31. DTI's principle visible activity in the regions
is the giving of grants, through the GOs.
REGIONAL SELECTIVE ASSISTANCE
32. Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) was given
statutory form by the Industrial Development Act in 1982. By 1988
it had replaced Regional Development Grants. Its purpose is to
develop or modernise an industry if it is "likely to provide,
maintain or safeguard employment in any part of the assisted area".
Assisted areas are designated by the Government on the basis of
economic indicators, in several tiers. A new Assisted Areas map
was approved by the European Commission in May 2000. It will run
to the end of 2006. Those in the highest tier can receive under
European State Aid rules a higher proportion of a given investment
project. DTI administers RSA in England. Wales and Scotland have
their own arrangements.
33. In 1995, in our Regional Policy Report,
we made recommendations on RSA, including the suggestion that
it be paid in part in loans or guarantees and be targeted at competitiveness
and firms with potential for growth rather than solely concerned
with job protection.
In our 1997 Report on Co-ordination of Inward Investment
we concluded that:
"...as the principal
form of financial assistance in inward investment...RSA leaves
much to be desired...There is a case for a new assistance scheme
better able to reflect national priorities and requirements."
The Government Response referred to a:
"...review and valuation
of the RSA scheme which will be undertaken later this year."
The results of this exercise were evident in the
1998 DTI Competitiveness White Paper, which promised "refocusing"
"...to support the policy
of developing forward-looking regions" by "focussing
more support on high-quality, knowledge based projects which provide
34. On 2 August 2000 the Secretary of State announced
in a speech to the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce that "
there should be a strong presumption against intervention"
and that RSA "will increasingly be linked to raised productivity
and improvement in the skills base."
The estimated RSA budget for 2000-01 is £125.25 million.
In 1999-2000, 850 grants were awarded, which were expected to
safeguard 36,000 jobs.
35. In the South West, 38 offers of RSA were made
in 1999-2000, totalling £10 million, and creating 3,400 jobs.
In the East Midlands, 20 offers were made in 2000-01, worth £14.7
million, creating 1,832 jobs: this includes a single £6.6
million grant. The North East of England has the most complete
coverage in assisted areas in the country. In 1999-2000, 209 offers
were made totalling £39 million, creating 5,400 new jobs
and safeguarding 2,900 others.
36. The DTI 2001 Annual Report listed key criteria
to be taken into account in addition to existing considerations
of RSA applications:
- the level of wages and salaries, as compared
to the average for the sector and the region;
- whether the project is creating high skilled,
- the content of R & D (does the business invest
in R & D for continuous product development and/or innovative
- training and development (is there high quality
training for staff, including the provision of skills beyond job
We sought to discover how the new focus on high value
added projects had been implemented. Clearly, fewer and
bigger projects are funded, as the smaller projects now
fall under the Enterprise Grant Scheme. We found no evidence of
different criteria used to judge applications, nor evidence to
suggest that much thought had been given as to how the suggested
change in focus could be demonstrated. There is no sign of re-balancing
between jobs created and saved, nor of a move from job-centred
grants to firms with future prospects. We are aware of recent
cases in which RSA has been granted which do not come close to
meeting the new conditions laid out in the Annual Report, for
instance, funds granted to firms for low paid, unskilled jobs.
ENTERPRISE GRANT SCHEME
37. The Enterprise Grant Scheme (EGS) is available
to Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) operating in the
Enterprise Grant Scheme Areas. It has been hived off from the
Regional Selective Assistance scheme, and is aimed at both rescuing
existing jobs and creating new ones. The EGS was set up in 1999,
with funding of £45 million over the first three years. It
is targeted at those companies which need small amounts of funding.
