Three Big Ideas is our weekly roundup of ideas (and our takes on them) in entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology, handpicked by the team.
In this week, Eamonn Ives brings news worth cheering about for pigs around the world, Jessie May Green looks at potential growing opportunities in using wild plants for medical purposes, and a guest contribution comes from Bright Blue’s Will Prescott on a smarter way approach to the minimal salary threshold immigrant workers need to clear.
Today, we published an open letter to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Peter Kyle, asking him to urge Members of Parliament and Peers to reject amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that threaten to undermine the Government’s careful and consultative approach to legislating on copyright and AI development. Below is the text of the letter and the full list of its signatories, who consist of leading AI founders, investors and academics. Anyone wanting to also sign the letter can do so here.
Dear Secretary of State,
Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents a generational opportunity to grow the economy, cement the UK’s strategic advantage in science and technology and reshape the delivery of public services for the better. British-based companies, researchers and institutions are already creating and using AI tools to make scientific breakthroughs, build businesses, improve health outcomes, enhance creativity and make people’s lives easier.
Since coming to power, this Government has taken decisive actions to ensure Britain can lead the world in the development of new AI technologies. The publication of the AI Opportunities Action Plan sets out the laudable ambition for the UK to be an “AI maker, not an AI taker,” and provides a solid blueprint for a thriving ecosystem of AI developers and users.
We welcome the Government’s intention to follow the consultation process and to consider the impact of any proposals before developing legislative solutions. Unfortunately, amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill proposed in the Lords threaten to undermine that process.
Tabled before the Government had an opportunity to review submissions to the consultation intended to help develop viable proposals for copyright reform, these amendments pose a serious threat to the UK’s potential to lead in AI. We appreciate that some Parliamentarians feel strongly about these issues, but hurried decision making of this kind will not deliver a sustainable outcome for British businesses seeking to develop and deploy innovative new AI services.
The debate around AI and copyright is complex. Navigating that complexity is not helped by legislation that sidelines the considered perspectives of those who are directly driving innovation in Britain’s AI ecosystem.
As founders of and investors in British companies that are leading the charge to keep Britain at the forefront of the global AI industry, we ask that you urge Members of Parliament and Peers to reject these amendments and instead explore workable proposals that stand up to scrutiny.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Lord Tarassenko – Founder and Director, Oxehealth
Professor Alison Noble CBE – Founder, Intelligent Ultrasound
Sir John Michael Brady – Founder, Perspectum; Founder, Optellum; Director, Naitive Technologies; Founder, ScreenPoint Medical; CEO, Oxford Community Diagnostics Centre
Professor Niki Trigoni – Founder and Chief Science Officer, Navenio
Professor Paul Newman – Founder, CTO and President, Oxa Autonomy
Mark Girolami – Sir Kirby Laing Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Cambridge
Rodolfo Rosini – Co-Founder, Vaire Computing
Stephen Roberts – Co-Founder, Mind Foundry
Michael A. Osborne – Co-Founder, Mind Foundry
Professor Philip Torr – Co-Founder, Director and Chief Technologist, Aistetic
William Briggs – Founder and CEO, Naitive Technologies
Sarah Drinkwater – Solo GP, Common Magic
Jonathan Gilmore – Founder and CEO, DeepFlow
Irina Pafomova – Co-Founder, Zestic AI
Andres Guadamuz – Reader in Intellectual Property Law, University of Sussex
John Spindler – Founder, Twin Path Ventures
Michael Slade –Founder, Retainit
Sam Bose – Founder and CEO, IntelliSense.io
Oliver Cameron – Co-Founder and CEO, Odyssey
Jeff Hawke – Co-Founder and CTO, Odyssey
Alasdair Thong – Head of Sovereign Innovation, Alloy Therapeutics
Typical. You wait months for a trade deal, and then two come along at once. But these are very different beasts. First, India; one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing economies, with a huge and youthful population. Here, a trade deal provides British entrepreneurs with easier access to a vast and expanding consumer base.
It should be acknowledged that this has been in the making since January 2022, but hats off to the Government for getting it over the line. As I said to Sifted:
“Given the strength of both countries in technology and services, opportunities will open up for British firms to offer fintech, edtech, and professional services in India without requiring a physical presence.
“Critically, UK entrepreneurs will benefit from being among the first foreign entrants in newly-liberalised Indian sectors, giving them an edge over competitors in countries without a deal.”
Having visited many of India’s big cities, I’m more bullish than most. A trip to Gurgaon sticks in my mind. It’s India's 56th largest city in terms of population, eighth largest in terms of wealth, and the country’s second-largest information technology hub. I met countless razor-sharp, hugely ambitious young people building incredible things. It goes without saying that India, like all countries, has challenges to overcome, but it also has a huge amount of potential – potential that we could tap into in more ways than just trade.
After all, everyone knows that many of Silicon Valley’s – and by extension the world’s – biggest companies are run by people hailing from the most populous democracy on Earth. The UK has also benefited hugely from Indian-born founders, as our Job Creators reports have shown.
Those reports also show that many of the UK’s most successful founders (as judged by company valuation) are foreign-born and come to the UK to study before starting and growing their businesses here. If the forthcoming Immigration White Paper limits the ability of people to stay here after graduation (as has been rumoured), the impact on the UK will be profoundly damaging to entrepreneurship. It would mean vast swathes of future high-potential firms won’t be built in the UK (it will also slam universities and local economies across Britain).
The other trade deal was, of course, with the US. While it’s understandable that the UK Government signed the deal, I think the more sober assessments of Britain’s broadsheets are about right, with Alan Beattie writing that “the pact is closer to a protection payment to a mob boss than a liberalising agreement between sovereign countries.”
For our part, as per our Towards A More Special Relationship report, in partnership with Rigby Group, we continue to make the case for small steps towards a better agreement. British businesses are certainly optimistic, expecting tariffs to be withdrawn within six months, according to polling by Boston Consulting Group.
Uncanny Valleys
Our Head of Science and Technology Anastasia Bektimirova sat down with Graeme Reid, Professor of Science and Research Policy at UCL, to discuss the forces reshaping Britain’s innovation landscape since the 1980s. Having advised governments on science policy over the years, Graeme shared thoughts on how academia-industry-government relationships have shifted over the decades.
