Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 2
2
We are not convinced that UKRI’s and the Department’s approach to intellectual property generated by...
Conclusion
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.
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
agree with the conclusion that DHSC and NHS Digital took too long to identify all clinically extremely vulnerable people. Given the data available at the time, and the novelty of shielding policy, NHS Digital, DHSC, and frontline clinicians worked as quickly as possible to identify CEV people at the start of the pandemic. However, the government is committed to learning the lessons from this process to improve how national data is used to identify at risk groups in the future. 2.3 Work is already underway on this. NHS Digital has developed a strategic national GP dataset alongside the profession. This will allow faster access to GP information that will be more regularly updated and more complete than current data sources. NHSX and NHS Digital are also working together on plans to digitise the health service and to deliver comprehensive shared care records. 2.4 The above developments will be set out in a data strategy for health and social care that the government will shortly publish in draft. The strategy will contain a number of additional commitments reducing or removing structural, technical and cultural barriers, to enable quick and secure access to patient data where appropriate.