The UK would like to apologise if it has failed to wreck relationships with any of the world’s leading trade powers. Oversights can happen.

Now estranged from the EU with potentially disastrous consequences – only 26 member countries so a mere bagatelle; China offended potentially to the point of no return (who needs their billions and job creating technology?); and relations with a probable new US President sabotaged through an inability to stand up to the bullying present incumbent.

Not much damage done there then! The EU, taken as a whole is the UK’s largest trading partner with two-way trade worth £672 billion. In 2019, UK exports to the EU were £300bn (43 per cent of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were £372bn (51 per cent of all UK imports).

In 2019: UK exports to China were worth £30.7bn; imports from China were £49bn. In 2019, non-real estate related foreign direct investment from China into the UK reached an estimated $8.3bn, compared to $6.1bn for the whole of 2018, according to Deloitte.

Two-way trade between the UK and US was around $261.9bn at the last count. How will a new President react to Britain’s apparent slavish adherence to every demand Trump makes on PM Boris Johnson – not least the crazy decision to dump Huawei from the 5G implementation on this lovely little island of ours?

So looking at UK trade with the EU, China and US alone that totals £1.014 trillion’ – not to be toyed with or risked one might be inclined to believe.

So. Hearty congratulations should be extended at this time to all those British voters who returned the Conservatives to power with a huge majority in the General Election. 

You gave them a mandate and almost certainly did not consider that you might suffer such a backlash. But almighty backlash there will almost certainly be.

We are told that wealthy Brits, chiefly business executives, will bear the brunt of an anticipated tax tsunami as the Government bids to claw back the scattergun and non-strategic outlay on an appallingly incompetent response to countering COVID-19 and salvaging some remnants of an economy.

Despite having to contend with the fallout from what is either a corrupt or incredibly incompetent UK government – depending on your point of view – companies are facing the trickiest trade climate one can remember in recent times. 

They will almost certainly have to go it alone and hope the Government does not place too many impediments in the way of hiring global talent.

If your drugs or technology are genuinely bleeding edge and your proposition is world-class then you have a fighting chance of winning the custom and investment you will need to convert potential to the bottom line. 

As we have seen with a recent spurt of acquisitions and investments, the very best Cambridge science and technology still commands respect internationally. So we might be best advised to revive the words of the late and indomitable business troubleshooter Sir John Harvey-Jones who counselled that in times of trouble and turbulence you polish your shoes, put on your smartest attire and smile, smile, smile. 

In a country that is now a laughing stock in so many regards no-one will suspect your smile masks idiocy – and you never know, some might even interpret your countenance as a bona fide reflection of confidence.

I am sure that most of us can remember our parents telling us to share our toys or sweets with another child, writes Andrew Priest, a partner in the Corporate and Commercial team at law firm Birketts LLP. It was not an easy lesson to learn, especially if young Johnny did not reciprocate the offer. 

However, later in life we learn that sharing is good because it helps to build and strengthen relationships and it demonstrates friendship and kindness. So are technology companies able to learn a similar lesson and recognise that sharing can be a good thing? 

The idea of sharing anything is not an easy concept for many companies. They are told by their consultants and advisers to look for sustainable competitive advantages for their products and services, to protect their intellectual property and to restrict their senior executives from departing with any trade secrets. Whilst all of this advice makes good business sense, it does little to encourage a culture of sharing. 

So why should technology companies consider sharing anything, whether that is information, data, IP or resources? When I was at business school I remember reading Michael Porter’s book ‘The Competitive Advantage of Nations’ and learning about how a business or industry cluster helps to increase the productivity of companies in the cluster, encourages technology innovation and investment and provides a suitable environment for new entry businesses. 

Porter’s ideas are still applicable today and companies in many clusters, particularly technology clusters, have benefited from the competitive advantages that flow from being an active member of the cluster.
Technology companies often rely on IP, and in particular patents, to protect their products and to act as a barrier for new companies wishing to work in the same field or area of business.

Within a cluster environment, the sharing of IP between like-minded companies can help to reduce R & D costs and, through collaboration arrangements, build bridges towards higher levels of innovation and product development.

The idea is that the value of the whole IP becomes greater than the sum of the parts, enabling those companies in the cluster to ‘punch above their weight’ and compete in new markets and across additional countries.

