Watchdog's investment body findings prompt concern over UK research ‘leadership'
An assessment by the National Audit Office (NAO) of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), a non-departmental public body established in 2018, found concerns about fraud protection and its ability to maximise value for money from its funding.
The NAO also identified a lack of a coherent direction from government departments on R&I priorities and inefficient data systems at the UKRI, alongside a lack of 'measurable objectives' which have limited effective monitoring of progress at strategic level.
The public spending watchdog also said there is a need to strengthen the management of risk in relation to funding decisions.
The Government has identified research and innovation, also known as research and development, as crucial to achieving its priorities of growing the economy and achieving net zero.
In her Autumn Budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves committed to invest £20.4 billion in this area in 2025/26, with the Government promising to 'promote innovation and harness the full potential of the UK's science base … (through) protecting record funding for research and development'.
Responding to the NAO report, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Conservative chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said: 'With UKRI spending over £9 billion on R&I a year, it is vital that it gets this right.
'UKRI plays a key role in supporting a substantial and successful R&I system, seeking to take a high-risk, high-reward approach to grant funding. However, it lacks any measurable objectives to track progress and does not have the right data to manage grant spending strategically.
'For the nation to remain global leaders in R&I, UKRI must do more to support its decision-makers, foster resilience, and ensure our systems can continue to respond to emerging challenges.'
The NAO said the Government does not currently have clarity on what it is asking the body to do because of a 'lack of co-ordination in how Government expects UKRI to support the delivery of a range of objectives'.
It added: 'Due to the broad nature of UKRI's activity, government departments indicate their policy priorities to UKRI through a variety of means, including ad hoc and routine meetings, government strategies and mission statements, and spending review budgets.
'But these are not consolidated or ranked, which means the overall picture of what Government is asking UKRI to do is unclear.'
The NAO also said none of the objectives outlined in UKRI's first five-year strategy are 'specific, measurable or time-bound', which makes it 'difficult to understand what it is seeking to achieve'.
The report highlights that the body has pledged to take 'high risks where there is a potential for high rewards'.
But it warned that 'data limitations', caused in part by problems bringing together systems of 'multiple' predecessor organisations, are restricting UKRI's 'ability to efficiently manage its investments'.
The NAO also found the body is not currently in full compliance with the Government's standards for counter-fraud, adding that the dedicated team is under-staffed, dealing with a backlog of cases and has limited capacity for work on prevention.
While UKRI has had deficiencies in funding assurance 'for several years running', its controls on the individual grants audited by the NAO were found to be adequate.
However, the watchdog said the UKRI could not provide 'a reliable picture of whether, across the organisation, error and fraud are under control'.
Overall, the body has investigated suspected fraud on £42.6 million of grants, identified £4.6 million of fraud, prevented £13.5 million, and recovered £80,000.
The NAO recommended UKRI clarifies its appetite for risk relating to funding decisions and identifies 'barriers and incentives to taking bolder decisions'.
It also called on the body to address deficiencies found in financial audits and data systems, and said it should work with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) to 'map out' the government priorities and objectives it is expected to support in delivering.
Gareth Davies, head of the NAO, said: 'Providing effective support for research and innovation that secures value from public sector investment is a complex challenge. New ideas will not have a track record of delivery and innovative projects inevitably carry a higher degree of uncertainty.
'Although UKRI has played a key role in supporting a globally respected R&I system, there is more it could do to maximise value for money.
'Our recommendations are designed to help UKRI ensure its culture supports well-managed risk taking; develop better data to support decision making; and work with DSIT to define more clearly the overarching outcomes sought from its research and innovation spending.'
A UKRI spokesperson said: 'UKRI invests over £9.5 billion a year in the UK's world-class research and innovation ecosystem and this plays a crucial role in driving sustainable economic growth, creating jobs and improving public services for people across the UK.
'We welcome today's report from the National Audit Office which recognises the vital role that UKRI plays in shaping and supporting a successful UK R&I endeavour, and endorses the work we are doing to drive continuous improvement in how we work.
