3rd Report - Flying Blind: Innovation, Growth and the Regions

The government partially agrees but its response fails to address the recommendation to incentivise complementarities between regional institutions or establish a mechanism for identifying spin-out scaling opportunities, instead discussing existing data transparency and R&D mapping.

The government agrees with the recommendation but then provides a response entirely focused on UKRI's strategy to leverage private investment and improve R&D spending data quality, failing to address the specific request for a strategy for the Oxford-to-Cambridge Growth Corridor.

The government agrees with the recommendation and states they have published a national Spin-out Register and a UK university spin-out dashboard, with future iterations planned to include further economic impact measures. However, the response does not explicitly commit to the specific request of assessing whether funding to Golden Triangle institutions should be contingent on projects having a quantifiable economic impact elsewhere.

The government partially agrees but its response fails to address the specific recommendation to appoint a minister to champion innovation in each UK region, instead discussing existing funding for university knowledge exchange and piloted shared technology-transfer approaches.

The government's response fails to address the recommendation for annual reporting of R&D budget allocations and private sector investment by sector, region, and cluster, instead discussing proof-of-concept funding and spin-out support.

The government's response focuses entirely on the role and funding model of Catapults, arguing for their existing structure and regional impact, without addressing the committee's recommendation regarding university spinouts, academic flexibility, or universities accepting smaller returns on intellectual property.

The government agrees on the importance of transparent performance reporting but responds by detailing its approach to monitoring the Catapult Network's performance and impact, completely missing the recommendation regarding a University Spinout Dashboard.

The government states it 'partially agrees' but then discusses local growth plans, university-industry collaboration, and skills strategies, explicitly stating it will 'not commit to a Regional Graduate Retention Strategy' which was not the recommendation. The response does not address the recommendation to establish regional branches of the British Business Bank.

The government's response fails to address the committee's conclusion regarding the lack of proper measurement and mapping of R&D spending and private sector investment, instead discussing its support for investor-led vehicles and university commercialisation.

The government response discusses public procurement for innovation and defence investment in novel technologies, but does not address the committee's observation about underperforming university technology transfer offices.

The government agrees on the importance of innovation diffusion and adoption, detailing programs like Made Smarter, BridgeAI, and Robotics Adoption Hubs, but the response does not directly address the committee's concerns about imbalanced venture capital flows and the inadequacy of Proof of Concept funding in certain regions.

The government partially agrees in principle but provides a response focused on UKRI's existing infrastructure roadmap and exploring a new framework/toolkit for investment decisions. It does not specifically address aligning scientific infrastructure with transport plans or the effective implementation of Green Book reforms as outlined in the conclusion.