“The valley of death weakness has been diagnosed many times. We know the problem and don’t need another review to confirm it. What we need now is a solution.”
This blunt assessment cuts to the heart of a peculiar affliction: diagnosing problems in our innovation ecosystem without implementing lasting solutions.
For example, “one of the problems is the turbulence in regional funding,” he explains, describing how promising initiatives are repeatedly replaced before they can demonstrate effectiveness.
“Just as it begins to show promise – five or seven years later – it’s replaced by something similar but with slightly different terms or people, essentially starting over from scratch.”
This pattern appears across the innovation landscape, from the challenges of science-based companies scaling up to academic-policy engagement. Read the full interview here.
Butler Did It
I’m delighted to welcome Buzzacott as our latest Corporate Partner and Iain Butler, their Head of Innovation Incentives, as our latest Adviser.
Iain specialises in R&D Tax Credits, but has spent ten years as an R&D team manager and engineer himself in the space, semiconductor, and media industries, so truly understands the challenges these teams face.
“For the UK to truly thrive, it must bolster the R&D and innovation efforts of ambitious entrepreneurs and SMEs. We are committed to collaborating with The Entrepreneurs Network to ensure that SME innovation remains a focal point in Westminster’s discussions.”
We’ll be hosting a roundtable discussion with Buzzacott on R&D Tax Credits as part of our partnership. If the last few conversations I’ve had with entrepreneurs is anything to go by, I know this will be oversubscribed.
If you’re keen to discuss becoming an Adviser or Corporate Partner, you can find out more here, and book a time to speak with me here.
In our latest interview, Anastasia Bektimirova spoke to Graeme Read, Professor of Science and Research Policy at University College London. They discussed how the relationships between academia, business and government have changed in the last several decades and how these have impacted science and technology innovation in Britain.
Three Big Ideas is our weekly roundup of ideas (and our takes on them) in entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology, handpicked by the team.
In this week, Eamonn Ives explains why de minimis exemptions on imports are a good thing, Philip Salter argues the case against restricting visas for international students, and Anastasia Bektimirova dives into how the design of AI microsites influences our perception of their messages.
🧑🎓 Philip Salter, Founder
Rumours abound that the Government is considering restricting international students by curtailing the Graduate visa route. This pathway allows international students to stay in the UK for two years after graduation, or three years for those with a PhD. It makes studying in the UK more attractive and serves as a draw for universities looking to attract the very best and brightest. Even the Home Office’s own data makes it clear that being able to work in the UK after studying is a pull.
Those young people then feed talent-hungry firms, which is why business leaders across the country are urging the government to consider the critical role that international students play in the growth and success of UK businesses.
We’ve been here before. Back in 2015, we teamed up with the NUS to produce Made in the UK, which made the case for the reintroduction of a post-study work visa that Theresa May had taken away. Economic sense prevailed. When it comes down to it, the British public wants local economic growth, universities offer by the bucket-load.
Over on his essential Substack, Tim Leunig unpacks the damage that could be caused to a place like Huddersfield. The university has a £180 million turnover – outpacing the £130m turnover of the area’s top private firm, UK Greetings, much of which comes from reselling imports. In contrast, the university imports virtually nothing and is a major exporter: every international student represents money flowing into the UK.
This story repeats across the country. Research by Public First shows that in over 100 constituencies, the local university is one of the top three exporters – more than any other sector. Of those, 85 are Labour seats. As Jonathan Simons puts it: “In a lot of towns your university is your car plant, it is your steel mill.”
Let’s not make ourselves at least £10 billion poorer each year. Not again.
📦 Eamonn Ives, Research Director
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last few months, you’ll know that tariffs are firmly back on the agenda. Thanks to US President Donald Trump’s zeal for taxing imports and subsequent retaliation by leaders of other countries and trading blocs, we’ve all had to become trade experts at breakneck speed. And though soaring headline tariff rates have captured most of the attention, other anti-trade related measures have also arisen.
One such example is the scrapping of ‘de minimis’ exemptions for tariffs that would otherwise apply to the import of low-value goods. Last Friday, Trump ended this ‘loophole’, as the White House calls it, which enabled parcels valued at less than $800 to enter the country duty-free. Closer to home, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced last month – while in Washington, perhaps not coincidentally – that she would review the tax treatment of low-value imports into Britain (currently our de minimis threshold is set at the much lower rate of £135).
While opinions differ on de minimis, the common justification in favour of it as a rule is that calculating and processing the tax that low-value imports would otherwise attract would simply not be financially worthwhile. Moreover, common sense dictates – and real-world evidence proves – that it would clog up already strained ports as lots of small shipments take extra time to be checked.
Some, including a lot of retail groups who stand to benefit from its abolition, argue against de minimis exemptions because it effectively creates a two-tier tax system. A more economically rational system would be neutral towards both low-value and high-value imports. Here at The Entrepreneurs Network, we’re guilty as anyone of professing our support for neutrality.
In this instance, however, I think it’s fair to say that tax idealism trades off against tax practicalities. While anyone can envision a more perfect tax system in the abstract, ensuring it works well in reality is another matter. (And, it goes without saying that reducing the scope of tariffs – as far from a feature of a perfect tax system as any – is generally going to be a good thing.)
A paper published last year estimated that ending de minimis in the US would not only reduce consumer welfare by between $10.9-13 billion, but also that these losses would be concentrated among lower-income and minority consumers. De minimismight translate to ‘of little importance’, but scrapping it would have profound consequences for living standards.
🧶 Anastasia Bektimirova, Head of Science and Technology
How much thought do we usually give to how a presentation format, such as text layout, colour palette, and visual pacing, shapes how compelling we find what we read? For example, how does the effect of the Situational Awareness microsite’s scrolling experience differ from going through a static PDF think tank policy report? A recent essay Scroll the Future: How AI microsites reshape persuasion, urgency, and memory by Ben Johnson, Professor of Practice in Research and Innovation Policy at the University of Strathclyde and Head of Science at the Centre for British Progress, makes one pause and think.
Ben writes about how these microsites – which have an influence on public discourse and policy thinking about AI – not only contain arguments about AI futures, but also constitute arguments through their very design:
“The microsite aesthetic is a velvet hammer. It hits softly but leaves a deep impression. Readers must be careful: just because a site looks serious does not mean every claim within it is equally serious. Minimalism is not a substitute for epistemic caution. [...] This carefully calibrated aesthetic performs substantial rhetorical work. It frames even highly speculative claims with an aura of plausibility and projects objectivity without having to explicitly argue for it.”
