Recommendation 14

We were concerned that lengthy approval times, combined with changes in coinvestment requirements, could deter participation from some small and microsized companies.39 For example, we received written evidence from Tees Valley Combined Authority which told us that it had submitted three successful and sequential bids relating to industrial decarbonisation for funding from the Fund. It explained that it had started its bids in early 2018, however meaningful work on the project had yet to commence 32 Q 37, C&AG’s Report, para 15 33 Q 37 34 Q 37 35 Q 38, C&AG’s Report, paras 2.14, 2.16 36 C&AG’s Report, paras 2.18–2.19, Figures 1 and 6. Of the 236 projects with applications submitted in late 2018 of after, it took an average of over 31 weeks for funding to be offered. The shortest time between an application being submitted and funding offered was 16 weeks, and the longest took over a year at 53 weeks. 37 Q 42 38 Q 42 39 Q 59 and C&AG’s Report, para 2.19 Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund 13 due to “the on-going process associated with managing the funds”.40 Similarly, evidence from Universities Scotland indicated that lead times for the Fund’s project—“to build the consortium, complete the application, await assessment outcomes, and for funding to come through to universities”—were, in its opinion, far too long.41 UKRI acknowledged that a two year wait for funding was very frustrating for businesses wanting to get on with projects. UKRI and the Department told us that there was a trade-off between quality and speed, and that they were hoping in the future to be “equally high quality and a lot faster at the same time”.42