The sharing of IP is often achieved through technology transfer agreements. These involve the IP owner or developer licensing its patents, know-how or trade secrets for exploitation by others in return for royalties and other payments. 

Universities use these agreements to generate income and grant rights for the commercial exploitation of the IP. It is not a coincidence that many technology clusters include universities and other research institutions at their core – where, for example, would the science and technology companies in and around Cambridge be without the university, or Silicon Valley in the US without Stanford University? 

Technology transfer agreements that involve the licensing of IP between parties in different European countries can give rise to competition law concerns especially where they seek to impose certain restrictions on competitive behaviour or they involve the cross-licensing of IP. 

The regulatory authorities tend to look favourably on the licensing of IP because it helps to disseminate technical knowledge and promote the manufacture of technically more sophisticated products, but any proposed agreement should be looked at carefully to ensure that its terms do not breach established anti-trust laws.

The sharing of IP can also involve jointly owned IP. This is where both parties (or there could be more) wish to retain ownership and control of the same IP rights.

That can often be the case when the IP is developed jointly by more than one party. There is nothing wrong with having IP that is jointly owned, but the relevant agreement will need to be very clear about what each of the joint owners can and cannot do with the IP and the extent to which the consent of the other party (or notice to the other party) is required.

For technology companies, having access to innovative ideas is a key component for product development and sustaining competitive advantage. Industry clusters offer opportunities to achieve those goals through the sharing of knowledge and expertise, the transfer of technology and collaboration on joint projects. 

The financial and economic benefits of doing this seem to be clear, but companies do need to remember that there should always be controls and limitations in place, and that is where well-drafted legal agreements also have an important role to play.

It’s good to share; we just need to do it more often. Even young Johnny can learn that lesson.

• You can call Andrew Priest on 07557 161 211 or  email andrew-priest [at] birketts.co.uk

Cambridge UK life science business F-star Therapeutics is merging with US-listed Spring Bank Pharmaceuticals in Massachusetts.

On completion of the deal F-star’s CEO, Eliot Forster, will become president and CEO of the combined company which will trade as F-star Therapeutics and is expected to trade on NASDAQ – the US technology market – as FSTX. 
  
F-star – currently a private UK immuno-oncology biotech – has been pondering a US IPO for some time and the Transatlantic tie-up provides the ideal opportunity.

F-star anticipates raising additional capital at the closing of the proposed combination from current and potential new investors and the combined company expects to have at least $40 million in cash prior to closing as it bids to advance a potent pipeline of multiple clinical-stage immuno-oncology programs.

The transaction has been approved by both boards as well as F-star’s equity holders, who have signed the share exchange agreement. The combined company will be headquartered out of F-star’s existing facilities in Cambridge UK and Cambridge MA following closing, which is expected in late 2020.

Spring Bank Pharmaceuticals is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing novel therapeutics for oncology and inflammatory diseases. The deal means Spring Bank, subject to stockholder approval, acquiring all the outstanding share capital of F-star in exchange for newly issued shares of Spring Bank in an all-stock transaction. 

Eliot Forster said: “We are truly excited about the opportunity created by this proposed combination to further advance our pipeline of novel tetravalent bispecific antibodies, which we believe will be able to address the limitations of current therapies in the field of immuno-oncology. 

“At F-star, we are pioneering a differentiated approach to bispecifics, using a natural human IgG1 antibody format that has already shown early signs of clinical activity, established manufacturing processes and promising safety.

“Currently, only a minority of patients realise long-lasting benefit from immunotherapy, so there remains a significant unmet medical need to develop more effective cancer treatment options. 

“We believe this transaction will provide the resources to accelerate F-star’s clinical development and generate stockholder value through a pipeline of novel therapies with the potential to improve the lives of patients with difficult to treat cancers.”

Cambridge UK life science representation on NASDAQ is growing. GW Pharmaceuticals and Bicycle Therapeutics are already doing well on the market. Abcam is exploring a US IPO, Horizon Discovery is heading for a joint  UK-US listing and Kymab wants to join them. 

Cambridge-based gene editing world leader Horizon Discovery has decided to resuscitate plans for an initial US public offering of American depositary shares.

The company believes the time is ripe after a spell of uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Having put the move on hold to see how markets responded following the coronavirus outbreak, Horizon issued a brief statement this week saying it was now full steam ahead.

