new service sector use cases – including logistics and mobility, energy, agriculture, and healthcare – representing a significant growth opportunity. The UK’s external expert Robotics Advisory Group is supporting with assessments to define key UK strengths and capabilities to help inform the future approach.
viii. Semiconductors. The Government published the AI Hardware Plan to secure Britain’s future capability and strategic advantage in the chips and semiconductor technologies that underpin AI, establishing the UK as one of the leading places in the world to develop, demonstrate, deploy and scale next-generation AI hardware. The Plan identifies priority technology areas within AI hardware where the UK combines existing strengths, strategic importance and market opportunity, including compute, photonics, sensors and power electronics. The Plan was published alongside an updated UK semiconductor sector study that provides a supporting evidence base for the identification of UK capability in this area.
ix. Space. As outlined in Minister Lloyd’s speech at Space Comm Expo 2026, with further detail to be set out in the forthcoming UK Space Strategy, the Government is refocusing its approach to space. The Government will prioritise four subsectors—Satellite Communications, Space Domain Awareness, In-Orbit Servicing, Assembly and Manufacturing, and Assured Access to Space—to develop the capabilities required for defence and national security and to secure economic growth outcomes for the UK. The UKSA 2024 Space Industry sector study also includes an assessment of the UK sector.
Investment
(Recommendation, Paragraph 81): 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 government should use its own procurement more strategically to support innovative companies, providing them with early revenue, validation, and a pathway to scale within the UK, particularly in strategically important sectors. We encourage the government to move ahead with its proposed dedicated unit to increase procurement of innovation.
a. The Government agrees that specialist investment capability, sector-specific expertise and the strategic use of public procurement are important to helping innovative companies scale in the UK, particularly in strategically important science and technology sectors. The Government is already strengthening the investment landscape through expanded British Business Bank capacity, the National Security Strategic Investment Fund, the £500m Sovereign AI Fund, the Science & Technology Venture Capital Fellowship, investor capability initiatives and support for Cluster Innovation Hubs.
b. The Government is also supporting the development of a deeper and more diverse specialist investment ecosystem. This includes the British Business Bank’s Enterprise Capital Funds programme, the £400m Investor Pathways Capital initiative, support for new and emerging fund managers, efforts to attract leading international investors to establish UK-focused operations, and work with pension providers and the Office for Investment to explore a £1bn+ UK Scale-up Fund. The Government recognises the value of place-based and sector-specific models such as Northern Gritstone and Midlands Mindforge, but considers that these should develop through enabling conditions aligned with local strengths and market opportunities, rather than being mandated centrally.
c. The Government also recognises that public procurement can support innovative companies by providing early revenue, validation and routes to scale. Through the Modern Industrial Strategy, the Commercial Innovation Hub, departmental Procurement of Innovation Champions, forward procurement pipelines, SME spend targets and defence innovation reforms, the Government is taking action to make procurement more effective in supporting innovation while maintaining value for money and public accountability. This includes ringfencing at least 10% of the Ministry of Defence equipment budget for novel technologies, investing an additional £400m through UK Defence Innovation, and increasing Ministry of Defence spending with UK SMEs by £2.5bn by 2028.
4. Research Security
UK Biobank and Approaches to security
(Recommendation, Paragraph 90): The government should provide clearer and more detailed guidance on how institutions should approach research security, aligned with its wider strategy for international collaboration, as set out in chapter 1. This should include better information-sharing between government and institutions to support decision-making and a review of how central advisory functions such as the Research Collaboration Advice Team are operating and how they can be strengthened to better support researchers in navigating security risks.
a. A thriving R&D sector, supported by a strong research security culture, is essential for national security and economic growth. The Government aims to balance national security, openness and international collaboration so that the UK remains a safe and attractive destination for study and scientific research. The BIST-based Research Collaboration Advice Team (RCAT) is central to this effort, offering tailored guidance on national security risks and helping institutions understand and manage those risks. Since March 2022, specialist RCAT advisers based across the UK have carried out more than 3,800 engagements, providing advice and support to over 155 UK research institutions.
b. The Government continues to assess its approach against evolving threats and is taking forward further work through the UK’s first Research Security Strategy, to be launched later in 2026. The Strategy will set out a single government view of research security and support a more coordinated approach across government and the sector. This work will help strengthen the guidance, information-sharing and support available to institutions as they navigate research security risks. The Government will also launch a Research Security Fund to support research security risk management and protective security measures in UK research institutions.
Funding challenges and international students
(Recommendation, Paragraph 92): In its response to this report, the government should set out a clear, cross-departmental strategy for ensuring a secure and sustainable domestic talent pipeline in the key scientific and technological capabilities it has identified as critical to the UK’s future prosperity and security. This should include an assessment of current and projected skills needs, and should set out how the government will determine and maintain an appropriate balance between domestic and international talent in these areas, ensuring that reliance on overseas recruitment does not undermine the development of domestic capability.
a. The Government agrees that a secure and sustainable domestic talent pipeline is essential to the UK’s future prosperity and security, and that it must be developed alongside, rather than in place of, the UK’s ability to attract international expertise.
b. The Industrial Strategy Jobs Plans, published in July 2026, set out the workforce and skills challenges facing each of the eight growth-driving sectors, providing an assessment of current and projected skills needs in the areas most critical to future growth. The balance between domestic and international provision is explicitly tensioned through the Labour Market Evidence Group, comprising the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, the Migration Advisory Committee, the Department for Work and Pensions and Skills England, which shares evidence and analysis to support shifting the balance of the labour market away from reliance on overseas workers and towards employing more domestic workers.
c. The Government is also investing substantially in the domestic research pipeline. UKRI, the largest national research and innovation investor in Europe, is investing over £9 billion each year, and has allocated £806 million to Collective Talent funding in 2026/27, supporting doctoral training and fellowship schemes including the Future Leaders Fellowships, which have supported over 700 fellows since 2018. UKRI is committed to building a diverse and sustainable talent pipeline through flagship fellowship and mobility schemes and enhanced commercialisation training, and the proportion of international students supported through UKRI Training Grants is normally capped at 30%, explicitly balancing the attraction of international talent with the development of domestic capability. The Government also provides core funding to the four National Academies, rising from £219 million in 2026/27 to £230 million in 2029/30. Access to international talent is complementary to, rather than a substitute for, domestic skills development, due to the inherent benefits in supporting UK domestic science.