It is intended to be simple and quickly available 35 days
is the target for delivery of funds and open to areas
not enjoying Assisted Areas status, including some rural areas
where the EGS could respond to local black spots. The EGS map
is to be reviewed. We understand that there will be slight changes
based on experience gained so far, but that major changes are
38. GOSW told us that they had distributed £450,000
under the Enterprise Grant Scheme since it began in January 2000,
and this budget has been raised to £750,000. 13 projects
have been offered grants. Most applications had come from Devon
and Cornwall. The low take up of the scheme in the South West
was in part attributed to the exclusion of some small towns from
the EGS map areas, and in part thought to be a result of an uneasy
transition from BL to SBS in some areas. The statistics for the
Enterprise Grant in the North East show 113 offers totalling £33.1
39. The Phoenix Fund was announced by DTI in November
1999. The national fund was originally £30 million, which
was more than trebled in July 2000 to £100m. It was set up
to address the problems laid out in the 1999 HM Treasury Policy
Action Team report Enterprise and Social Exclusion. The
Fund is designed to encourage new businesses in disadvantaged
areas. It has four elements: a Development Fund; a pilot network
of volunteer mentors; a Challenge Fund to help in funding Community
Finance Initiatives (CFIs) and loan guarantees to encourage lending
to CFIs. We reported on the proposed fund in some detail in our
March 2000 Report on Business, Enterprise and the Budget.
DTI received 253 bids amounting to £64.3 million for the
Development Fund. The first successful applicants were announced
in February 2001. £15 million will be given to 50 separate
organisations. For the Challenge Fund, 57 bids were made, totalling
£20.6 million. Our impression was that the fund does not
enjoy a high profile in the regions.
Business and Innovation
40. The Small Firms Merit Award for Research and
Technology (SMART) scheme will be run by the SBS in England, but
currently is run by the GO; separate schemes are run in Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Executive has retained
responsibility for SMART (and SPUR) schemes and has not devolved
them to the Enterprise Network. SMART provides grants to help
SMEs make better use of technology and develop innovative products.
There are around 800 grants made each year in England. In 2000
the requirements for obtaining SMART funding changed. Companies
obtaining SMART funds need no longer prove that their research
has a competitive element, and applications can be made year round.
We talked to a number of businesses during our visits and all
were enthusiastic about SMART. Companies such as IDS in the North
East and JDS Uniphase in the South West said they would not be
as successful nor have expanded as much as they have without the
assistance from SMART grants. 46 projects have been supported
through SMART in the North East with £2.4 million awarded.
In the South West 40 companies have received grants totalling
£2.7 million. GOSW is looking at the possibility of using
SMART as match funding to draw down EU funds.
41. Most firms regarded it as a well-run and minimally
bureaucratic scheme, although several found decision-making slow
and unduly secretive. This may be because the GOs refer applications
to third parties for assessment, research labs for example, who
naturally prefer not to be identified. However, the delay in payment
was not seen as so great a problem so long as the cash was known
to be on the way. Several companies had found that the award helped
increase their credibility with banks, especially where the technology
involved was complex or obscure.
42. We were told that SMART may be changed to a loan,
equity or royalty scheme. Those businesses we talked to expressed
some concerns over this suggestion. If there is to be a change
in financing, they would like a consultation process beforehand.
There was little support for a change, since the time at which
a grant was needed was probably not the right one for equity participation;
and the product would not be sufficiently advanced for royalty
payments to be practicable. David Irwin told us that he supports
a clawback loan scheme. Successful companies would pay back their
loans, but those who failed would be under no obligation to return
money. He felt that this proposal would speed up the process of
obtaining SMART money and enable more companies to benefit. However,
no decision has yet been made.
There was a consensus that one major unfilled gap was in marketing
products once developed, where experience of Business Links had
not been good.
43. All we saw and heard of SMART confirmed the view
we expressed in our Report of September 1999 that "the success
of the scheme should be judged on the results rather than
the number of projects."
It may not be easy to get more awards simply by raising the budget;
we have the impression that few applications are rejected for
budgetary reasons, and there would be little gained by deliberately
putting money into poor projects. However, there is room for spreading
the scope of SMART, in particular by targeting it at universities
and research institutes, which are as we understand it relatively
slight users. During our visit to Tamar Science Park we heard
that SMART has been of value to their start up companies.
