This White Paper represents the ambition of Government to promote innovation across society as a tool to develop and generate economic prosperity and improve the quality of life throughout the UK. The policies include proposals about how Government can use procurement and regulation to promote innovation in business and make the public sector and public services more innovative. The White Paper is in 10 chapters: The role of government; demanding innovation; supporting business innovation; the need for a strong and innovative research base; international innovation; innovative people; public sector innovation; innovative places and the innovation nation: next steps. An Annex sets out the development of this White Paper. Published alongside the White Paper is 'Implementing "The Race to the Top": Lord Sainsbury's review of Government's science and innovation' (ISBN 9780108507175). Lord Sainsbury's review published in October 2007 (HM Treasury, ISBN 9781845323561, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/5/E/sainsbury_review051007.pdf) and also relevant is the 2008 Enterprise Strategy (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/E/3/bud08_enterprise_524.pdf)
In late 2008, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills stepped in to offer targeted support to struggling, but viable, businesses in the face of a severe economic downturn. The Department began to think strategically about its response in autumn 2008 and in October 2008 it launched six schemes, comprising over £20 billion of potential support, to improve access to finance and to support the automotive sector. It did not, however, set out an overarching aim for the schemes. The Department did well to set-up the schemes quickly under pressure, with support reaching businesses between three and 35 weeks after they were announced. The management of the schemes was generally good. Take-up, however, has been lower than expected, partly as a result of the suitability of the support, driven by the Department's limited pre-existing knowledge of some of these activities. There were weaknesses in the Department's arrangements for estimating the cost of administering the schemes. A departmental analysis of the Vehicle Scrappage Scheme forecast that it would provide a net economic loss and was unlikely to represent good value for money in the longer term. Ministers directed the Department to continue for a number of reasons: including that extra purchases made while the economy was suffering were worth more than those when the sector had recovered and that the risk of doing nothing outweighed the risks of intervention.
At a cost of £1.47 billion by March 2009, Train to Gain had supported employer-focused training for over one million learners, and had developed a skills brokerage service with which a majority of employers was satisfied. But while Train to Gain has achieved undoubted benefits for employers, the NAO has concluded that over its full lifetime the programme has not provided good value for money. Unrealistically ambitious initial targets and inconsistent implementation reduced the efficiency of the programme. Take up was much lower than expected at first, leading to underspending. Learners have nevertheless benefited from improved work skills at a basic level, and surveys of employers have provided evidence of improved business performance from the training. For many of the 554,100 learners who achieved a qualification it was their first qualification, giving them a boost in self-confidence as well as new employment skills. Some employers have reported that the training has led to improved business performance. Many of the 143,400 engagements with employers to provide advice on skills training were with 'hard to reach' businesses that had previously provided little or no training for their staff. Learners' success rates have varied substantially between training providers. In 2006-07, success rates ranged from 8 to 99 per cent for the largest 100 providers. A half of employers whose employees received training would have arranged similar training without public subsidy. The report concludes that the now strong demand for training should be used as an opportunity to focus resources on the areas of greatest need and on training with the highest quality providers.
The new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS) was formed in June 2009 by the merger of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS). This report looks back on the last departmental report of the old Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and considers the progress made in moving forward the new Department. The Committee welcomes the creation of the new Department which brings under one roof the business and further and higher education sectors. The Committee believes this could deliver significant potential benefits. The report examines the merger process, the delivery agencies, public service agreements and departmental strategic objectives, and future departmental reports and resource accounts. The report also focuses on the Automotive Assistance Scheme, designed primarily to support investment in low carbon plant and research and development. It welcomes the lowering of the limit of the Scheme from £5 million to £1 million, in line with its recommendation made in July, but is deeply concerned that not a single loan or loan guarantee has been made under the programme. The Committee calls on the Government to expedite its negotiations, and prove to the Committee and the automotive industry that the Scheme can provide tangible benefits to companies in the sector.
Since 2000, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and its predecessors have invested around £338 million in a series of venture capital funds to support young companies, which may find it difficult to obtain funding elsewhere. Nearly half of these businesses were not confident that they would have been able to go ahead anyway without finance from the Department's funds. The Department failed to establish a robust framework, and associated baselines, against which to measure the impact of the funds: objectives were not clearly set out or prioritized. It was therefore not in a position to judge whether the taxpayers' investment offered value for money. The Department, however, is now planning to take steps to strengthen its programme management and evaluation so that it is better able to demonstrate value for money. The taxpayer is unlikely to receive financial returns on investment from the early funds. The £74 million invested in the Regional Venture Capital Funds, for example, is currently valued in the Department's accounts at £5.9 million and the Department will get a financial return only if the individual funds outperform the preferential 10 per cent return to other investors. The economic benefits derived from the programme have yet to be measured.
Since 2000 the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (the Department) and its predecessors have invested public money, alongside private investors, in a series of funds managed by private sector fund managers. The funds provide support to small businesses unlikely to receive support from other sources. The programme currently comprises 28 funds. By December 2009 taxpayers had contributed £338 million, alongside £438 million from private investors. The Department's intervention in the venture capital market was experimental and risky, yet it did not set clear, prioritised objectives for the funds, including the expected economic benefits, and did not set targets at the outset for expected rates of return. The Department did not begin to properly evaluate the progress of its early funds until late 2008 and, to the concern of the Committee, did not publish any information on the funds until December 2009. The evidence suggests that the funds are underperforming. As at December 2008 the Regional Venture Capital Funds, the largest category of early funds, showed negative returns and the average rate of return was minus 15.7 per cent whilst private European venture capital funds of a similar size had an average rate of return of minus 0.4 per cent. The Department has not done enough to curtail the high costs of managing the funds. Fees for the Regional Venture Capital Funds have totalled £46 million compared to the £130 million invested. Substantial fees have been paid to fund managers even though the performance of the funds has been poor.
