Time for a super-ministry to lead the fourth industrial revolution

When I was elected to parliament, one of the first things that I campaigned on was the need to develop a comprehensive industrial strategy.

The future of the country depends on a strong industrial base – not least because this is the starting point for the innovation that will maintain the UK’s position as a world-leading economy.

I was therefore delighted when one of Theresa May’s first actions as Prime Minister was to create a new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Beis). This was a bold move, and was followed up with a comprehensive industrial strategy drafted after much engagement with businesses and universities.

However, as Britain is on the cusp of the fourth industrial revolution, the benefits of at last having such a strategy are at risk if we do not match it with the machinery of government capable of delivering it.

Beis should be a key governmental department, a heavyweight policy hub capable of holding its own against other institutions like the Treasury.

Shortly after leaving parliament, I co-wrote a paper for King’s College London on the need to beef up Beis so that it could truly deliver on the ambition of the industrial strategy.

I even proposed renaming it to become solely the “Department for Industrial Strategy”, to make absolutely clear that this was a central pillar of the government’s agenda.

The strands that need to be brought together to realise the economic transformation our country needs are immense in scope. Traditional elements such as energy and infrastructure are essential. We need better coordination across government on the skills agenda to make use of all our talents.

Getting different results also requires different ways of doing business. We need to grow diverse types of businesses, such as social enterprises, which have the potential to boost investment, transform communities, and improve economic competitiveness.

Crucially, we need to create thriving communities where the industries of the future can be based. This requires looking at areas which might not seem at first to relate to industrial strategy, but which are vital to its success.

Think about housing, for example. Training and attracting talent are vital, but if workers have nowhere to live nearby the growing industrial hubs that are to power the next revolution in technology and business, we will restrict their development.

This is why the industrial strategy rightly talked about the importance of place in achieving success. But how do we ensure this coordination when functions are split across a variety of departments?

This question is why I was so pleased to read the reports last week that the government may be finally thinking about creating a new “super-ministry” to bring together key elements of policy including business, energy, transport, infrastructure, and housing into one “strategic” department.

This may seem like a radical move in the UK, but elsewhere in the world it has been carried out with great success. The most famous super-ministry has been the Japanese Ministry for International Trade and Industry. This was key in delivering Japan’s economic miracle after the Second World War.

Strong departments have similarly been created in the “Asian Tiger” economies, such as South Korea and Singapore.

If we truly want to turbocharge our industrial policy, we need to learn the lessons of success from across the world. We cannot be too proud to learn from our competitors.

Putting the words “industrial strategy” in the title of a government department was a big step forward. But the Prime Minister has an opportunity now to show her commitment beyond title changes through the creation of a new super-ministry.

If May takes that opportunity in the next cabinet reshuffle, she will create a platform upon which Britain can lead the fourth industrial revolution.