44. We see a need for a more holistic approach to
the scheme. We know there are few out and out failures among the
SMART companies, but we are uncertain as to how the exact outcome
of companies receiving SMART funding is measured. There is a sense
that SMART could perhaps be more adventurous and less risk-averse.
REGIONAL VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS
45. The Regional Venture Capital Funds (RVCFs) were
introduced in the 1998 Competitiveness White Paper in December
In December 1999, proposed Government funding of £50 million
was announced, expected to lever in around £250 million of
private backing. The RVCFs were bid for in January 2000. In February
2000 the Secretary of State told us in oral evidence that he expected
the funds to be operational by late summer 2000.
Plans have since been held up by the European Commission's decision
to investigate RVCFs. Although the Commission supports the idea
in principle, it feels that it may breach rules on State Aids.
A decision is awaited but no date has yet been given. We have
been tracking venture capital developments in our reports since
the 1998 Competitiveness White Paper, most recently in March 2000.
We found a general frustration at having to wait so long for funding
because of Commission proceedings. There was impatience, especially
in areas ill-served by venture capital or business angels.
46. Despite the fact that the DTI's proposals for
Regional Venture Capital Funds are yet to be cleared by the European
Commission, One NorthEast introduced its own Regional Investment
Fund of £3.5 million to support SMEs. EMDA have a £30
million fund waiting for approval, heavily dependent on the County
Council pension funds; managers have been appointed. The BCC expressed
doubts about the level of funding RVCFs provide; they considered
£250,000 to be too low to attract venture capitalists, but
recognised that the Commission would be unlikely to approve a
higher cut off for funds.
47. Business Incubation networks have been set up,
using local partnerships of organisations and individuals to improve
communication and co-operation. In the 2001 White Paper the Government
announced a £75 million incubator fund, to be operated by
This will concentrate particularly on businesses run by women
and other under-represented groups. The White Paper mentioned
some incubators set up to target high tech start-ups and clusters.
The SBS is to part fund the development of local community incubators;
the bidding is to be managed by the RDAs. DTI aims to create 75
of these incubators by 2004, each helping 30 to 35 businesses.
The South West RDA are establishing an incubation partnership
with GOSW, SBS and outside organisations. We visited Tamar Science
Park and spoke to some of the companies involved. In Newcastle
we heard of the success of Pink Lane and of plans for Gateshead.
TEACHING COMPANIES SCHEME
48. The Teaching Companies Scheme (TCS) is an initiative
in which high calibre graduates work for two years in a company,
enabling research establishments, businesses and the graduates
themselves to benefit. The 1998 Competitiveness White Paper (CWP)
announced that DTI would double the funding commitment for TCS,
enabling an additional 200 projects a year to be financed. In
1997-98 DTI spent £11 million on TCS; the estimated spend
for 2000-01 was £14 million. The CWP added "in 2001,
the number of TCS programmes will reach the level of 1,000 at
any one time."
49. In our 1999 Report, we praised the TCS but questioned
its ability to expand in the manner that the 1998 Competitiveness
White Paper had imagined:
"The TCS is an admirable
and much admired scheme, now a major tool in technology transfer
to SMEs in particular...The announcement that DTI would seek to
create around 200 additional projects a year is welcome"
"There are difficulties in translating an increased
level of commitment of resources into increased bodies on the
The Government reply in 1999 confirmed that they
still expected to reach 1,000 TCS programmes by 2001-01. In 2000,
in response to our question on the figures in the 2000 Departmental
report, DTI told us:
"After a number of years
of limited promotion it has taken longer than expected to start
the flow of good prospective programmes. This was compounded by
the unexpected retirement of several experienced TCS consultants
as well as the need to recruit additional consultants...nine new
consultants have now been recruited bringing the total to 24 and
planned promotion is beginning to make an impact. These factors
give us confidence that the target of 1,000 TCS programmes by
the later part of 2001 can be met."
We look forward to finding out later this year if
this target can be met.