The scroll becomes our sensor, allowing these microsites to tap into our sensory apparatus: the rhythmic scrolling motion, the visual pacing of ideas, the progression through carefully designed screens. Their very form – the slow, deliberate scroll through carefully sequenced arguments – shapes how we perceive the content before we’ve even processed a single claim. Marshall McLuhan would have instantly recognised his “the medium is the message” working directly on our nervous systems in ways that can bypass some immediate rational filters.
While the strategic use of design for persuasion has a long history – from Victorian science papers whose austere typography signalled rigorous scholarship to Cold War white space giving ideologically charged arguments a veneer of neutrality – what’s noteworthy is how today’s digital environment is expanding the palette of persuasive techniques available to communicators. The microsite is an evolution of familiar rhetorical instruments which, as Ben writes, requires “new literacies not just of reading, but of pacing, aesthetic resistance, and epistemic humility.” As we scroll through these carefully designed narratives about future technological trajectories, the question becomes not just what we believe, but how the medium itself has already shaped what feels believable.
Yet we should maintain a healthy realism about the actual influence. While microsites may present certain technological futures with inevitability, the messy reality of institutional policy development and implementation tends to resist tidy narratives and the policy pathways that follow from them. They may shape the initial framing, but the real world inevitably introduces complexity that no scroll can fully contain.
Timing is everything in politics: when to call that election, when to U-turn on an unpopular policy, and when the moment’s right to spend more time with the family. It also matters to those trying to influence politics. You can have the best ideas in the world – or the worst – but you need to wait for a window of opportunity. When it comes to AI and copyright, that moment is now.
We’ve been talking about this for a fair while, and back in January last year we set out the challenges in our ‘Ronseal’ paper: Can the UK become competitive on text-and-data mining for AI? While we didn’t take an exact line on the solution, we wanted to draw attention to the fact that other countries were moving faster than the United Kingdom in securing the legal foundations for training AI models, with Japan, Singapore and the European Union each providing competitive models for the UK to consider.
Over recent months, this issue has become front-page news thanks to artists like Elton John, Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa adding their celebrated voices to the debate. Sadly, I don’t think this thorny policy is going to be solved by even the genius behind Yesterday – anyone who has a simple solution to what’s going on is either deluding themselves or lying to you.
As a new survey of 500 UK-based AI developers and investors revealed this week, there is a near-unanimous reliance on text and data mining (TDM) – the process of using automated techniques to train AI models. Of those surveyed, 99% said TDM is essential, while 76% said the absence of a copyright exemption for TDM – like that in the US, EU, or Japan – would make the UK less attractive for AI investment
For our part, we have a modest recommendation: listen to experts, including entrepreneurs. This is actually the Government line, as Ministers and officials pore over the 11,000 responses to a consultation they launched on copyright and AI in December 2024.
However, this process could all be derailed. On the back of the Data (Use and Access) Bill – a separate piece of legislation which addresses a broad range of priorities related to data – Peers have proposed adding changes to that Bill regarding how UK copyright law is applied to AI services.
Among other things, it would require developers to disclose comprehensive information regarding all text and data used in the pre-training, training and fine-tuning of general purpose AI on a monthly basis.
These proposals have been introduced outside the process of consultation that was launched precisely to inform the Government’s approach on copyright and AI. It’s a divisive issue, but surely we can all agree that any proposals with significant implications for businesses and innovation should be considered through proper channels. What’s the point of asking industry for their views if they are just going to be ignored?
Now is the time to act. It may seem perverse to dynamic founders who can pivot on a sixpence, but Westminster is a place where inertia too often rules the roost. Once the legislative train leaves the station, it can become impossible to switch tracks – even when many on board know their going the wrong way.
If you’re a founder, investor or just an interested party, drop me an email to find out how you could get involved.
Take a Punt
On Wednesday, we are hosting our second Young Entrepreneurs Forum Meetup in Cambridge. If you are a young founder – or wannabe founder – in or around the area, it would be great to see you there. (If you know of any young founders who you think should know, either pass this on or tag them in this LinkedIn post, which also helps get the word out either wider.)
The Young Entrepreneurs Forum is an international project from The Entrepreneurs Network. It aims to connect and empower young entrepreneurs who are building incredible things across the world, and to influence governments to create better enabling environments for young entrepreneurs.
⏪ Eamonn Ives, Research Director
Passing laws in Britain is usually pretty easy. Ensuring they work properly is the challenging part. We have a tendency in this country to legislate with the noblest of intentions, but also with little clarity on what success should look like. What we* might term ‘post-legislative scrutiny’ often goes missing, which creates a host of issues later down the line. (*Or more accurately in this instance, Lord Goodman, whose recent posts about the Football Governance Bill inspired this blog.)
One way to improve things would be to treat major legislation more like a scientific experiment. That would mean defining, upfront, a set of testable hypotheses: measurable goals the law is supposed to achieve, and a timeframe for achieving them. We might also want to establish a formal, independent process to judge whether those goals have been met. This task could be allotted to relevant existing regulators, or to an ad hoc Parliamentary committee scheduled to be formed however many years in the future.
This would create a credible ‘off-ramp’ for bad policies. Politicians wouldn’t have to admit personal failure if their pet policy backfires. They could point to the independent verdict and move on. It would depoliticise course correction and normalise cleaning up mistakes, rather than entrenching them out of pride or fear of bad headlines.
Of course, no system would be perfect. Measuring policy impact is messy, and attribution is often contested. But simply having to define clear, testable objectives at the outset would itself be a step forward. It would force better policymaking by making aims concrete, and by keeping open the possibility that some ideas just won’t work.
If we really believe in evidence-based policymaking, maybe it’s time we started legislating with hypotheses we’re willing to test, and willing to abandon if they fail.
🐕 Philip Salter, Founder
It’s a dog’s life. At least it is, according to Trevor Klee, an entrepreneur who makes drugs for animals. He is often asked if there is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for animal drugs. There is – and, as he explains in Works in Progress, both human and animal regulators could learn from each other.