As we reported when the proposed move was initially announced in early February, Horizon wants to issue an indeterminate number of shares in the US to raise millions of dollars of extra working capital. 

More than 50 per cent of shares in the business are already in the hands of US stockholders.

While such a move would not constitute an IPO as such it would effectively provide the company with a dual UK and US listing and transition shareholder liquidity to the other side of the Atlantic. 

It has been a good week for the business. TrueBinding, Inc., a California-based biopharma company, has signed a set of commercial licences for Horizon’s cGMP-compliant CHOSOURCE™ platform. 

TrueBinding will use the platform to develop and commercialise multiple biotherapeutic products for applications in immuno-oncology and other disease areas with great unmet medical need. No figures have been released for the deal.

To date, CHOSOURCE has been licensed to 80 organisations globally with at least seven confirmed biotherapeutics expressed in these cells having progressed to investigational new drug filings.

And in a half-year trading update, Horizon tells shareholders it remains in rude health. It says that business remains robust with sustained recovery to 2019 levels as demand for its products and services remains high and the group is confident of a return to growth in the second half of this year. The company plans to report its half-year results on August 17.

It expects to report half-year 2020 revenues of around £22.4 million (HY 2019: £26.1m, c. -13.9 per cent) – approximately £22m (c. -15.5 per cent) on a constant currency basis. 

The change was largely due to the rapid reduction of academic research work caused by the COVID-19 pandemic impacting the group’s Research Reagents business unit and was broadly in line with board expectations. 

The greatest impact was seen in the second quarter of 2020, most notably in April. This was then followed by a period of sustained recovery, which resulted in large parts of the business regaining momentum and returning towards 2019 levels of revenue by the end of June.

Horizon’s cash position was bolstered by a successful placing in April which raised £6.9m and was further strengthened by the implementation of enhanced cash control measures also implemented in April. 

Taking this into account, the group had cash and equivalents of £23.6m at June 30 (HY 2019: £24.8m; FY 2019: £18.8m).

CEO Terry Pizzie said: “Thanks to the fantastic efforts of our staff we have continued to operate effectively throughout the crisis and have built stronger and deeper relationships with our biopharma customers based on our ability to add value in difficult conditions. 

“Our customers have increasingly adopted outsourcing as a solution to their own business challenges and we have become recognised as an invaluable long-term partner.

“We expect the trend for increased outsourcing to continue, for these relationships to endure and facilitate high level access within our biopharma customer base that will help lay the foundations for commercialising our new high growth areas.

“We are encouraged by our H2 2020 prospects and look forward to the remainder of the year with optimism and confidence about the group’s strategy and prospects.”

VividQ, a deep tech software startup based in Cambridge, has received a Smart Grant of £334K from Innovate UK to fund groundbreaking industrial R & D for a world first holographic headset prototype.

The prototype will showcase VividQ’s latest cutting-edge software for high quality Computer-Generated Holography (CGH), providing an enhanced visual experience for augmented reality devices with the best-in-class optics and tracking provided by the company’s partners.

The eventual goal is to provide a visual experience that feels natural, realistic and immersive to viewers. The device will be available to original equipment manufacturers and original design manufacturers as a reference in their pursuit to integrate holographic display in next generation consumer electronics.

In the past, the tremendous computing requirements to create full-depth holographic displays have made this technology unsuitable for commercial applications. VividQ’s industrial research will aim to address some of the key barriers to adoption of holography and other immersive technologies. 

The key innovations integrated as part of the project will include:-

• The latest developments in optical systems (in particular secondary optics) for holographic projection to improve the image quality in the headset considerably
• VividQ’s newest software release to provide a high-resolution 3D holographic experience with full depth of field.

VividQ’s grant proposal received excellent feedback from Innovate UK reviewers with high recognition for holography as an exciting technology with global opportunity in high-growth sectors, backed by a team possessing the requisite skills and expertise.

Darran Milne, co-founder and CEO at VividQ said: “With a viable platform to demonstrate the capabilities of holography in consumer electronics products, VividQ will get one step closer to securing our position at the forefront of the next display revolution.

“The project will accelerate the market adoption of VividQ’s holographic software, enabling our customers to develop and deploy game-changing AR devices.”

VividQ has already raised over $7 million in venture funding with backing from leading international investors including Sure Valley Ventures, OSRAM FluxUnit Ventures, University of Tokyo Edge Capital and Essex Innovation.

