Recommendations & Conclusions
4 items
2
Recommendation
Fifty-Sixth Report - Industrial Strateg…
Not Addressed
We are not convinced that UKRI’s and the Department’s approach to intellectual property generated by the Fund adequately protects taxpayers’ interests. Taxpayer funding invested through the Fund creates a ‘bridge’ between pure research investment and commercial development. There will potentially be value in the intellectual property associated with the projects …
Read more
We are not convinced that UKRI’s and the Department’s approach to intellectual property generated by the Fund adequately protects taxpayers’ interests. Taxpayer funding invested through the Fund creates a ‘bridge’ between pure research investment and commercial development. There will potentially be value in the intellectual property associated with the projects that are funded. As we have seen with previous reports, it is important that intellectual properly produced as a result of taxpayer investment is exploited to maximise the value of the investment. However, UKRI has not ensured that any intellectual property generated as a result of the Fund is used to the benefit of the UK. The Department asserts that the Fund’s purpose is to accelerate R&D investment generally, not to capture any potential benefits in this way. We are not convinced by its view that retaining a say over intellectual property rights is not necessary to recoup the benefits of the Fund for the UK. A better understanding of what benefits the Fund is expected to deliver to the UK economy would provide UKRI and the Department with a stronger basis for considering the best way to protect taxpayers’ interests. The Committee is highly sceptical about the Department’s response after the hearing that “IP rights, should be owned by the party best placed to exploit them” because UK Academia does not have a strong record of protecting IP rights. Recommendation: UKRI should re-examine its current approach of not holding a claim on intellectual property generated through the Fund. It should write to the Committee by July 2021 setting out the results of its review and explain how it intends to best protect the taxpayers’ interests and maximise the value from taxpayer investment in the future.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response addresses unrelated issues concerning the identification of clinically extremely vulnerable people and NHS data strategy, completely failing to address the recommendation for UKRI to re-examine its intellectual property approach for the Fund.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
3
Recommendation
Fifty-Sixth Report - Industrial Strateg…
Not Addressed
The Department has not yet made clear how it will make sure the UK will meet the target to spend 2.4% of its GDP on R&D by 2027. The government has a target to 6 Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund increase the UK’s public and private investment in R&D to 2.4% …
Read more
The Department has not yet made clear how it will make sure the UK will meet the target to spend 2.4% of its GDP on R&D by 2027. The government has a target to 6 Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund increase the UK’s public and private investment in R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. In 2018, the latest year for which data are available, the UK spent £37 billion on R&D, the equivalent of 1.7% of its GDP. This is well below the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s average of 2.4%, and the level achieved by other OECD countries. Germany for example spent 2.9% of its GDP on R&D in 2018. In 2019, the Department announced that to achieve government’s target of 2.4%, both public and private R&D investment would need to rise to around £60 billion each year. The government has committed to increasing public investment in R&D to £22 billion by 2021–25. UKRI asserts that meeting the target is challenging but plausible. The recent impact of COVID-19 on the economy may make prioritising the public investment required to meet the target even more challenging. Recommendation: The Department should develop, and then publish, by October 2021, its plan setting out the steps it will take to meet the 2.4% spending target by
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government response discusses local variation in the Shielded Patient List and future analysis, which is unrelated to the recommendation about the UK's R&D spending target.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
6
Recommendation
Fifty-Sixth Report - Industrial Strateg…
Not Addressed
The elongated time taken by the Department and UKRI to provide funding to successful bidders risks putting off businesses from applying for the programme. It took UKRI, the Department and HM Treasury 72 weeks to select and approve the challenges that were given funding in 2019–20. It took UKRI on …
Read more
The elongated time taken by the Department and UKRI to provide funding to successful bidders risks putting off businesses from applying for the programme. It took UKRI, the Department and HM Treasury 72 weeks to select and approve the challenges that were given funding in 2019–20. It took UKRI on average a further 31 weeks to assess applications for project funding and approve individual projects. The lengthy time taken to agree challenges and approve projects leads to delays in funding projects. For example, we heard from one organisation that meaningful work has yet to start on some projects for which those responsible had started to bid for funding as early as 2018. Taking too long to approve challenges and then select projects to fund risks delaying the impact from the projects which are supported. This prolonged process may also potentially deter some organisations from applying for funding and delay the impact of UKRI’s investments. We are concerned that this could particularly affect smaller businesses which may not have the financial and staffing resources to wait for funding. Recommendation: The Department, HM Treasury and UKRI should set out by October 2021 how they intend to speed up the time taken to approve challenges and projects.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response provides only introductory text and lists relevant reports, failing to address the recommendation for the Department, HM Treasury, and UKRI to outline plans for speeding up approval times for challenges and projects.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
4
Conclusion
Fifty-Sixth Report - Industrial Strateg…
Not Addressed
The Department has five objectives for the Fund, to: • increase UK businesses’ investment in R&D, while also improving R&D capability, capacity and technology adoption; • increase multi- and inter-disciplinary research; • increase engagement between academia and industry on targeted innovation activities; • increase collaboration between new small companies and …
Read more
The Department has five objectives for the Fund, to: • increase UK businesses’ investment in R&D, while also improving R&D capability, capacity and technology adoption; • increase multi- and inter-disciplinary research; • increase engagement between academia and industry on targeted innovation activities; • increase collaboration between new small companies and those that are established; and 1 C&AG’s Report, UK Research and Innovation’s management of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Session 2019–21, HC 1130, 5 February 2021 2 C&AG’s Report, paras 2, 3 and 6 3 C&AG’s Report, para 1.11 4 HM Treasury, Build Back Better: our plan for growth, Policy Paper CP 401, 3 March 2021 Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund 9 • and increase overseas investment in R&D in the UK.5
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government response does not address the committee's item regarding the objectives of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, instead discussing the delivery of shielding support to clinically extremely vulnerable individuals.
Read full response →
HM Treasury