Back in 1983, the Orphan Drug Act was introduced to address the lack of treatments for rare human diseases – those affecting fewer than 200,000 Americans – by offering regulatory fast tracks, tax credits, and extended market exclusivity. These diseases had been largely neglected after the FDA tightened drug approval standards in the 1960s, making development too costly and risky for low-revenue conditions.
Seeing similar challenges in veterinary medicine, the animal health industry pushed in the 1990s to create an equivalent framework for neglected species and conditions. In 2004, the Minor Uses and Minor Species (MUMS) Act was introduced, going further – regulators were willing to take more risks with animals’ health, particularly for uncommon species and conditions.
In 2018, the FDA expanded the MUMS Act to include major uses in major species, if trials would be prohibitively expensive. This brought major diseases in cats and dogs into scope. Companies like Loyal aim to give dogs longer, healthier lives – and eventually help humans too.
Klee envisions a new FDA pathway for human drugs that lowers costs and complexity by allowing approval based on a reasonable link between biomarkers and outcomes, with follow-up trials within five years. This could reduce investor risk, encourage innovation in expensive fields like Alzheimer’s, reveal hidden disease variation, and make treatments more affordable.
The trade-off? Less certainty. Patients might pay out of pocket for unproven treatments and rely more on doctors’ judgement. But with strong post-market oversight, Klee thinks the benefits – access, affordability, and innovation – would outweigh the risks.
🛰️ Jessie May Green, Events and APPG for Entrepreneurship Coordinator
According to the IPCC, global greenhouse gas emissions need to peak this year in order to keep global warming to 1.5°C – or even 2°C – above pre-industrial levels. But how do we know if we’re on track for that? Thanks to Climate TRACE, data on drivers of climate change will now be available in close to real time for the very first time.
Co-founded by former US Vice President Al Gore, Climate TRACE has mobilised the tech community to unite diverse sources of climate data. Using a mixture of satellite imagery, infrared imagery, artificial intelligence, and reliable on-the-ground sources, they can track overall global greenhouse gas emissions, but also pinpoint local hotspots such as landfills and factories, and even moving sources like planes and ships.
Described by Forbes as a planetary MRI, Climate TRACE will report this climate data once per month, and with only a 60-day time lag. Promisingly, the data just published for February 2025 show that emissions have fallen on the year prior. However, the decrease was marginal, and only time will tell if this will represent a real peak. Still, this early data is imperative.
As the saying goes, you can only manage what you can measure. Ensuring a successful transition to net zero requires us to know exactly where to focus decarbonisation efforts, and this tool gives us that. Hopefully, it will also serve to create a culture of transparency and accountability that inspires collective action. Take a look around the Climate TRACE interactive map – there is much to explore.
Three Big Ideas is our weekly roundup of ideas (and our takes on them) in entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology, handpicked by the team.
In this week, Eamonn Ives argues the case for post-legislative scrutiny being written into laws from their conception, Philip Salter looks into how pets could be a gateway for approving more treatments for their human owners, and Jessie May Green writes about a new climate data initiative that promises to be a ‘planetary MRI’.
We’re so back. Or more accurately, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Entrepreneurship is, of which we’re the Secretariat. We’ve got big plans for the year ahead, but are always open to new ideas, and very open to working in collaboration with others – more on this later.
We’ve been Secretariat of the APPG for Entrepreneurship since 2018, but APPGs have a far longer history, dating back, at least in a more formal structure, to 1937 when two backbench Members of Parliament set up an all-party American committee to extend the knowledge of the United States within the British Parliament and elsewhere. The British-American Parliamentary Group (BAPG) is still around and certainly has its work cut out!
APPGs offer MPs and Peers a way to collaborate outside the rigid structures of party whips. Over time, the number of APPGs boomed, with everything from Advertising to Zoos represented. As the number grew, so did the need for stricter regulation. As a consequence, there are now fewer APPGs overall, and fewer focused on those not-so-inconsequential topics of business and wealth creation. That’s why we think the APPG we run is one of the most important.
So how can you get involved? First, sign up for the APPG’s monthly newsletter. This will give you an insider’s view of what’s going on and coming up in Parliament that is relevant to entrepreneurs and those who support them. Second, let us know if you want to host an Officer or Member of the APPG for an event. And finally, we are looking for between three and five keystone sponsors to support the work of the APPG, so just let me know if this is something you’d be interested in.
We’re very excited about the APPG. Our Officers include Tris Osborne MP (Labour), Victoria Collins MP (Liberal Democrat), Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative) and Lord Bilimoria of Chelsea (Crossbench) – all representing different political traditions, but all united in their determination to do their bit in making the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business.
We also have some exceptional Members, including serial entrepreneur Angus MacDonald MP, who founded eFinancialCareers among many other businesses, the Rt Hon the Baroness Neville-Jones DCMG (to give her full title), who sits on the Lords Science and Technology Committee, and rising star Callum Anderson MP who is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Peter Kyle. The list goes on.
Truro to Tallinn
As we have argued ever since Britain voted to leave the European Union, it’s in each side’s interest to negotiate a UK-EU youth mobility scheme, replicating those we have with several other nations already. That’s why we welcome news that no fewer than 62 MPs have signed a letter calling for time-limited visas for 18- to 30-year-olds from Europe to travel and work freely in Britain, and vice versa. Briefings suggest that the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, is warming up the idea, albeit only if we insist on a ‘one-in, one-out’ approach to limit its contribution to net migration figures.
While I would like to see open travel, given the political constraints around immigration I’ve made this exact pragmatic case – after all, limited liberalisation is better than none at all. As regular readers may remember, I wrote:
“[J]ust 23,000 people came to the UK on Youth Mobility Visas in 2023, with as many young Brits going the other way (particularly to Australia). Also, most of these schemes are capped – Uruguay at 500 people, Canada at 8,000, and Australia at 45,000. We could negotiate for a capped EU Youth Mobility Visa scheme to offset the political risk associated with unexpectedly large numbers.”
Our country needs young blood. As our Research Director, Eamonn Ives, argued here last year:
“Like many countries, Britain’s population is steadily ageing. In 2022, around a fifth of the population were aged 65 years or older. Fifty years prior, the figure stood at 13%. Projections from the Office for National Statistics suggest that, 50 years hence, 27% of the population will be.
