Event Round-up: How can a UK Semiconductor Centre support the development of a thriving semiconductor sector?

Chris outlines the broader industrial strategy and digital & technology sector plan, launched two weeks prior, and positions the Semiconductor Centre as a central enabler within this context. 

At the heart of the talk was the emphasis on long-term strategic stability. The industrial strategy aims to drive growth across eight key sectors, with digital and technology identified as a major pillar. Within this framework, semiconductors have been recognised not only as a frontier technology but also as a critical enabler of innovation across other sectors such as automotive, aerospace, and advanced manufacturing. The UK’s existing strengths in areas like chip design, compound materials, equipment manufacturing, and R&D form a solid foundation for this focus. 

The speaker positioned the Semiconductor Centre as a vital institution for delivering on the industrial strategy’s objectives. It is seen as a means of providing sustained support to the sector by fostering collaboration across government, industry, and academia, and by serving as a hub for international engagement. The centre is expected to act as a “front door” for global partners seeking to understand and collaborate with the UK’s semiconductor capabilities. 

In addition to boosting innovation and commercialisation, the centre is also expected to play a central role in supporting skills development, linking with both sector-specific funding (such as the £35 million dedicated to semiconductor skills) and broader initiatives like the £187 million Tech First programme. The goal is to ensure that talent pipelines are aligned with the needs of the sector and that interventions across the education and training landscape are connected and effective. 

The presentation also touched on the importance of the centre supporting the adoption of technology across sectors, reinforcing national security, and contributing to supply chain resilience. Furthermore, it should help coordinate and integrate efforts from other innovation hubs and centres—like the existing innovation and knowledge centres (IKCs) and organisations such as Empire Electronics—to ensure a joined-up approach to advancing UK semiconductor innovation and commercial viability. 

Ultimately, Chris framed the Semiconductor Centre as a strategic, unifying force that will help the UK fully realise the benefits of its industrial strategy—by building on national strengths, enhancing collaboration, driving commercialisation, and securing long-term global competitiveness in semiconductors and related technologies. 

Introduction and Role
Raj opened his presentation by introducing himself as a non-executive director on the CSA Catapult Board. In that capacity, he has been closely involved in discussions around the Semiconductor Centre, particularly focusing on how to move from planning into implementation. As he explained, the time for discussion is giving way to the need for action — the pressing question now is how to mobilise the centre and start delivering on its promise.

A Vision for the Centre
He outlined a shared vision for the Centre, framing it as more than just a physical institution. For Raj, the Semiconductor Centre should become a coordinated innovation network, a hub that stimulates sector growth and addresses longstanding fragmentation in the UK semiconductor landscape. One of the key challenges, he noted, is aligning the various parts of the ecosystem, and central to this effort will be the attraction of investment, both public and private, from domestic and international sources. Growth, he emphasised, must be underpinned by a strong business case.

Core Focus Area: Ecosystem and Roadmap
Raj went on to describe some of the Centre’s core focus areas. First is the ecosystem and roadmap: bringing together different regional clusters and capabilities to work more cohesively. Drawing on his own experiences working in Cambridge and visiting South Wales through the Catapult role, he highlighted the potential for stronger integration and coordination across the UK’s semiconductor hubs.

Core Focus Area: Scaling Up Businesses
Second is the need to scale up businesses in the sector; this includes improving access to capital, better utilisation of existing assets, and removing friction points that inhibit growth. He suggested that, while the UK already has a lot to offer, the infrastructure for accessing these resources could be vastly improved.

Core Focus Area: Governance
Raj also touched on governance. The Centre’s activities will be guided by an advisory panel, and work is already underway to define how this panel will operate. He expressed a strong desire to harness the deep pool of expertise and experience within the UK’s semiconductor industry by involving respected figures from across the sector.

Mobilisation Plan and Funding
He then outlined the mobilisation plan. The first and most immediate step is to finalise the funding. As it stands, the government has pledged up to £19 million over four to five years — roughly equating to a modest core team of around 20 people and a base of operations. This gives a realistic view of the Centre’s starting capacity, while also reinforcing the need for wider engagement and partnership.

Engagement and Inclusivity
Importantly, Raj stressed that although CSA Catapult has been tasked with helping to stand up the Centre, it is not a centre “for the Catapult”; it is intended as a resource for the entire ecosystem. Therefore, active stakeholder engagement is essential, and today’s event, along with future roadshows and consultations, are part of ensuring that all relevant voices are heard. He welcomed attendees to speak with him during the break or submit feedback via a QR-linked form.

