Select committee: Science and Technology Committee

Recommendation 2

2nd Report - Catapults: bridging the gap between research and industry Published 5 Feb 2021 Paragraph 29
Recommendation (the committee's words)
We recommend that the Government, UK Research and Innovation, and Innovate UK set out a clear plan for how public sector resources and private investment can be made to match the scale of ambition in the R&D Roadmap.

From: Science and Technology Committee, 2nd Report - Catapults: bridging the gap between research and industry, paragraph 29, 5 February 2021

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 6 April 2021 (deadline 5 April 2021).

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government's response sets out its R&D funding plans and agrees with the Committee on several points on Catapults, while pointing to a forthcoming Innovation Strategy and Places Strategy for further detail.

  • On funding, it states that the 2.4% of GDP R&D target will not be achieved "through public spending alone", and that BEIS "will provide a breakdown" of its R&D spending when final allocations are published "later in the year".
  • On collaboration, it says it agrees with the Committee's findings that funding constraints could be reducing Catapults' ability to collaborate with universities, and has asked UKRI to review whether Catapults could bid for relevant Research Council funding.
  • On review and performance indicators, it agrees that it should focus on how to support Catapults rather than whether they should exist, and will work with UKRI / Innovate UK to agree bespoke KPIs with the Catapults as part of the five year review cycle.
  • On scaling the network and regional policy, it seeks a balance between opening new Catapults and funding existing ones, and says priority technologies "will be considered as part of the upcoming Innovation Strategy", with further local impact details in the Places Strategy.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error