“While there are reasons to celebrate this trend – people living healthier, longer lives is surely a good thing – there’s no getting away from the fact that it also creates problems in need of solutions. A population which skews old means those of working age have to toil all the harder to cover the costs of pensions and other benefits.
“Allowing young, aspirational individuals to come into the country and contribute towards the economy is a surefire way to address this demographic dilemma. And if our analysis is anything to go by, it proves that immigrants play an outsized role right where it matters most – founding the fast-growing and innovative businesses that haul an economy into the future.”
On the subject of immigration, we’re on the lookout for a sponsor for Job Creators 2025. If you want to back one of our most impactful reports, get in touch.
Purposeful Profit
Britain’s Enterprise Management Incentive (EMI) is a tax-advantaged way to reward employees and boost the growth of smaller companies. But while the economy has changed since it was first introduced, EMI hasn’t always kept up – with some now saying that it’s no longer fit for purpose.
We’re keen to test ideas for how it could be improved to ensure it is delivering for the companies it’s trying to support. If you have thoughts on EMI – either as a business owner who has offered it, an employee who’s made use of it, or other outside expertise – let us know and we’ll be in touch.
🎥 Eamonn Ives, Research Director
Taxes are what we pay for a civilised society, so the saying goes. But you hardly have to be a diehard libertarian to think that not everything funded by the public purse is strictly necessary for upholding a functional state. One such example, recently documented by The Observer, is how the 2022 film Jurassic World: Dominion was subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of £89.1 million through Film Tax Relief. And it wasn’t alone – for the year 2022-23, more than half a billion quid was dished out via this tax break, taking its total to nearly £6 billion since it was created in 2006-07. (Film studios aren’t the only beneficiaries of these schemes, as similar ones exist for other ‘creative industries’, such as High-end TV production, theatre and video games.)
Source: HM Revenue and Customs (2024). Creative industries statistics – contents, August 2024.
Now, the obvious argument in favour of this scheme is that it drives companies to produce films in the UK rather than elsewhere. This generates benefits like employment, increased local spending, and, yes, new tax revenues that flow back to the Treasury eventually. Indeed, analysis from the film lobby claims that for each £1 the industry receives in support, £8.30 is returned to society.
Quite the return on investment – assuming it’s true. Unfortunately, I can’t help but be sceptical. As Adviser to The Entrepreneurs Network Sam Dumitriu pointed out, the wider evidence base on similar film tax reliefs around the world suggests a far lower multiplier. While I don’t doubt they help the industry – as any reasonable person should expect a subsidy to – the real question is how cost effective that help is. Each pound that gets ploughed into reliefs has to be raised by taxing other businesses more sharply, thereby destroying value elsewhere in the economy. Or an alternative way of looking at things is that money spent on enticing more film production in the UK is money not spent on funding the NHS, schools or some other part of the state.
Moreover, sectoral reliefs like this create a cottage industry of lobbyists whose sole purpose is to defend their fiefdom rather than being genuinely productive. A more neutral approach to tax (and reliefs from it) would eradicate the need for these jobs to exist, and their hard work and effort could be deployed for more worthwhile ends.
As it happens, Film Tax Relief is closing in 2027, but only because the Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit is taking its place. At a time of straitened finances and an increasingly heavy tax burden weighing down on the economy, the Chancellor should think about whether it’s time to call ‘cut!’ on reliefs for film production.
🍺 Philip Salter, Founder
According to Anton Howes’s latest Age of Invention essay, the road to mass-produced pale ale was much longer, more winding, and more interesting than expected. It’s another of his essential long reads which, taken together, tell the story of Britain’s Industrial Revolution.
Drying malt was once a difficult endeavour, as smoky fuels like wood and coal tainted the malt and harmed its quality. Anton tells the story of how inventors attempted to solve this by developing smokeless kilns – devices that separated fire from malt, allowing the use of cheap, smoky coal without tainting the product.
A series of proposed and patented designs emerged in the early 1600s, including Hugh Plat’s lead-heated floor, John Shotbolt’s iron-conducted heat system, and Cornelis Drebbel’s thermostatic stove, which automatically regulated temperature using early thermostat technology.
There are numerous parallels to draw with industry today, including an attempt by Shotbolt to centralise and monopolise the malt trade under a corporate charter, despite Drebbel’s invention being technically superior. Alongside others, Shotbolt proposed creating a Society of Maltsters, a new official guild, which claimed to represent all maltsters in England. But really, it was an attempt to create a monopoly disguised as professional regulation.
While we’ve greatly improved at brewing beer without needing a monopoly, we remain burdened by ‘furious monopolists’ – those whose claims to act in the public interest are dubious at best, even as they profit handsomely from regulation.
🛣️ Anastasia Bektimirova, Head of Science and Technology
“Growth” has become Westminster’s favourite promise, with every other new policy proposal claiming to deliver it. But few seem to articulate what kind of growth, and towards what ultimate purpose. As Jeegar Kakkad of the Tony Blair Institute recently tweeted:
“One cannot just say ‘here is a policy to deliver growth’. Not all growth is equal. One needs a theory of the type of growth (therefore economy) you want. One can then judge policies on whether they are aligned to that type of growth or not.”
Economic growth is often viewed as a destination when it really is a mode of transportation. A sports car and a bus both move forward but at different speeds. Both are important, but they serve different purposes, carry different passengers and a different number of them, arriving at different destinations. Each vehicle is engineered differently, has different fuel requirements and a different impact on the landscape it traverses. In last weekend’s piece on abundance, Janan Ganesh wrote “you can’t buy moderation... you can’t build or grow your way to civic sanity”, noting that “the biggest head-scratcher in the modern world is the lack of correlation between abundance and voter happiness.” Just as not all vehicles are suitable for every journey, not all forms of growth address every societal challenge.
Before debating how to accelerate, we should first figure out where we’re trying to go. Ian Hogarth’s analysis of Europe’s technology sector illustrates this well. When Ian argues for building trillion-dollar companies, “this isn’t just about growing the tech industry for those that work in it: it’s about creating a more prosperous and resilient society with more wealth to pay for Europe’s public services.” Pro-business policy asks often miss this point. Companies are part of a national ecosystem, not the endgame.