Early Operational Priorities
Among the other early priorities are finalising the Centre’s location, determining how centralised or distributed it will be, and beginning recruitment — something he hinted those in the room might want to consider getting involved in. Another critical task is updating the UK’s infrastructure asset database, building on earlier work like the IFM study. Raj noted that knowing what facilities and capabilities already exist is a crucial step before identifying gaps or investing in new capacity.

Innovative Approach: Secondment Programme
To close, Raj introduced one of the more innovative ideas being explored: a secondment programme. This would allow people from industry or other parts of the ecosystem to temporarily work at the Centre, bringing in fresh insights, networks, and expertise — and, crucially, taking back valuable connections and understanding to their home organisations. While acknowledging the complexity of implementing such a scheme, Raj said it could become a powerful mechanism for building stronger ties across the sector and harnessing collective knowledge.

Conclusion and Call to Collaboration
He concluded by inviting further discussion, thanking the audience, and reiterating his enthusiasm for working together to realise the Centre’s full potential.

Panel Focus: Maximising the Usefulness of the UK Semiconductor Centre
How can the Semiconductor Centre be made maximally useful? In particular, how can it act as an effective coordinating body that leverages the UK's existing strengths in semiconductors, which are currently spread across regions and specialisms, but often seen as fragmented or disconnected? The panellists were asked to reflect not only on how to bring cohesion to the sector, but also on how to ensure that the Centre supports long-term success, including sustained funding and a clear, actionable mission.

Strategic Clarity Through Asset Mapping
A strong consensus emerged around the need for strategic clarity. The Centre, they argued, must begin by mapping the UK’s existing assets—understanding what capabilities already exist, where the gaps are, and how to join the dots more effectively. Avoiding duplication and fragmentation will be key. This asset-mapping exercise, as previously mentioned by Raj, was welcomed as a practical first step toward ensuring smarter allocation of funding and greater national alignment.

Long-Term Vision and Funding Sustainability
The panel also emphasised the importance of long-term vision and sustainable funding. Using South Wales as an example, one panellist noted that regional success stories like CSconnected didn’t emerge overnight—it took over a decade to build from concept to impact. Long-term coordination and patient capital are critical. There was a call for a more integrated and consolidated approach to funding, rather than the current system of many fragmented pots. Some argued that a single, large fund—perhaps in the region of £100–150 million—could have greater strategic impact than numerous smaller ones, enabling the UK to compete more effectively on the global stage.

Focus on Commercialisation and Bridging the “Valley of Death”
Another major theme was the need for focus. The UK has a strong innovation base—world-class research, impressive startups, and entrepreneurial individuals—but faces persistent challenges in commercialisation, particularly crossing the so-called “valley of death” between early innovation and market success. The panel stressed that the Centre must help companies bridge this gap by supporting later-stage development and de-risking investment. This may mean accepting that not every company will succeed—failure is part of innovation—but the goal must be to help more companies survive that critical phase.

Need for Prototyping and Testing Infrastructure
Connected to this was a call for more prototyping and testing infrastructure, allowing firms to develop and validate products within the UK. This would help move ideas through higher Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), increasing their chances of securing private investment and reaching commercial markets.

Market Pull and Focused Innovation
A few panellists pushed the conversation further, noting that success isn’t just about technology or even investment—it’s about having clear market pull. Developing semiconductors for the sake of innovation isn’t enough; there must be “killer applications” that customers want and need. The Centre, they suggested, must stay closely attuned to global markets, identifying where the UK can build a real competitive advantage and focusing resources accordingly.

Maintaining Global Competitiveness
Global competitiveness was another critical point. While the UK must strengthen its domestic semiconductor ecosystem, it cannot do so in isolation. The Centre should play a role in monitoring international trends and helping UK organisations stay laser-focused on where global opportunities lie. Just as importantly, it should help the UK define and promote its unique value proposition—the specific strengths and specialisms it brings to the global semiconductor landscape.

Policy, Regulation, and Freedom to Operate
Finally, the panel touched on the importance of policy and regulatory freedom. While funding is always helpful, panellists pointed out that sometimes the most impactful support comes from removing barriers—creating the space and flexibility for innovation and growth. They urged that this message be carried consistently across all levels of government: let the sector operate freely and it will deliver growth.