50. We met a number of companies with experience
of TCS during our visit to Nottingham. There was a general sense
that TCS was a well kept secret. Some felt the scheme was too
bureaucratic and rigid, and driven too much by the needs of the
academic institutions and the graduates concerned. It is a positive
feature of the scheme that it is not confined to technology and
science graduates; for example, language skills could also be
used. We noted that there was a similar one-year scheme run by
Nottingham Trent University with European funding. Those we met
at one Scottish University, however, said that in their experience,
TCS usually arose from a chance meeting between an academic and
a SME, and resulted in little satisfaction for the academic.
51. Faraday Partnerships were first announced in
the 1993 DTI White Paper on Science and Technology, and were funded
by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).
The December 1998 CWP set out the Government's intention to establish
a national network of Faraday Partnerships, doubling the existing
In June 1999 DTI announced funding for these four further Faraday
Partnerships as part of a 20% expansion of the Innovation Budget.
Current funding of £3.5 million should rise to £10 million
within two years.
Details of the four successful projects were announced in June
2000. An additional two are still under consideration. In July
2000 the DTI Science and Innovation White Paper proposed to launch
another ten Partnerships in 2001, aiming at a network of at least
24 by 2002.
52. All eight established Faraday Partnerships are
now joint funded by EPSRC and DTI. One of the two planned Partnerships
mentioned in the 2001 White Paper will be joint funded by DTI
and MAFF; one Partnership in the new round should be part funded
by the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC).
This funding reflects the main aim of the Partnerships, expressed
by DTI in the "Faraday Principles" as "to encourage
closer contact and exchange between the knowledge base and business".
DTI hopes that the Faradays eventually will become self-supporting.
All Partnerships can apply for extra funding, both from Research
Councils and other DTI funds, such as SMART.
53. The first four Partnerships, set up in 1997,
- PRIME (Products comprising Interdependent
Mechanical and Electrical Parts), led
by Universities of Loughborough and Nottingham and the Pera Group;
- INTErSECT (Intelligent Sensors for Control
Technologies), led by the National Physical
Laboratory and Sira Ltd;
- 3D-MATIC (3D Multimedia Engineering Laboratory
and Technology Integration Centre), led
by University of Glasgow, National Engineering Laboratory and
- White Rose, led by
University of Leeds, Cambridge Consultants and PIRA.
The second four, set up in June 2000, are:
- the Faraday Partnership in Aerospace and Automotive
Materials, led by Oxford University, Oxford Brookes, Cranfield,
the Motor Industries Research Association (MIRA), the Oxford Trust
and the Heart of England Business Link;
- Faraday Plastics,
led by Warwick Manufacturing Group and Rapra Technology;
- the Smith Institute Faraday Partnership,
led by the Smith Institute and various universities;
- TechniTex Faraday
Partnership, led by Heriot-Watt, Leeds and UMIST and the British
Textiles Technology Group.
Faraday Partnerships work on a national level across
sectors. Inevitably, however, they affect regional economies.
We have not been briefed in detail on any of the Faradays in the
course of our visits, although we touched on them in discussions
on knowledge transfer.
SCIENCE ENTERPRISE CHALLENGE
54. The Science Enterprise Challenge was set up in
February 1999. They are based at universities, creating a link
between academia and business. Twelve entrepreneurship centres
have been established,
focussing on three areas:
- teaching of enterprise and entrepreneurship to
science and technology students;
- making ideas and know-how available to business
to support competitiveness and wealth creation;
- encouraging the growth of new businesses by supporting
start-ups, including spin-out companies, based on innovative ideas
developed by students and faculties within the universities.
Funding for the project totals £28.9 million.
The 2000 White Paper, Excellence and Opportunity: a
science and innovation policy for the 21st century, announced
another £15 million in funding for a second round.
The DTI intends the centres to train around 40,000 students in
the first five years, establish 700 spin-off companies and create
200 new patents. Each centre aims to be self sustaining within
five years. Many of the centres have international academic and
business links; over 500 UK companies are involved.