With world-leading expertise in 3D holography, VividQ was founded in 2017 by a team of expert engineers, mathematicians and computer scientists from the Universities of Cambridge, Oxford and St Andrews, who solved key technology barriers in the adoption of holographic display. 

VividQ’s software brings real-time Computer Generated Holography to applications from automotive head-up displays, to Augmented Reality smart glasses and desktops.
 
The business has ensured that it collaborates with leading technology companies to “create the most realistic, immersive and sensational experiences.”

• PHOTOGRAPH: The VividQ management team, from left: Dr Andrzej Kaczorowski (CTO), Darran Milne (CEO) and COO Aleksandra Pędraszewska

Cambridge UK Big Biotech AstraZeneca has slated a deal that could stack up to $6 billion with Daiichi Sankyo, Japan’s second largest Big Pharma company, to transform treatment standards in lung, breast and multiple other cancers.

AstraZeneca now has six potential blockbuster oncology drugs in its portfolio with the promise of more to come.

The collaboration focuses on DS-1062, Daiichi Sankyo’s proprietary  antibody drug conjugate to create a potential new medicine for the treatment of multiple tumour types.

DS-1062 is currently in development for the treatment of multiple tumours that commonly express the cell-surface glycoprotein TROP2. 

Among them, TROP2 is overexpressed in the majority of non-small cell lung cancers and breast cancers, tumour types that have long been a strategic focus for AstraZeneca. 

This collaboration reflects AstraZeneca’s strategy to invest in antibody drug conjugates as a class, the innovative nature of the technology and the successful existing collaboration with Daiichi Sankyo.

AstraZeneca will pay Daiichi Sankyo an upfront payment of $1bn in staged payments: $350m is due upon completion, with $325m after 12 months and $325m after 24 months from the effective date of the agreement.

AstraZeneca will pay additional conditional amounts of up to $1bn for the successful achievement of regulatory approvals and up to $4bn for sales-related milestones.

Pascal Soriot, chief executive officer, said: “We see significant potential in this antibody drug conjugate in lung as well as in breast and other cancers that commonly express TROP2. 

“We are delighted to enter this new collaboration with Daiichi Sankyo and to build on the successful launch of Enhertu to further expand our pipeline and leadership in oncology. We now have six potential blockbusters in oncology with more to come in our early and late pipelines.”

In a separate deal, AstraZeneca’s Imfinzi (durvalumab) has been recommended for marketing authorisation in the European Union for the first-line treatment of adults with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer in combination with a choice of chemotherapies.

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency based its positive opinion on results from the Phase III CASPIAN trial for Imfinzi plus chemotherapy, which have also been published in The Lancet.

US technology giant Nvidia Corporation could pay up to $47 billion for Cambridge UK superchip world leader Arm, Business Weekly believes.

Serial technology entrepreneurs contacted by Business Weekly have conducted in-depth forensics on a potential buyer for Arm which has been put up for sale by Japanese parent SoftBank, four years after paying $32bn for the business.

SoftBank is desperate for cash and Nvidia has emerged as the most synergistic of interested parties – but more importantly, the prospective buyer with the biggest and most flexible warchest.

This is no California dreaming: Acquisition of Arm would give Santa Clara-based Nvidia a massive upside by hitching a whole host of technologies to its world-class wagon – not just mobile phones but a range of novel nextgen mobile computing plays, including automotive.

Business Weekly believes that if SoftBank refloated Arm – one of its stated strategies – it would have an IPO value of around $40bn.

Nvidia’s market cap at July 22 was $257 bn and experienced observers believe the company would be prepared to pay anything between $40bn and $50bn for Arm’s array of unrivalled processor brilliance.

Nvidia designs graphics processing units for the gaming and professional markets, as well as system on a chip units for the mobile computing and automotive markets.

SoftBank is putting Arm’s IoT business up for sale but there is nothing to stop Nvidia swallowing that tasty mouthful as well.

Nvidia would not be shooting in the dark by acquiring Arm. The Cambridge company’s president of the IP Products Group, Rene Haas, spent seven years at Nvidia as VP and general manager of its computing products business.
He is highly respected by Nvidia management and regarded as a trusted pair of hands.

Arm and Nvidia are not commenting on speculation. All enquiries to Arm are being referred to SoftBank which is seeking as much cash as it can get for the Cambridge technology superstar.