Defining Success: Metrics That Matter
The conversation moved toward what success might look like for the Centre in the years ahead. A clear, shared view was that success needs to be measurable. Ian pointed to job creation — not just the number of roles, but the quality and sustainability of those jobs — as a fundamental benchmark. He also highlighted the importance of tracking partnerships and collaborations initiated or supported by the Centre, especially those that bridge academia, startups, and larger companies. While there was some hesitation about relying too heavily on financial metrics, there was agreement that commercial indicators — like the volume of semiconductor chips produced or sold — offer a clear signal of real-world impact. The emphasis was on creating metrics that reflect tangible economic contribution, not just internal activity.

Sovereignty and Supply Chain Resilience
This led into a discussion around sovereignty and the growing complexity of global supply chains. The point was made that the UK cannot always rely on traditional partners to remain stable or supportive — recent geopolitical shifts have made this clear. There was a strong case put forward for building sovereign capability: ensuring that the UK can stand on its own when needed, particularly in strategically sensitive technologies. This wasn’t framed as isolationism, but rather as resilience planning — recognising that future crises may demand a level of national self-reliance that doesn’t yet exist.

Improving Infrastructure Access
Infrastructure access was another key theme. While the UK has many world-class facilities and assets, smaller companies often struggle to find or access them. Speakers referenced existing programmes like Smart Nano as good models, where coordinated infrastructure sharing is already working well. The Centre, it was suggested, should play a proactive role here — not by building new labs, but by helping companies navigate what’s already available and making access fairer and more visible. This includes refreshing asset databases, removing bottlenecks, and providing a clearer front door for companies that don’t already have insider knowledge.

Representation and Inclusive Engagement
The conversation also returned to representation — ensuring that the Centre genuinely reflects the whole of the UK’s semiconductor ecosystem. Errol stressed the need to avoid duplication and centralisation for its own sake. Instead, the Centre should build on what already exists across regions, recognising the value in distributed strengths. He also revisited the idea of a live national database — not just of facilities, but of who’s working on what, where — which could be particularly useful for startups, scale-ups, and others trying to find collaborators or commercial partners. Larger companies, he said, can usually navigate this themselves, but everyone else would benefit from a system that makes connections easier.

Keeping Insights Fresh and Diverse
Lizzy built on this by stressing that the advisory panel — and indeed the Centre as a whole — needs to reflect the full diversity of the sector. That doesn’t just mean geographic balance, but also ensuring voices from different parts of the value chain and from organisations of different sizes are heard. She proposed rotation models or secondments as a way to keep insights current, encourage information flow, and avoid the Centre becoming too insular. Having people embedded in clusters around the UK would help the Centre stay grounded in what’s actually happening on the ground.

Final Reflections from the Panel
In their final reflections, panellists were asked for one core message they’d like to leave decision-makers with. Errol said the Centre needs to be a catalyst — not the sole actor, but the body that sparks connections and unlocks opportunities across the ecosystem. Nick spoke about connectivity — the need to be the glue that binds the sector together in pursuit of a shared goal. Jeanette emphasised that industry has to be involved in decision-making from the outset if commercialisation is to be taken seriously. Lizzy argued against centralisation for its own sake and for a model that complements and amplifies what’s already working. And Ian reiterated the importance of staying focused on the full value chain — from early research through to manufacturing and end users — to ensure the Centre doesn’t lose sight of its purpose.

Closing Message: Now Is the Time to Shape the Centre
The session closed with thanks to the panellists and an invitation to the audience to keep contributing — through upcoming roadshows, secondments, and direct engagement. The message was clear: the Centre is still in formation, and now is the moment to shape it.

Photonics, Quantum, and Next-Gen Telecoms 

Andy from Cornerstone opened the discussion by grounding it in the practical: his organisation designs and produces photonic integrated circuits for customers around the world — including companies in the UK working on quantum technologies. One example was quantum navigation, where chip-enabled devices like accelerometers harness quantum properties to provide positioning without relying on GPS. In telecoms, he highlighted a record-breaking optical transmitter developed by the University of Southampton, which runs at 200 gigabits per second — demonstrating the UK’s leading role in ultra-fast, next-generation communications hardware. 

AI was also part of the picture. Andy noted the trend toward AI at the edge — computing that happens on-device rather than in the cloud — driven by the need for lower latency and better energy efficiency. Photonics again plays a key enabling role here, allowing faster data processing with lower heat output. These examples, he suggested, show that semiconductors aren't just foundational to these emerging sectors — they are often the very thing pushing the boundaries forward. 

