In an up-to-date policy paper, the UK government describes how it is trying to position the country as the industry leader, two years since it pledged to advance its nationwide semiconductor strategy.
The government finally announced its long-delayed 10-year plan for assisting the nation's semiconductor industry, that includes $1.24 billion in funding to promote the sector's talent pipeline and support research and deveopment initiatives.
Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister has made the announcement of the policy on Friday at a summit with leaders from the G7 countries in Japan, over two years after it was first promised. This was also the day that the two nations agreed to establish a semiconductors collaboration to improve supply-chain resilience.
Semiconductors are the building blocks of the gadgets UK use on a daily basis and are essential to the development of future technologies, according to Sunak. The new strategy concentrates their efforts on areas like study and design where they are strongest so that they can strengthen their competitive advantage on the worldwide stage.
What is the semiconductor strategy of UK?
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology stated in a policy statement published on Friday that the plan, which was created in partnership with business and academics, had three main goals. Growing the local semiconductor industry, reducing the risk of disruptions to the supply chain, and preserving national security are some of these objectives.
In order to guarantee that the government, industry and academia can carry out the priorities outlined in that strategy, the department also announced that it will establish a new Panel for UK Semiconductor Advisory.
The UK offers advantages throughout the whole semiconductor chain of value, but the strategy paper identified three in particular: compound semiconductors, semiconductor design and intellectual property, and its world-class research and innovation infrastructure, which is backed by the outstanding universities. Compound semiconductors, which differ from silicon-based chips in that they are made up of more than one component, can be utilized to maximize high-performance uses for electronics and optoelectronics.
The strategy paper also mentioned that there are presently about 25 semiconductor production sites in the UK, and each of them produces between several hundred and a few thousand wafers every month.
Increasing indigenous semiconductor output
Widespread export restrictions have been imposed as a result of the continued worldwide chip scarcity and the developing US and China chip trade battle, indirectly putting many other nations in danger. A number of governments are therefore attempting to increase their very own domestic chip production capacities at the moment.
Although the UK government claims this strategy will give the country a global leading role in semiconductor technologies in the coming years, the policy has lately been under fire for failing to go far enough. According to industry experts, comparable strategies in the United States and the European Union involve $52 billion and $46 billion respectively in government funding to support national chip production efforts.
There has to be more clarity regarding exactly where the £1 billion is going to be used to, and also when and how it will be used, despite the fact that the UK government seems to have realized the possibility of relying on its current research foundation to further develop its semiconductor business, according to Scott White, Pragmatic Semiconductor's creator and executive director. This company is a UK-based manufacturer of custom semiconductors with integrated circuits that serve as a substitute for silicon-based chips.
When you think about the fields that the UK government is concentrating on, there's an appropriate query to ask regarding whether that's adequate funding to really make any difference - is it excessive of a diluting when breaking down the amount over ten years. And the government will have to tackle these concerns by providing more detail.
In the end, you could put £100 million a year into a project that actually changes the sector. By concentrating it on places that won't make an impact, you could equally lose £1 billion a year.