This supporting document to Budget 2011 (HC 836, ISBN 9780102971033) sets out the Government's plan for sustainable, long-term economic growth for the UK economy. It sets out four ambitions that underpin this objective, these are: to create the most competitive tax system in the G20; to make the UK one of the best places in Europe to start, finance and grow a business; to encourage investment and exports as a route to a more balanced economy and to create a more educated workforce that is the most flexible in Europe. Growth review measures outlined in Chapter 2 cover these priority areas: planning; regulation; trade and inward investment; access to finance; competition; corporate governance; low carbon. The first phase of the review also examined eight sectors of the economy to remove the barriers to growth that affect them: advanced manufacturing; healthcare and life sciences; digital and creative industries; professional and business services; retail; construction; space; tourism.
In this document the Government sets out a programme of action designed to position the UK as a long-term leader in communications, creating an industrial framework that will fully harness digital technology. The UK's digital dividend will transform the way business operates, enhance the delivery of public services, stimulate communications infrastructure ready for next-generation distribution and preserve Britain's status as a global hub for media and entertainment. This approach seeks to maximise the digital opportunities for all citizens. The report contains: (1) an analysis of the levels of digital participation, skills and access needed for the digital future, with a plan for increasing participation, and more coherent public structures to deal with it; (2) an analysis of communications infrastructure capabilities; (3) plans for the future growth of creative industries, proposals for a legal and regulatory framework for intellectual property and proposals on skills and investment support and innovation; (4) a restatement of the need for specific market intervention in the UK content market, with implications and challenges for the BBC and C4 Corporation and other forms of independent and suitably funded news; (5) an analysis of the skills, research and training markets, and what supply side issues need addressing for a fully functioning digital economy; (6) a framework for digital security and digital safety at international and national levels and recognition that a world of high speed connectivity needs a digital framework not an analogue one; (7) a review of what all of this means for the Government and how digital governance in the information age demands new structures, new safeguards, and new data management, access and transparency rules.
The new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS) was formed in June 2009 by the merger of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS). This report looks back on the last departmental report of the old Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and considers the progress made in moving forward the new Department. The Committee welcomes the creation of the new Department which brings under one roof the business and further and higher education sectors. The Committee believes this could deliver significant potential benefits. The report examines the merger process, the delivery agencies, public service agreements and departmental strategic objectives, and future departmental reports and resource accounts. The report also focuses on the Automotive Assistance Scheme, designed primarily to support investment in low carbon plant and research and development. It welcomes the lowering of the limit of the Scheme from £5 million to £1 million, in line with its recommendation made in July, but is deeply concerned that not a single loan or loan guarantee has been made under the programme. The Committee calls on the Government to expedite its negotiations, and prove to the Committee and the automotive industry that the Scheme can provide tangible benefits to companies in the sector.
Government response to the Committee's third report of session 2010-11, fifth report of session 2010-12, report, together with formal minutes and appendices
Government response to the Committee's third report of session 2010-11, fifth report of session 2010-12, report, together with formal minutes and appendices
Government response to the Committee's first report of session 2009-10, eleventh report of session 2009-10, report, together with written evidence and formal minutes
Government response to the Committee's first report of session 2009-10, eleventh report of session 2009-10, report, together with written evidence and formal minutes
The cost of cyber crime to the UK is currently estimated to be between £18 billion and £27 billion. Business, government and the public must therefore be constantly alert to the level of risk if they are to succeed in detecting and resisting the threat of cyber attack. The UK Cyber Security Strategy, published in November 2011, set out how the Government planned to deliver the National Cyber Security Programme through to 2015, committing £650 million of additional funding. Among progress reported so far, the Serious Organised Crime Agency repatriated more than 2.3 million items of compromised card payment details to the financial sector in the UK and internationally since 2011, preventing a potential economic loss of more than £500 million. In the past year, moreover, the public reported to Action Fraud over 46,000 reports of cyber crime, amounting to £292 million worth of attempted fraud. NAO identifies six key challenges faced by the Government in implanting its cyber security strategy in a rapidly changing environment. These are the need to influence industry to protect and promote itself and UK plc; to address the UK's current and future ICT and cyber security skills gap; to increase awareness so that people are not the weakest link; to tackle cyber crime and enforce the law; to get government to be more agile and joined-up; and to demonstrate value for money. The NAO recognizes, however, that there are some particular challenges in establishing the value for money
This White Paper represents the ambition of Government to promote innovation across society as a tool to develop and generate economic prosperity and improve the quality of life throughout the UK. The policies include proposals about how Government can use procurement and regulation to promote innovation in business and make the public sector and public services more innovative. The White Paper is in 10 chapters: The role of government; demanding innovation; supporting business innovation; the need for a strong and innovative research base; international innovation; innovative people; public sector innovation; innovative places and the innovation nation: next steps. An Annex sets out the development of this White Paper. Published alongside the White Paper is 'Implementing "The Race to the Top": Lord Sainsbury's review of Government's science and innovation' (ISBN 9780108507175). Lord Sainsbury's review published in October 2007 (HM Treasury, ISBN 9781845323561, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/5/E/sainsbury_review051007.pdf) and also relevant is the 2008 Enterprise Strategy (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/E/3/bud08_enterprise_524.pdf)
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.