55. During our visit to the East Midlands we met
representatives of the University of Nottingham Institute for
Enterprise and Innovation. We were told that their Science Enterprise
Challenge had been prepared in consultation with the other relevant
universities and was intended to have a regional impact. Modules
were offered in Nottingham University to third year undergraduates
and postgraduates. There is also a new one year MSc in Entrepreneurship,
Science and Technology, filling a perceived gap in the business
school MBA pattern which requires people to have some experience
before studying. In Newcastle we had a meeting with representatives
of the five universities involved in the Science Exploitation
and Enterprise Centre. All five have been working together as
Universities for the North East since 1999 with the aim of stimulating
new knowledge-based businesses.
UNIVERSITY CHALLENGE FUND
56. The University Challenge Fund (UCF) is a joint
scheme between the Government, the Wellcome Trust and the Gatsby
Charitable Foundation. Its purpose is to turn academic research
projects into viable businesses. It was announced in 1998 and
moved into its second round in 2000. The first round of funding
was £45 million, plus £15 million from universities
from matched funding. The second round was due to be worth £60
million, plus £20 million in matched funding. Any further
activity will be subsumed into the new Higher Education Innovation
Those we met at the University of Glasgow highlighted their frustration
at the length of time it takes before a scheme was ready for an
approach for venture capital. They felt that the University Challenge
fund went some way to filling this gap but that not enough funding
was available. They had experienced some disappointment with the
way in which their funding had been used.
57. UCF money is used as seedcorn funding for research
institutes to fund businesses in the development stage, for example
with market research and prototype development. This is intended
to catalyse private investment in high technology: venture capitalists
are still wary of this area. Universities also gain experience
in financing of businesses, paving the way for future projects
developed without such help. The first funding round created 15
seed funds, between £1-5 million, with a cap of £250,000
for a single project; 37 institutions (28 universities and 9 institutes)
were given access to this investment capital. Progress will be
monitored for ten years by annual reports. An HM Treasury study
in summer 2000 showed that £5.3 million had been invested.
58. In the spring 2001 Supplementary Estimates, DTI
announced that they were reducing their funding of the University
Challenge Fund from £9.4 million for the year, to £586,000.
We were told that some seed funds had been slow at investing their
"Some University Challenge
units have found difficulties in identifying and appointing Fund
Managers with the appropriate range of experience and skills.
In a number of cases, the setting up of larger consortia has proved
to be more complex than anticipated. Also, some Seed Funds would
appear, initially at least, to be taking a cautious approach to
DTI concluded that:
"if a Seed Fund has
not actually spent the commitments, it would clearly be inappropriate
to provide public funding in advance of need."
UNIVERSITY INNOVATION CENTRES
59. The 2001 DTI White Paper announced the setting
up of five university innovation centres:
- microsystems and nanotechnology in the North
East, involving BAE Systems and Procter and Gamble, with Durham
and Newcastle Universities;
- organic chemicals in the North West, with Astra
Zeneca and Unlilever, collaborating with the Manchester Polymer
- communications, computing and content technologies
in the South West, including Hewlett Packard and STMicroelectronics,
together with Bristol University;
- business to business e-commerce in the West Midlands,
involving Marconi and Sun Microsystems; and
- aerospace manufacturing in Yorkshire, with Boeing
and the Hamble Group, centred on a new Technology Park in Sheffield
under Sheffield University.
We were told about one of these, the nanotechnology
centre, during our visit to the North East. This had attracted
£3.2 million of venture capital. A number of other such initiatives
were also underway in the region, for example, the Teeside Virtual
Reality Centre and the Sunderland Adaptive Systems science park.
60. There are a number of other schemes for knowledge
transfer from the academic base.
- The new Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF)
was announced in the 2000 White Paper Excellence and Opportunity.
It will bring together funding streams at present spread out and
focus them. It will receive funding of £140 million over
three years, and become a permanent third stream of funding for
- Higher Education Reach Out to Business and the
Community (HEROBAC) is a scheme to encourage liaison between academia
and business. It works in liaison with SBS and LSCs. We heard
many positive comments about HEROBAC. It will be incorporated
into the HEIF.