When Bank of England economist Andy Haldane travelled the country after the 2008 financial crisis, armed with economic recovery data, the public often asked him: “Whose recovery?” So, alongside asking “will it deliver growth?”, it’s worth asking “what kind of society would this growth create?” Growth of what? For whom? At what cost? For what purpose? The vehicles we choose reflect what we believe is worth growing, who benefits, and which trade-offs we accept. Articulate a society you wish to create and align your wealth engines to get there.
Three Big Ideas is our weekly roundup of ideas (and our takes on them) in entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology, handpicked by the team.
In this week, Eamonn Ives urges the Chancellor to call ‘cut!’ on tenuous taxbreaks for film studios, Philip Salter discusses the parallels between 17th Century brewing and our modern economy today, and Anastasia Bektimirova implores us to think of growth as a mode of transport, not a destination.
Few policy issues hit as hard as tax. While entrepreneurs care about a lot – from access to talent and finance, to regulation and infrastructure, to making British culture more entrepreneurial – it’s only when changes to taxes are mooted that my inbox starts overflowing.
This is to be expected. While some think the art of taxation consists of plucking the goose so as to get the most feathers with the least hissing, entrepreneurs know full well that the real damage isn’t the hissing, but stopping them from creating the wealth that pays for everything else.
This week, the Tony Blair Institute released A Pro-Growth Roadmap for Business-Tax Reform. One recommendation I’m particularly keen on is allowing businesses to deduct the full cost of all plant and machinery expenditure (including on vehicles and, crucially for a lot of Britain’s startups, intangibles) and introducing ‘neutral’ cost recovery for buildings so that allowances keep pace with inflation and the time value of money.
All the way back in June 2018, my former colleague Sam Dumitriu wrote a report for the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Entrepreneurship making one of the first cases for full expensing in the UK. For those with an interest in how policy change really happens, read this article from The Economist.
Another recommendation I’m pleased to see is the idea to swap the existing business rates system for a commercial‑landowner tax that only taxes unimproved land value, shifting formal liability to landlords and removing penalties on developing or upgrading property.
Our Adviser Andrew Dixon OBE deserves full credit for this policy idea, which the TBI report gives by pointing people towards his brilliant Taxing Land, Not Investment report. As I wrote at the time: “Business rates are a tax on investment, adding to Britain’s productivity woes. Introducing a Commercial Landowner Levy would remove a key disincentive to investment and reduce administration costs for thousands of business owners. This is exactly the sort of policy entrepreneurs need to thrive.”
But it’s not all roses. The TBI report also calls for Business Asset Disposal Relief (BADR), formerly Entrepreneurs’ Relief, to be scrapped. As entrepreneurs know only too well – particularly the thousands who have moved or are moving their business abroad – the relief has already been slashed, with the maximum amount of gains that are subject to the lower rate reduced from £10 million to £1 million in 2020, and the last Budget increased the tax rate on disposals from 10% to 18%.
While the report is right to point to the lack of evidence across the whole business population, we know from speaking to many of the world’s most successful founders that it has acted as a massive incentive for them to start and keep their businesses in Britain.
We’re keen to build the evidence base to prove this beyond doubt, and make the case that the Treasury should retarget the relief at founders who are scaling businesses to incentivise the world’s best entrepreneurs to start, grow and sell multiple businesses in Britain.
When the geese do need to hiss, we’re the megaphone (as we were when rumours swirled that Capital Gains Tax was going to be hiked significantly). All of which is to say, let me know if you think BADR is worth hissing about.
Protecting the Ecosystem
We’re launching a new meetup group for entrepreneurship ecosystem builders. As Natalia Loza, who is partnering with us on this, explains:
This gathering is for those working behind the scenes to make entrepreneurship thrive. Whether you’re leading or sponsoring an accelerator, venture builder, corporate innovation team, policymaking body, university innovation office, innovation agency, or any other venture support organisation – your work is vital in helping founders and businesses launch, grow, and succeed.
What’s in it for you?
Meaningful connections with like-minded ecosystem builders
Fresh insights from others navigating similar challenges and opportunities
And yes – coffee, croissants, and great conversation in good company
Say WhatsApp?
After a bit of experimenting, phase one of our WhatsApp Community is working. Anyone can join our Community – just tap here. While you can’t post yet, you can respond to our announcements, which we try to keep to a couple per week.
We’ve also got our Adviser group up and running (request to join here) and the APPG for Entrepreneurship Advisory Board group (request to join here).
Next week, we’ll roll out our Supporters group and we’ll also launch our Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Builders (see above). Phase two will be opening up more groups through a comprehensive application form.
🎨 Eamonn Ives, Research Director
Last week, I hopped on a Eurostar to Brussels to attend the Lisbon Council’s Scaling Europe Summit. The headline act was Stripe’s President and Co-Founder John Collison, who, as an Irishman who’s done a pretty decent job of growing a company, is better placed than most to give his view on what countries this side of the Atlantic should be doing to close the scaleup gap with America.
During a panel session, he invoked a possibly apocryphal but definitely apt Pablo Picasso saying: “When art critics get together, they talk about form and structure and meaning. When artists get together, they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine.” Rather than getting into the intricacies of paint thinner, however, Collison was making the point that founders should do more to ensure they’re heard when policymakers are trying to improve the business environment.
As someone who certainly falls more into the ‘art critic’ side of the equation in this extended metaphor, but who nonetheless wants to help ‘artists’ as much as possible, I wholeheartedly agree. When it comes to trying to boost the economy, too often people who are detached from the fundamental, nuts and bolts realities of running businesses wield the most influence. Too often, vague platitudes are confidently trotted out as solutions to knotty problems.
When I think of some of the best policy influencing we’ve done over the years, it has often come from founders talking us through exactly what banal rule or specific regulatory quirk is holding their business back. While it’s our job to devise the policy workaround, we won’t always know what needs to be worked around without founders telling us first. Put another way, if you think your turpentine can be made cheaper, don’t hesitate to get in touch.
🚆 Philip Salter, Founder
Like many Londoners, I’ve become a little too obsessed with a Live Tube Map built by Ben James. Its beauty lies, mostly, in its simplicity: showing exactly where every tube train is at any given time.
As Time Out reports: “Hover over the moving trains and a little information box pops up telling you the exact model of the train, where it’s going to and from, the percentage of its journey that it’s completed and the exact times (to the second) that it is expected at its next two or three stops.”