'UKRI will continue to use its unique position in the research and innovation system to make smart and strategic investment choices, building a portfolio of investments that deliver the best outcomes now and in the future, making the most effective use of public money.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
41 minutes ago
- STV News
Starmer urges Iran and Israel to ‘step back' after strikes targeting Tehran
The Prime Minister has 'urged all parties to step back' after Israeli strikes targeting Iran's nuclear programme. Israel launched strikes on Tehran early on Friday, rekindling fears of a full-scale conflict. Sir Keir Starmer said the Government urged 'all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently' after the strikes, adding that 'now is the time for restraint, calm and a return to diplomacy'. He said: 'The reports of these strikes are concerning and we urge all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently. Escalation serves no-one in the region. 'Stability in the Middle East must be the priority and we are engaging partners to de-escalate. Now is the time for restraint, calm and a return to diplomacy.' The attack appeared to be the most significant Iran has faced since its war with Iraq in the 1980s. Sir Keir's sentiments were echoed by Foreign Secretary David Lammy, who said stability in the Middle East was 'vital' for global security. 'Further escalation is a serious threat to peace & stability in the region and in no-one's interest,' he said in a post on X. 'This is a dangerous moment & I urge all parties to show restraint.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Five ways Rachel Reeves could launch a tax raid on pensions
Before Rachel Reeves's first spending review, a palpable sense of trepidation had spread across Britain. During her 11 months in office, few have emerged unscathed from the Chancellor's quest to plug the £22bn black hole she claims to have inherited from the Conservatives. Just weeks after Labour's election win, millions of pensioners watched on powerlessly as their winter fuel payments were snatched away, before a spectacular about-turn was finally confirmed this month. In her first Budget last October, she also unleashed a £40bn tax raid that put businesses, farmers and retirement savers firmly in the firing line. During her latest visit to the despatch box, she began with the choices she'd made to 'fix the foundations of our economy' before unveiling billions more in spending. Her opposite number, shadow chancellor Mel Stride, immediately branded it the 'spend now, tax later' review. Once the blows were traded in Parliament, however, experts were quick to predict that the only way to pay for her promises was through tax hikes. With Ms Reeves theoretically bound by Labour's manifesto promise not to increase income tax, National Insurance or VAT on 'working people', she will need to raise revenue elsewhere. Here, Telegraph Money outlines five ways the Chancellor could tax your pension to balance the books. Meddling with tax relief As a backbencher, Ms Reeves argued for a 33pc flat rate of tax relief. Rachel Vahey, of wealth manager AJ Bell, said it was an area the Chancellor could target, and that a tax lock was needed to ward off tax raids. She said: 'Pensions are incredibly tax efficient. They need to be to encourage people to put away their money today and invest it long term. But people shouldn't have to make long-term decisions in the face of increasing speculation. 'Instead we need certainty on pensions tax, so we're calling for a pensions tax lock – a commitment from Government that the current pension tax rules will stick, at least for this Parliament.' Calum Cooper, of Hymans Robertson, agreed that a flat rate of tax relief was one place the Chancellor was likely to look, but warned it came with political risks. He said: 'An alternative that's gaining quiet traction in policy circles is a shift in the timing of tax relief. Under a new system, individuals could contribute out of post-tax income and receive a government top-up, with pensions then exempt from income tax on withdrawal. 'The effect is fiscally similar and has no impact on take-home pay or take-home pensions, but it provides the Treasury with £22bn-plus more cash to invest in the short term by taxing income now rather than later.' Taking aim at tax-free cash Currently, pensions usually come with the option to take up to 25pc in cash tax-free up to a maximum of £268,275. Some experts fear that the Chancellor could look to make changes and target high earners. Rob Morgan, of investment manager Charles Stanley, said: 'I have a niggling concern that the tax-free cash limit is, operationally, a lever that's quite easy to pull. 'There is the potential to set a higher or lower cash limit fairly easily and target those with larger pension pots without disturbing the '25pc tax-free cash for most people' narrative. 'If the tax-free cash limit stays frozen, this would provide another example of the fiscal drag that governments are so fond of and it would raise some extra revenue. But it could also be reduced by any politician looking in envy at the amount being released tax-free from defined contribution pots.' Decimating salary sacrifice Currently, workers can sacrifice part of their wages to be paid into their pension. This is exempt from both income tax and National Insurance, fuelling their pension pot and boosting their retirement. However, millions could be at risk of a stealth tax raid after HMRC funded research into changing the rules. Under one scenario examined, exemptions for both income tax and National Insurance could be scrapped, costing the average earner more than £500 a year. Former pensions minister, Sir Steve Webb, said the research put a potential tax raid 'firmly on the agenda', while Jonathan Watts-Lay, a financial wellbeing specialist, said it would cause people pain either 'now or in retirement'. Shrinking the pensions annual allowance Currently, savers can put up to £60,000 or their annual salary, whichever is higher, into their pension each year before facing a tax charge. They can also take advantage of any unused allowance from the previous three tax years. However, it was only £40,000 as recently as 2023 before then-chancellor Jeremy Hunt increased it. Mr Morgan said that one alternative to restricting salary sacrifice would be tightening the annual allowance or carry forward rules – or both. He added: 'Carry forward is much used by those with lumpy earnings from year to year or have a need to 'catch up' on their pension savings – and it could be devastating for a small minority. 