- In Scotland the Proof of Concept fund provides
£29m for prospective commercialisation projects at the pre-development
conceptual stage. These projects must support SEn cluster development
priorities. The Universities representatives we met supported
the fund, but felt the amounts available were insufficient.
61. We heard at Nottingham University that science
enterprise initiatives have caught the wave of public interest.
There is a growing breed of people wanting to combine university
science and business applications. However, there is also weariness
and wariness at the plethora of initiatives and of overlapping
activity. The bidding culture is also a strain; it involves much
time and money on the part of those applying. It is not clear
that the level of existing technology transfer is recognised.
The August 2000 Hague Report from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors
and Principals, Spin-offs and start-ups in UK universities,
made this point.
"Strong and enthusiastic
leadership from the top of the university is essential, as also
are the high quality staff handling commercialisation and effective
access to networks of outsiders (both individuals and companies)
who can offer technical expertise and business advice."
"Increased commercial exploitation of research
has called for new skills in universities, to identify research
projects appropriate for exploitation, to obtain patents, find
licensees for patents, draw up business plans, and work with external
management experts and financiers. The success of universities
in developing the necessary professional skills and dedication
among staff in technology transfer offices is impressive, but
more will be needed as the scale of commercialisation of research
62. There is also a strong sense we gained in Newcastle
and Nottingham that universities cannot endlessly be expected
to respond to such initiatives and challenges when their core
funding is going down, and when academics are assessed for Research
Assessment Exercise funding by their publications and academic
Universities UK told us that the only Government funding available
for the development of long-term regional initiatives is the Higher
Education Innovation Fund. 
63. The 1998 CWP announced measures to help with
the creation and expansion of business clusters. It saw a role
for RDAs in the development of clusters and a Ministerial role
for the oversight of clusters of "national significance".
It also set up a team led by Lord Sainsbury of Turville, the Minister
for Science, to look at biotechnology clusters, in order to determine
how the UK could establish "Genome Valleys" in the regions.
Lord Sainsbury's report, Biotechnology Clusters,
was published in August 1999 and we commented
on the report in our September 1999 Report on Small Businesses
After our visit to the USA in June 1999, we had a degree of scepticism
for the idea of Government financing the creation and growth of
clusters. In our Report we stated:
"The Sainsbury Report
emphasises that it is not the Government's role to create clusters...It
expresses doubts about the longer-term viability of the companies
started up in Germany as part of a rather more interventionist
approach. It was evident in the USA that few of the factors generally
identified as having encouraged or facilitated clusters had any
connection with Government."
"We remain to be convinced
of the value of active pursuit of general policies designed to
lead to successful business clusters."
In its reply to this Report the Government responded:
"While the creation
and growth of clusters is market-driven, there is an important
role for Government in promoting and encouraging their development,
most obviously through tackling some of the barriers which might
inhibit their growth...The Government believes the time is now
right for a change of gear to augment the work currently being
taken by DTI, devolved administrations, other departments, the
English RDAs and other organisations to encourage the creation
and growth of clusters."
64. The DTI/DfEE 2001 White Paper talks about the
work that RDAs are doing on cluster development:
"To remove constraints
and highlight the potential for growth of successful clusters,
the Government has asked Regional Development Agencies to produce
strategies for success for their regions, drawing on their regional
strategies and using information such as the clusters map to identify
further potential centres of growth."
The Government's White Paper included regional annexes,
setting out cluster development in each of the nine regions. Examples
of clusters given by DTI include: in the North East, chemicals,
offshore and high value engineering, electronics; in the South
West, antique dealing, environmental industries and financial
services; in the East Midlands, technical textiles and clothing,
furniture manufacture and plastics. The BCC expressed the opinion
that more consideration should be taken on planning policy in
developing cluster strategy.
65. On our visits, we discussed cluster work, for
which the RDAs are financed from the Regional Innovation Fund.
Some regions are pursuing cluster policies with enthusiasm while
others are more reserved.
- EMDA told us that they were very keen on cluster
development; in particular in innovative textile and fashion design,
where there is the chance to replace at least some of the losses
at the conventional end of the textiles market.