I’m old enough to remember printing off maps from the Transport for London (TfL) website to navigate around the city. Nowadays, the data underlying what was once a basic platform now powers a range of applications, including Citymapper, Moovit, Santander Cycle, and many others.
As much as I love the Live Tube Map – and as much as we should celebrate the success of TfL’s open data – it’s also a stark reminder of how much of our public data remains underutilised. The Head of Data for London, Greater London Authority sums it up well: “Unfortunately, some great projects still fail because we cannot share the data needed to solve the problem. Whether we are hampered by technical infrastructure, legal barriers, capability, capacity, or resourcing, that is still a wasted opportunity to improve the city and benefit Londoners.”
If we don’t act quickly we’ll fall further behind. Even Germany is moving towards the ‘public money, public data’ principle, potentially legislating to ensure all data collected with public funding should be made available for public use and benefit.
Unshackling public data will free public-spirited technologists and entrepreneurs to build services we didn’t even know we needed. If you have an idea for what you would like to build with government data let us know.
🌍 Jessie May Green, Events and APPG for Entrepreneurship Coordinator
Carbon credits were introduced with the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, inspired by the ‘cap-and-trade’ system for sulfur dioxide emissions that successfully tackled the US and Europe’s acid rain problem. In a carbon market, total greenhouse gas emissions are capped, and any party that comes in below their individual cap receives a ‘carbon credit’, which they are free to trade to a higher-emitting party that is exceeding their own cap.
The UN intended carbon credits to be a meaningful way for countries to voluntarily meet their climate targets, but new research by Carbon Market Watch has found that only one in 27 international carbon credits will likely represent a real emissions reduction. So, what’s going wrong here?
While in theory this presents an elegant and economically efficient way to decarbonise, a couple of problems crop up in practice. First, some parties are inappropriately granted credits based on questionable supporting evidence, and, second, others are guilty of ‘double counting’ – when both the credit-seller and the credit-buyer logs the emissions reduction, which misrepresents the overall change that has taken place.
Not only do Carbon Market Watch point out that historic carbon credits lack efficacy, they also warn that familiar flaws are set to persist in the new and improved framework. With the European Commission currently considering counting international carbon credits towards its 2040 climate goal, and with nearly two thirds (63%) of large UK businesses planning to use carbon credits to meet their own sustainability targets, this is important to know – and to fix.
Three Big Ideas is our weekly roundup of ideas (and our takes on them) in entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology, handpicked by the team.
In this week, Eamonn Ives urges founders to heed Pablo Picasso, Philip Salter makes the case for unshackling more public data, and Jessie May Green delves into why carbon credit markets could be falling short of their true potential.
In this week’s issue of Perennial Gale, I explore how political uncertainty weighs on entrepreneurship, investment and innovation. Drawing on recent research and real-world examples – from the fallout of Brexit to the policy whiplash after Trump’s first term – I show how unpredictable policy environments can stall new business formation, shrink investor appetite and slow productivity growth. Even whispers of tax changes have recently prompted founders to rush exits ahead of possible reforms.
But it’s not all doom and gloom. There’s evidence that some firms respond to uncertainty by doubling down on R&D, treating turbulence as a strategic window to out-innovate competitors. While uncertainty depresses aggregate activity, the entrepreneurial instinct to adapt and push forward remains a vital counterforce. As we await the next Budget and possible further shifts in policy, the question isn’t whether uncertainty will persist – it’s how the most ambitious firms will navigate through it.
In addition, we want to hear from entrepreneurs. We’re responding to a government consultation on e-invoicing, and we’re looking into accelerators and incubators. Get in touch with Eamonn or Anastasia respectively to feed your views in.
Three Big Ideas is our weekly roundup of ideas (and our takes on them) in entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology, handpicked by the team.
In this week, Philip Salter takes stock of how to boost European scaleups, Eamonn Ives ponders a new way to think about GDP per capita, and Anastasia Bektimirova explains what she’s excited about as ARIA announces its second cohort of Programme Directors.
🇪🇺 Philip Salter, Founder
My colleague Eamonn was in Brussels yesterday for the launch of When Europe Scales, a very timely report offering practical policy recommendations to grow the European startup and scaleup ecosystem.
Today, I’ll touch on one of the 16 headline policy recommendations – to take a harmonised and competitive approach to stock option taxation:
“Retaining talent also requires a competitive tax environment, particularly in terms of the uniform treatment of stock options across member states. Harmonised taxation criteria across the EU are needed, and this should focus on taxing stock options at the time the stock is sold, not when the option is exercised. EU-Inc could provide the right framework to deliver this coordinated effort at EU level.”
This is a huge deal for startups. As last year’s EU Startup Nations Standards report set out, recognising stock options as capital rather than income, as well as avoiding double taxation are significant challenges. It’s also important to see harmonisation around the ability of startups to offer no voting rights, without which too many people can become involved in decision-making.
These ideas are downstream of work undertaken years ago when founders banded together to make the case for better stock option policies. But this is all taking too long. If anything good is going to come of Trump’s tariffs and broader turn against America’s long-term allies, it needs Europe to break down the regulatory barriers preventing a truly single market. Tear down these walls!
💷 Eamonn Ives, Research Director
For anyone invested in Britain’s economic future, last month’s growth forecasts made for sobering reading. Worse still, some were quick to note that our already modest projections for economic output will be spread across a growing population, due to continued immigration. That sounds like a double blow – low growth, diluted further by more people.
But this framing deserves closer scrutiny. Yes, higher GDP per capita is generally better than lower GDP per capita – but it’s a crude proxy for changes in individual welfare. It’s influenced not just by how productive we are, but by who we count. When immigration increases the denominator, it’s easy to miss the effects on the overall composition, productivity, and dynamism of the economy.
Consider this: when someone moves to the UK to work as a cleaner or delivery driver, they don’t necessarily compete with the British-born lawyer or doctor – rather, they often complement them. By enabling higher-productivity people to work longer or more efficiently, lower-wage workers can boost total output. That’s comparative advantage at work, even if on the face of it GDP per capita goes down.