'However, one suspects that it could be one of those incisively targeted moves that isn't beyond the realm of possibility.' Andrew Tully, of Nucleus Financial, said: 'Such a change may also impact the ability or willingness of some public sector workers, such as senior doctors, to take on additional work.' Hitting employers with a second National Insurance raid In the Budget, businesses were hit with a £25bn tax grab through an increase in National Insurance contributions for staff. The hike, from 13.8pc to 15pc, has already led to a seven-year low in job vacancies outside the pandemic, while data has also suggested it marked the death of the pay rise. However, the Chancellor could go one step further and charge employers National Insurance on their pension contributions. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this could raise £17bn. Mr Tully said: 'This is a tax on employers so it may be less obvious to employees, although the impact is likely to hit employees in terms of lower pension contributions or lower salaries if employer costs rise. 'It will also have a negative impact on growth if employer costs grow, so it may not be attractive to a Government which is putting UK growth front and centre of its strategy.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Defendants should have right to choose judge-only trial, says Leveson
Defendants are to get the right to ask for a judge-only trial without a jury. Under plans for 'once-in-a-generation' reform to reduce court backlogs, an independent review set up by the Government will recommend ministers should follow the example of Canada, Australia and New Zealand and allow defendants in the crown court to opt for a judge-only trial. Sir Brian Leveson, the senior judge heading the review, will recommend the move as a way to speed up trials to tackle the record backlog of more than 75,000 cases which is forcing some victims to wait up to four or five years for justice. He told a conference on modernising justice: 'I can see the advantage in lots of cases. You will get a reasoned judgment [from a judge]. In front of a jury, you don't get a judgment at all, you get guilty or not guilty. 'The case will be undeniably speedier because the judge doesn't have to explain to the jury all the basic premises of the criminal law.' Sir Brian is also expected to recommend that the public should be spared jury service if a case is going to last more than 12 months because of the 'unfairness' of it taking a year out of their lives and livelihoods. Instead, such cases would be heard by a judge without a jury. Other proposals will further scale back people's right to a jury trial for some lower level offences such as assault of a police officer while resisting arrest, racially aggravated criminal damage, dangerous driving and possessing a class B drug like cannabis. These are likely to be tried either by an intermediate court comprising a judge and two magistrates or by extending the powers of magistrates to try cases carrying sentences of up to two years, rather than only those with maximum jail terms of one year, as at present. Sir Brian was appointed by Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, who said that 'once-in-a-generation reform' of the courts was the only way to tackle justice delays for victims. Internal Ministry of Justice forecasts suggested the backlogs could rise to 100,000 without radical action. Sir Brian said there was a 'real risk that the system will collapse' as defendants take advantage of cases being delayed as long as 2029 and 'threw the dice' in the hope their victims or witnesses disengaged and prosecutions were abandoned. He also said it would be up to the Government to decide which types of cases it felt were appropriate for defendants to have the right to spurn a jury but he said the judges would have the discretion to overrule any request if it was in the public interest to do so. 'There are some cases, which I would not consider appropriate for a judge to try alone, and I would give the judge a discretion,' Sir Brian said. 'So a defendant may say, 'I would like to be tried by a judge alone', and the judge would be perfectly entitled to say, 'I think not'.' Public opprobrium He suggested one type of case judge-only trials could be where there was significant 'public opprobrium' over the case such as sexual or sadistic violence and could sway the jury. 'I can see defendants, perhaps charged with cases that attract public opprobrium being concerned about a jury coming in from their daily lives to face that trial,' he said. 'Equally, I can see if it's that much public opprobrium, why a judge may say, 'I'm not sure about that.' So there is a balance to be done, but judges make judicial decisions all the time.' He said it could also apply to factually or legally extremely complex cases where a jury may struggle to fully understand the case. A third type could where there had been alleged confession or identification, where judges tended to be more rigorous in scrutinising its validity than necessarily a jury. Sir Brian said there had been a limited number of cases where judges had heard cases alone such as where a jury had to be discharged due to evidence of jury tampering. He is expected to deliver his report to Ms Mahmood next week with publication expected in early July. It follows a similar review of sentencing by David Gauke, the former Tory justice secretary, which recommended freeing some prisoners as little as a third of the way through sentence to tackle prison overcrowding.