Making Commercialisation a Core Mandate 

The discussion then shifted from technologies to impact. Could the Centre play a more active role in helping the UK bring semiconductor innovations to market? One panellist, a patent attorney with experience at ARM, argued emphatically that commercialisation needs to be a first-order concern. Innovation is only meaningful, he said, if it solves a real problem and leads to a viable market. That means the Centre’s key performance indicators (KPIs) must go beyond chasing a single unicorn company — they should reflect broader outcomes: more jobs, a stronger domestic supply chain, and deeper global partnerships. Sovereignty came up again here too, especially in light of shifting geopolitical alliances. 

Building Depth, Not Just Height 

Others added further nuance. Richard noted that while the idea of a trillion-dollar business is appealing, it might be more practical to focus on producing a cluster of high-performing £10–100 billion firms. The UK has not yet had even one £100 billion semiconductor company, he pointed out. The opportunity is to strengthen the broader supply chain by focusing on things like advanced packaging, testing, and low-volume high-value manufacturing — areas where the UK already has design strengths and could expand its industrial base in smart, adjacent ways. 

Betting Big on Scale 

That said, not everyone agreed. One investor countered that shooting for a trillion-dollar business isn’t just desirable — it’s necessary. He cited Taiwan as a bold example: at one point, they weren’t leaders in semiconductor manufacturing either. Then they made the strategic decision to become world-class and backed it up with policy, capital, and long-term vision. Europe once struggled to produce even one billion-dollar tech company, he noted, but today has multiple — Spotify among them — and it’s entirely possible that the next wave of scale-ups will come from the Nordics or the UK. For that to happen, he argued, the Centre must be designed to support breakthrough ambition — not just incremental improvement — and avoid becoming another bureaucratic layer. 

Incentives and Institutional Fear of Wealth 

The tone shifted dramatically as one speaker (a VC) delivered a provocative critique of how government-led initiatives often fail to deliver meaningful scale. He pointed out that while civil servants might be well-meaning, the systems they work within are structurally inefficient. Compared to venture capital firms that can deploy £50 million per partner, public programmes might manage only a fraction of that — with far less agility. 

He argued that the core issue isn’t just inefficiency but mindset: the UK, in his words, is "institutionally terrified of wealth." This cultural discomfort with success, especially financial success, shows up repeatedly when promising UK technologies are commercialised elsewhere — whether it’s the web, television, or semiconductors. He cited DeepMind as a cautionary tale: despite being founded in the UK, it was ultimately bought by Google after UK investors failed to step up. 

Radical Reform of the Centre’s Role 

In this context, the speaker argued that the UK Semiconductor Centre must be laser-focused on scaling companies — and that means rethinking its staffing and incentives. His view was blunt: fire 80% of the staff, triple the pay of the remaining 20%, and tie bonuses directly to outcomes like company creation and revenue growth. The aim, he said, should be to reward extraordinary results, not incremental outputs. Modest, distributed capital deployment and "neutrality" are not sufficient for building globally competitive businesses in semiconductors or deep tech. 

Systemic Barriers to Entrepreneurship 

Other participants brought in structural legal and cultural barriers. Ian Sheridan, a barrister who spent a decade researching the semiconductor sector, highlighted the impact of non-compete clauses in UK employment contracts. Unlike China — where employees at companies like Lenovo are actively encouraged to moonlight — UK employees are often contractually blocked from starting their own ventures. This inhibits spinouts, startups, and broader ecosystem dynamism. It's a cultural contrast, but one with hard economic consequences. 

Procurement Power and Industrial Policy 

The discussion then turned to whether the Semiconductor Centre could help UK-made semiconductor products gain traction by leveraging public procurement. One CEO asked directly: can this new entity convene, lobby, and influence government to adopt UK-built technologies? Other countries, like Taiwan and South Korea, have used procurement policy strategically to nurture domestic champions. Could the UK do the same? 

Andy responded by saying the Centre must remain regionally neutral within the UK — it shouldn’t favour startups from one area over another. But on the international stage, he argued the Centre should be unapologetically strategic: playing to the UK’s competitive advantages, selling those strengths globally, and forming mutually beneficial partnerships with countries like Malaysia. No country can do the full semiconductor stack alone — collaboration is essential, but so is playing to your strengths. 

Missed Economic Targets and the Cost of Inaction 

Abhinav from UKRI closed the session by pulling the camera back. He cited Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) figures from 2010 which forecast that by 2023, the UK economy would be £800 billion larger than it actually turned out to be. That shortfall — the result of structural underperformance and missed opportunities — is one of the root causes of the UK’s strained public services, including the NHS. The implication: if the UK continues to under-commercialise its deep tech research, the long-term cost isn’t just economic — it’s societal. 