- South West RDA told us they considered the South
West to have only one cluster; aerospace near Bristol, although
there were concentrations of industry which needed to maximise
- Scottish Enterprise identified national and regional
clusters: food and drink was a national cluster; in the Forth
Valley there is a regional chemicals cluster. SEn described their
role in cluster development as one of an 'honest broker' bringing
industries together to encourage knowledge sharing.
34 Industrial Development Act 1982, 7 (1(a)) Back
Policy, Fourth Report, Session
1994-5, HC 356-I Back
355, para 26; Industrial and Trade Relations with Japan,
Eleventh Report, Session 1997-98, HC 568 Back
Observations on the First Report from the Trade and Industry Committee
(Session 1997-98) on Coordination of Inward Investment,
Fourth Special Report, Session 1997-98, HC 659, para 18 Back
competitive future: building the knowledge driven economy,
DTI, published 1998, Cm 4176 (hereafter Cm 4176) Back
to Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, 2/8/00, http://www.dti.gov.uk/ministers/speeches/byers020800.html Back
and Industry, The Government's Expenditure Plans, 2000-01, 2001-02,
published April 2000, Cm 4611 Back
Government's Expenditure Plans 2001-02 to 2003-04 and Main Estimates
2001-02, DTI, published March
2001, Cm 5112 (hereafter Cm 5112), p75 Back
Enterprise and the Budget,
Seventh Report, Session 1999-2000, HC 51 (hereafter HC 51) Back
Businesses and Enterprise,
Thirteenth Report, Session 1998-99, HC 330, (hereafter HC 330),
para 35 Back
4176, p19, para 2.24 Back
51, para 100 Back
47 ibid Back
for all in a world of change: A White Paper on Enterprise, Skills
and Innovation, DTI, published
February 2001, Cm 5052 (hereafter Cm 5052) p 35 Back
4176, para 7.23 Back
330, para 40 Back
para 39 Back
140, Ev p5 Back
4176, Implementation Plan, p10 Back
5112, para 7.18 Back
and Opportunity, a science and innovation policy for the 21st
century, DTI, published July
2000, Cm 4814, (hereafter Cm 4814) Back
twelve centres are: Bristol University; Cambridge University;
UCL and the London Business Centre; Imperial College; UMIST, involving
Manchester University, the University of Salford and Manchester
Metropolitan University; University of Ulster and Queen's University,
Belfast; Oxford University; the Scottish Institute for Enterprise,
a collaboration between Heriot-Watt and Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee
and Strathclyde Universities; the Science Exploitation and Enterprise
Centre, including Durham, Newcastle, Teeside, Northumbria and
Sunderland Universities; University of Nottingham; the White Rose
Centre linking the Universities of York, Sheffield and Leeds,
and Mercia Institute of Enterprise, which takes in the Universities
of Warwick, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Keele, Staffordshire, Coventry,
Aston and Central England in Birmingham (http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/ostbusiness/sec.htm). Back
para 60 Back
- 01/9 Back
5052, p 37 Back
4814, p29 Back
Report Spin-offs and start-ups in UK universities, published
August 2000, p6, para 7 Back
p6, para 8 Back
Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) assesses the quality of research
in universities and colleges in the UK. It takes place every four
to five years and the next exercise will be held in 2001. Around
£5 billion of research funds will be distributed in response
to the results of the 2001 RAE. The main purpose of the RAE is
to enable the higher education funding bodies to distribute public
funds for research selectively on the basis of quality.
p 2, para 10 Back
4176, Implementation Plan p21 Back
Clusters, DTI, published
August 1999 Back
para 50 Back
para 50 Back
Observations on the Thirteenth Report from the Trade and Industry
Committee (Session 1998-99) on Small Businesses and Enterprise,
published 23 November, First Report, Session 1999-00, HC 49, paras
5052, p44, para 3.45 Back
p 5, para 5.6 Back
funding for cluster development will continue to be provided to
RDAs via the Regional Innovation Fund." HC Deb, 22/3/01,
col 304W Back