According to Innovation News Network, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has issued an alarming report titled “Bleeding to Death: The Science and Technology Growth Emergency” that warns the UK’s failure to retain and scale science and technology companies has reached crisis levels. Committee Chair Lord Mair stated the UK’s inability to keep economic benefits from its R&D efforts represents a “fatal flaw” in any growth strategy, with the country experiencing sluggish productivity growth and near-flat real wages since the global financial crisis. The report calls for urgent and radical reforms including clearer leadership through a new National Council for Science, Technology and Growth, counterproductive visa policy reforms, and increased pension fund investment in UK tech companies. Without decisive action from the Prime Minister and Chancellor, the Committee believes the UK risks acting too late to stop the economic bleeding from its science and technology sector.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The leadership problem
Here’s the thing about government reports – they often identify problems everyone already knows about but rarely propose concrete solutions. This one actually does. The call for a National Council for Science, Technology and Growth reporting directly to the Prime Minister and Chancellor suggests they recognize that science policy has been fragmented across too many departments for too long. But we’ve seen these “super committees” before. The real question is whether any government has the attention span to stick with this stuff beyond the next election cycle. Science and tech growth requires decade-long commitments, not quarterly political wins.
Where’s the money?
The pension fund issue is particularly damning. Basically, UK pension funds have been pulling money out of domestic science and tech companies for decades, leaving promising startups starved of capital right when they need it most. So these companies either die or get bought by overseas investors who reap the economic benefits. The Committee wants to force pension funds to invest in UK tech through measures like clawbacks on tax reliefs. That’s pretty radical stuff – essentially telling pension funds “if you want tax benefits, you need to invest in UK growth.” It’s controversial, but when you’re bleeding, you need tourniquets, not bandaids.
The talent problem
And then there’s the visa issue. The report basically says the UK is rolling out red tape instead of red carpets for the very scientists and entrepreneurs it claims to want. This isn’t just about being welcoming – it’s economic suicide. When brilliant researchers can’t get visas, they go to countries that actually want them. The US, Canada, Australia – they’re all competing for the same talent. The UK’s current approach? It’s like trying to win a race with ankle weights.
Government as customer
The public procurement recommendation is smarter than it sounds. Instead of just giving grants, the government could actually become a customer for innovative UK companies. The US Small Business Innovation Research program has been doing this for decades – requiring government agencies to spend a percentage of their R&D budgets with small businesses. It creates real customers, not just charity cases. But this requires government officials to take risks on new technologies, which goes against every bureaucratic instinct. The full report makes it clear that without changing the risk-averse culture in Whitehall, even the best policies will fail.
Too many cooks?
The proposal to consolidate Innovate UK, the British Business Bank, and the National Wealth Fund into one entity is interesting. On one hand, it could create a sovereign wealth fund-style powerhouse. On the other, it could just create another bureaucratic monster. The UK has a habit of reorganizing institutions instead of actually fixing them. What really matters isn’t the organizational chart – it’s whether these bodies have enough funding and the right mandate to take smart risks on UK innovation.
The bottom line
This report isn’t just another government document gathering dust. The language is unusually urgent – “bleeding to death,” “crisis point,” “fatal flaw.” They’re not mincing words. The Committee seems to understand that the UK is at a make-or-break moment. Either it fixes its science and tech scaling problem now, or it resigns itself to being a farm team for other countries’ innovation economies. The question is whether any government will actually implement these recommendations with the speed and seriousness the situation demands. My guess? We’ll probably see some half-measures and then another report in five years saying the same things.