The global nature of semiconductors

Peter from Arm opened by reminding everyone that semiconductors are fundamentally global. This global spread isn’t optional, it’s built into the value chain, from design to deployment.

That’s why the UK Semiconductor Centre must go beyond national priorities. It needs to serve as a global interface, a place where the UK can benchmark itself against world-class standards in innovation, talent, and strategy. Peter argued the Centre should become a node in the international network, translating insight from abroad into domestic advantage. For the Centre to grow, it must demonstrate value and become a magnet for international investment and talent — positioning the UK as a high-performance environment for deep tech.

Strategic partnerships and global collaboration

Russ from Global Tech Advocates built on this by stating plainly: the UK can’t do it alone. The semiconductor ecosystem is too complex, and the UK’s manufacturing capacity too limited, to aim for total independence. But that’s not a weakness — it’s a strategic opportunity. The goal should be to form the right international partnerships that embed the UK in global innovation flows and create resilience in a volatile world.

Knowledge exchange is central to this. By actively working with other countries, the UK can access new ideas and capabilities without rebuilding the full value chain. He also made the case for smarter visa policies to attract top-tier global talent. While education and training are essential, they won’t meet the scale of future demand alone. Global expertise accelerates knowledge transfer and strengthens the ecosystem.

The message was clear: international integration isn’t a nice-to-have — it’s a must-have. Whether it’s pulling in talent, capital, or expertise, the Centre’s success depends on how well it connects to the rest of the world.

Turning policy into practice

The panel also addressed practical ways the Centre can support international engagement now. Export controls came up repeatedly — especially the burden they place on startups. One speaker described the huge value of having a visiting export controls expert available to help firms navigate the rules. It’s a simple model the Centre could adopt: low-friction, high-impact support.

Beyond that, initiatives like trade missions, international grants, and curated introductions were highlighted as key tools that small firms often can’t access without support. Panellists stressed the Centre must do more than signpost these opportunities — it needs to help companies act on them, connecting them to funding, partners, and investors.

Russ added that while the UK has secured international agreements — with the US, Japan, South Korea, and the EU — most companies don’t know how to benefit from them. The Centre should actively map these opportunities and help the private sector engage. He cited a Taiwanese initiative, Semi Gateway, which links UK startups with manufacturers beyond just the big names. That kind of targeted network-building is what the Centre could scale.

The takeaway: the Centre doesn’t need to do everything — it just needs to do the right things well. Focused support, active coordination, and smart partnerships can unlock real value quickly.

Addressing the talent challenge

When the discussion turned to talent, the urgency was obvious. The skills shortage is real, and the UK is not alone — the global semiconductor industry is projected to need a million new workers by 2030. The Centre can’t solve this alone, but it can play a critical role.

Caroline framed the issue as part of a broader deep tech challenge. We need visible pipelines that build foundational skills and then direct people toward semiconductors and related fields. It’s not just about engineers — the sector needs a wide range of talent, from across disciplines and backgrounds.

Peter focused on awareness. Even among students, knowledge of the UK’s semiconductor sector — or what companies like Arm actually do — is limited. The Centre can help raise the profile of the whole sector, not just promote individual firms. He also highlighted a disconnect between graduates and jobs: many with relevant degrees end up outside the field, not due to lack of interest, but lack of a clear pathway. The Centre could help bridge that gap by working with universities and employers.

Russ added a critical inclusion angle. Panels and leadership in the sector are still overwhelmingly male. Recent “Women in Semiconductors” events have shown how much energy and talent exists if properly supported. He challenged the Centre to make gender balance and broader inclusion a strategic priority — not a side initiative. Recruiting more women, improving progression, and opening global pathways are all part of building a workforce that’s both strong and future-ready.

From vision to accountability

The panel ended with reflections on what success could look like in a year. Caroline highlighted her own company’s 50% gender balance and called for more long-term support for deep tech startups. Ewan stressed the need for faster, leaner support — particularly for SMEs — and called out the branding challenge: semiconductors are seen as critical but dull. The Centre, he argued, could help change that narrative.

Russ closed by throwing down a challenge: let’s all meet again in July 2026. Has the Centre delivered? Has it helped build a more inclusive, globally competitive sector? The only way to meet the scale of the opportunity is through sustained action, accountability, and follow-through.

The session closed not with a conclusion, but with momentum — and a call to shape the Centre’s future together.