Skip to main content

UK microchip supply has failed.

 

British businesses are "at risk" because the government has failed to set a coherent blueprint for a microchip supply industry, according to a critical report from the influential cross-party business select committee of MPs. A semiconductor strategy was due this autumn from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. It added that Britain is also missing out on inward investment and falling behind other governments taking the issue more seriously. Semiconductors are the brains of modern electronics, vital for everything from consumer products to healthcare and cars.

The crisis in the UK industry, from continuing uncertainty over the ownership of the technology firm Arm Holdings to government intervention over China's links to the chip manufacturer Newport Wafer Fab, has thrust the lack of a strategy into the spotlight. Globally, the industry is worth more than $500 billion and is expected to be more than $1 trillion by 2030. The UK, meanwhile, is racing to prevent supply disruptions from geopolitical disputes such as the tensions between China and Taiwan, a key semiconductor producer. In recent months, the US and the EU announced they were putting $53 billion and €43 billion behind growing their own industries.

Europe plans to produce 20 per cent of the world's semiconductors by 2030 as opposed to 8 per cent today. In this race for chip dominance, the US has gone a step further and banned exports to China that could help it develop advanced semiconductor technology. South Wales has a cluster of sophisticated compound semiconductor businesses and research centres. It said the primary responsibility for these "essential ingredients" should be clarified and should lie with the department for business as it is responsible for industrial strategy rather than the digital department or other government areas.

At a time when the EU and US have both announced substantial state investment in the sector, there is a palpable sense of frustration at the delay in the UK's strategy.

www.sba.tax

Labels:

Comments

  1. Christine28 November 2022 at 14:25

    Why is the UK delay this? It's such an important area today so why isn't the UK devoting a lot more resources to this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeremy28 November 2022 at 14:54

      It's either because they just don't know what to do or can't make up their minds as to which is the right course of action or it's because some are receiving money from other Governments (China, etc) to not invest heavily in this sector. It could be all of these or just 1 or 2.

      Delete
    2. Aaron28 November 2022 at 16:21

      They are just incompetents and too many of them are working in cozy jobs in the Government. The world is fighting to find a way to increase production of microchips and the UK is just waiting around to see what happens. It's unbelievable!

      Delete
    3. Jeremy28 November 2022 at 17:05

      Yes, I agree. There are many of them just wasting time, not doing much to move the needle. It’s not just our leaders that are at fault. We are all to blame because we keep voting them into office and accepting things like Brexit to go along which is and will bring many more bad things/changes for us all.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Cloud Bookkeeping

HS2 cost cuts new routes and add delays.

 Trans­port depart­ment offi­cials have begun work on «Project Sil­ver­light» sug­gest­ing the high­speed rail scheme might face four addi­tional years of delay. The planned High Speed 2 rail line faces fur­ther delays of up to four years and more cuts to the project under plans being drawn up by min­is­ters to rein in its bal­loon­ing costs. The extra delays to the coun­try’s biggest infra­struc­ture project would mean that it would not be com­pleted until as late as 2045 — 12 years after ori­gin­ally planned. «This is a func­tion of infla­tion; we are hav­ing to find huge sav­ings because the cost of everything the depart­ment is already doing will have become so much more expens­ive by then,» said one gov­ern­ment offi­cial. In Octo­ber, the FT repor­ted that the Treas­ury had asked HS2’s man­age­ment team to identify poten­tial cuts or «scope reduc­tions» to the high-speed line. Trans­port depart­ment offi­cials have sub­sequently begun work on Project Sil­ver­light aimed at fi...
4 comments
Read more

Doubt on CS's collateral.

  Credit Suisse provided an emergency $140mn loan to Greensill Capital based partly on invoices to companies that deny ever doing the business stated on the documents. The Swiss bank provided the loan in October 2020, less than five months before the collapse of Greensill, a supply chain finance firm that counted former British prime minister David Cameron as a senior adviser. Invoices issued by metals magnate Sanjeev Gupta’s Liberty Commodities and sold to Greensill formed part of the collateral for the loan, according to documents seen by the Financial Times and people familiar with the transaction. Yet several of the parties named on the invoices have told the FT they did no business with Liberty. GFG has consistently denied any wrongdoing. Credit Suisse’s loan had a clause dictating that the collateral value had to be equal to or greater than the $140mn borrowed. The terms of the debt agreement only allowed invoices on Green-sill’s balance sheet to count towards this tally if t...
2 comments
Read more

Small business will be excluded from fraud law.

  Min­is­ters are plan­ning to exclude small busi­nesses from anti-fraud legis­la­tion by nar­row­ing the scope of a crim­inal offence tar­get­ing com­pan­ies that fail to pre­vent eco­nomic crimes. MPs and anti-cor­rup­tion cam­paign­ers had hoped the gov­ern­ment would seek to amend the eco­nomic crime and cor­por­ate trans­par­ency bill to ensure the new offence covered all com­pan­ies. The plans to limit the scope of the amend­ments will also dis­ap­point those who had hoped the legis­la­tion would remove key hurdles to the pro­sec­u­tion of white-col­lar crime. A new «fail­ure to pre­vent» offence for fraud would bring it in line with exist­ing sim­ilar cor­por­ate offences for bribery and tax eva­sion. At present, pro­sec­utors need only prove that organ­isa­tions lacked «reas­on­able» or «adequate» con­trols to pur­sue the offence in bribery and tax eva­sion cases. «It would be much more sens­ible for the gov­ern­ment to provide strong guid­ance for SMEs on what these pro­ce...
3 comments
Read more