Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Fifty-Sixth Report - Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund
Public Accounts Committee
HC 941
Published 30 April 2021
Recommendations
6
The elongated time taken by the Department and UKRI to provide funding to successful bidders...
Recommendation
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 …
Read more
HM Treasury
View Details →
Conclusions (20)
2
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 …
3
Conclusion
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% …
5
Conclusion
UKRI is not doing enough to make sure the Fund is attracting successful bids from across the country. Funding awarded by the Fund is distributed unevenly across the regions of the United Kingdom. By October 2020, just over 63% of the Fund had been awarded to organisations registered in London, …
7
Conclusion
Powers currently delegated by the Department and HM Treasury to UKRI do not strike the right balance between the governance necessary to support efficient decision making and unnecessary bureaucracy. The Department and HM Treasury set the governance arrangements for UKRI’s oversight of the Fund, including the requirements for approving new …
1
Conclusion
On the basis of a Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (the Department) and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) about the management of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (the Fund).1 Assessing Fund performance
4
Conclusion
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 …
8
Conclusion
We asked the Department and UKRI why it had not ensured that the taxpayer benefited from any intellectual property generated as a result of successful commercial development paid for by the Fund.19 The Department told us that securing intellectual property was not the purpose of the Fund—instead it was to …
9
Conclusion
The government has a target to increase the UK’s public and private investment in R&D to 2.4% of gross domestic product by 2027. The Fund contributes to this target.24 In 2018, the most recent year for which data are available, the UK invested 1.7% of its gross domestic product in …
10
Conclusion
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.26We asked witnesses how, and by when, it was going to increase funding to meet the target. The Department told us that it hoped to …
11
Conclusion
UKRI considered that meeting the target as very challenging but also described it as plausible if it could, for example, maintain the momentum the Fund had generated around private investment. It asserted that having an ambitious target was important “otherwise, one won’t even meet unambitious targets, let along ambitious ones”.30 …
12
Conclusion
In the third and most recent wave of funding that started in 2019–20, it took UKRI, the Department and HM Treasury 72 weeks to select and approve challenges.32 We asked the Department and UKRI why it took them over a year to select and approve challenges. The Department told us …
13
Conclusion
The Department told us that part of the reason for the delays in approving challenges, and ultimately projects, lay with drawn-out approval processes.34 The Department and HM Treasury are responsible for approving business cases for challenges. The Department told us that the process for selecting and signing off challenges started …
14
Conclusion
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 …
15
Conclusion
Delays in getting new challenges approved have had a knock-on effect on UKRI’s ability to start spending. For example, in 2019–20, UKRI had underspent by £86 million, equivalent to 14% of its budget for the Fund the year. During 2020–21 UKRI agreed to re-profile £165 million from the current budget …
16
Conclusion
Lack of staffing capacity within UKRI may also have impacted the time taken to approve bids. At the start of Waves 2 and 3, UKRI faced significant challenges recruiting staff to oversee and manage the challenge programmes. Of the 186 full-time-equivalent staff UKRI estimated it needed to administer the Fund …
17
Conclusion
One of the Fund’s five objectives is to increase collaboration between new small companies and those that are established. Analysis undertaken by the National Audit Office showed that UKRI had initially succeeded in attracting a range of different sized companies to participate in the Fund. However, in the third wave …
18
Conclusion
There are several reasons why the proportion of smaller businesses receiving funding could have fallen including the increase in UKRI’s requirements for coinvestment from participants for wave 3 funding. UKRI increased the co-investment requirement from industry in wave 3, responding to a requirement from the Secretary of State for Business, …
19
Conclusion
Other factors that may have influenced the reduced participation of smaller businesses include insufficient communication about the Fund reaching SMEs, limited capacity within SMEs to participate in collaborative bids, and the lengthy approvals processes for funding.51 We received written evidence from Universities Scotland, which told us that “insufficient communication and …
20
Conclusion
Whilst UKRI does not have an explicit objective to consider the regional balance in its funding awards, the 2017 Industrial Strategy did include a focus on ‘prosperous communities’ across the UK.55 The government’s 2020 Roadmap for R&D expenditure sets out its intention that spending on R&D and innovation should contribute …
21
Conclusion
UKRI recognised the need to think about R&D expenditure in terms of what it described as the ‘place part of the agenda’.58 Comparing the distribution of the Fund with what it described as normal R&D expenditure, UKRI asserted that it thought that investment through the Fund in London was “very …