With this in mind, there’s a case for looking beyond GDP per capita to something like GDP per ‘native’ capita. I’ll be the first to admit, the phrasing makes me feel a little squeamish. But if immigration increases total output without dragging down natives’ earnings, that seems worth noting. After all, if what’s really driving the lower average is compositional change, not declining prosperity for existing residents, then some of the gloom may be misplaced.
It won’t resolve every debate, but it might just help us distinguish between real economic problems and statistical artifice.
🚀 Anastasia Bektimirova, Head of Science and Technology
How can we design aircraft that can reliably find thermals and wind shear, harvest energy from them, and interlace these into long, unpowered flight paths? As we explore the ocean as a new frontier, what high-value foods and materials could we sustainably cultivate? This is the flavour of questions that will be explored by the newly announced second cohort of Programme Directors at the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA). What makes this cohort different is that ARIA deliberately sought out entrepreneurial scientists who have successfully built ventures, communities and technologies that have left a mark on society. I enjoyed reading about the selection process here.
Each Programme Director is joining ARIA with one or two early areas of exploration, that they will shape before narrowing down and defining programmes more precisely. There is a lot to be excited about – from engineering biological energy to sculpting innate immunity. But I’ll be watching two of the emerging programmes particularly closely.
First, the Collective Intelligence Engine that could revolutionise how scientists navigate the research landscape. Discoveries often emerge from identifying new connections between studies across different disciplines. What if AI could map every scientific argument, instantly revealing valuable connections, contradictions, and gaps? This is what the programme aims to do by building a living knowledge engine. But beyond this, it leaves room for ARIA-shaped metascience questions. For example, how might AI restructure scientific disciplines, and what institutional changes would be needed once this happens? The answers to such questions could be as transformative as the technology itself, reshaping how we organise, fund, and evaluate scientific work in the age of AI-assisted discovery.
Second, the Extending Our Perception programme that focuses on computational systems that can simultaneously process multiple streams of data from advanced sensors far beyond what humans can perceive. This could transform healthcare by detecting diseases before symptoms appear, enable more precise environmental monitoring, or advance sustainable food production. Regular readers will remember that I wrote about this direction earlier, noting how multi-sensor integration would create strategic advantages by gaining a fundamentally different understanding of the world around us. This direction is one of those that could serve as a backbone for many more new ones – just imagine AI systems capable of processing multiple sensory and more conventional data streams simultaneously, revealing patterns and relationships that remain invisible to traditional analysis methods.
Whatever mistakes you’ve made this week, take solace in the fact that you didn’t wipe $2.5 trillion of value off Wall Street and drive your country towards recession. And that’s ignoring the damage inflicted across the globe. No, that was Donald John Trump, the 47th President of the United States.
While on the face of it we got off relatively lightly, make no mistake: this is bad news for Britain’s entrepreneurs. While we ‘only’ got hit with 10% tariffs, our economy does not exist in isolation. When markets around the rest of the world stutter, so too will our own. These tariffs will destroy trading relationships for millions of individual firms, which may take years to adjust to – if at all. Positive-sum gains accrued from specialisation and exposure to international competition will evaporate.
As I’ve argued on these pages before, the government should be unstinting in its promotion of free trade around the world: “Free trade might be a little passé these days, but we shouldn’t forget the lessons of our forebears like Adam Smith who demolished the mercantilist worldview in the Wealth of Nations, and Richard Cobden, who tirelessly campaigned for free trade for the good of the poorest and to broker peace between nations.”
The methodology Trump’s team has used to impose tariffs is nothing short of madness. Despite claims to the contrary, they didn’t calculate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers. Instead, they just took the US trade deficit for each country and divided it by the country’s exports.
The tiny island of St Pierre et Miquelon got slammed with a 99% tariff because somebody bought $3.4 million worth of crustaceans in July 2024, but your deepest sympathies should go out to the entrepreneurs of Vietnam and Thailand and their populations, who will suffer deeply from these tariffs, both through direct exposure to US imports, but also indirectly via exports to the US through other countries.
There’s simply no escaping Econ 101. Trump needn’t have even pulled himself away from his TV addiction to learn this. Ferris Bueller’s Day Off does a good enough job of explaining why the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930 – legislation that raised tariffs on imports in an attempt to protect American industries and generate more revenue for the government – worsened the Great Depression by stifling international trade rather than helping the economy recover. Anyone…? Anyone…?
Mark my words. Trump’s tariffs will fail. Perhaps we can take solace in The Economist’s Mike Bird’s insight that aggressive protectionism is often followed by a long backlash: “The Corn Laws, Smoot-Hawley, and interwar European trade restrictions sparked the resurgence of free-trade liberalism in the generations that followed them.”
Jolly Good Fellows
Defeating Trump’s mercantilism and equivalents in the UK will require a lot of people to put up a strong fight. To that end, it’s great to see our good friends at UK Day One expanding to create the much-needed Centre for British Progress. I’m delighted that Anastasia Bektimirova, our Head of Science and Technology, has joined as one of their Fellows. I strongly recommend reading their long read Rediscovering British Progress.
Party Time
The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Entrepreneurship will soon be back, with Tris Osborne MP (Labour), Victoria Collins MP (Liberal Democrats), Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative) and Lord Bilimoria of Chelsea (Crossbench). As the Secretariat we’ve got big plans, so how can you get involved?
First, if you’re an MP or Peer, you can still become a Member. Get in touch with our APPG Coordinator, Jessie, to let her know.
Second, if you or your company supports entrepreneurs you may want to support the APPG. We are looking for up to four supporters for 2025/26. Drop me an email so I can send through more information.
Third, if you represent entrepreneurs, you may be able to join our Advisory Board. We catch up every month to discuss policy issues, research and events relating to all things entrepreneurship. Drop Eamonn Ives an email to find out more.
Fresh Thinking
Another week, another new Adviser. This week, I’m pleased to announce that James Callander, Managing Director of Freshminds is joining our growing ranks. As he says:
“I have always been super enthusiastic about the world of business and entrepreneurs – while it can be hugely risky and not for everyone, I think that running your own company is a wonderful privilege and something we (as a society) should encourage as an engine of job and wealth creation.”
If you’re keen to join James as an Adviser, get in touch.
Over in the Analysis page of our Substack, our Head of Science and Technology Anastasia Bektimirova writes about her latest report, Governing in the Age of AI: Building Britain’s National Data Library, and how to drive innovation and growth through a new National Data Library.