Haas revealed recently that Arm has now shipped over 160 billion chips – more than 20 times the population of the planet.

Nvidia has shopped in Cambridge before of course, having paid $430 million for Stan Boland’s Icera in 2011.

Cambridge life science innovator Abcam plc is exploring the possibility of an IPO on NASDAQ, the US technology market.

It would supplement the company’s current listing in the UK and widen a trail from Cambridge to Wall Street blazed initially by GW Pharmaceuticals, then Bicycle Therapeutics.

Cambridge biopharma business Kymab has also been looking at a possible US float while cyber security specialist Darktrace, already valued at $2 billion, is widely expected to IPO next year, possibly in both London and New York.

Abcam CEO Alan Hirzel stressed that at present a US float was only a possibility and urged shareholders not to get over-excited before all the angles had been explored. But he said that the company’s long-term growth potential made a NASDAQ bow worth investigation.

He said: “With the attractive potential from the group’s long term growth strategy, we have also begun exploring a potential secondary listing in the United States on NASDAQ. 

“We have not made any decisions regarding the timing or the terms of the potential secondary listing and there is no certainty that the listing in the United States will take place.”

That caveat is commonplace when shareholders are being advised of potential developments and many respected market watchers believe Abcam would be a wow on Wall Street given its global market lead in the supply of life science research tools.

The possible IPO was raised in a trading update from the company for the year ended June 30 ahead of Abcam reporting its audited results on September 14.

Despite the upbeat IPO flirtation, Abcam’s UK share price took a significant hit as it revealed that due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic it had seen a reduction in demand as research laboratories globally shut down temporarily or reduced activity over the course of the second half of the year.  

H2 revenue fell by around 10 per cent on both a reported and constant currency basis. Overall, the group expects to report revenues of £260 million for the full year (FY2019: £259.9m).

Abcam reports a steady claw back to recovery in China and Europe but said significant macro uncertainties and regional differences remain. “This uncertainty is acute in North America where case incidence of COVID-19 is currently rising in several US states with normally high research activity,” Abcam reported.

In September, Abcam set out plans to increase the rate of investment in areas including research and development, digital marketing and e-commerce, technology and global operations in order to achieve more and faster growth over the medium and long term. 

It remains committed to this strategy, saying: “Despite the impact of COVID-19, we made progress across a broad range of these areas in the year, including the completion of several acquisitions that complement the existing portfolio and in which we intend to invest.

“The board and executive team have continued to support employees with full employment during the COVID-19 outbreak whilst investing in and implementing initiatives for our growth strategy.

“As a result, we expect that gross margin and adjusted operating margin for the full year will be approximately 69 per cent and 16-17 per cent, respectively.”

Hirzel said: “We are proud of the role Abcam has had in supporting researchers throughout this pandemic and we are proud of the dedication of our global team to help scientists perform their vital work.

“Abcam’s strong brand, distinctive customer focused culture and durable financial health has meant we have been able to lead with a longer term horizon and fulfil our ambition to be the most influential company for life scientists globally. We remain confident in our long term prospects and focused on delivering our strategy.”

When the UK launched its test and trace program on 28 May, it was missing a key element; the test and trace app developed by NHSX, writes Kitty Rosser – senior associate at East of England law firm Birketts LLP.

Originally flagged as crucial to the success of the program, the importance of the app has been downplayed as uncertainty regarding its final launch date has grown. The app remains on trial in the Isle of Wight with the original launch date of late May now long past.

Whilst a number of significant technical concerns have been raised regarding the viability of the technology itself, the real focus of debate is on the privacy implications of the app. 

The Government’s initial failure to publish a data protect impact assessment (DPIA) or source code for the app lead to the Information Commissioner issuing a public statement calling for greater transparency and engagement with it as the expert regulator. 

The DHSC was quick to respond, releasing both the DPIA and front-end source code. However, the DPIA in particular appeared to give credence to many of the concerns voiced by commentators, campaigners and experts across the sector.

Chief amongst these concerns are the potential implications of a centralised model. With a centralised model, all data logged through the app by those reporting symptoms of coronavirus will be uploaded and stored on a central database. 

Once an individual’s data has been uploaded, it cannot be deleted. It will be retained for the lifetime of the database and used for public health planning and research. The DHSC has acknowledged that as details of future research have yet to be decided, it cannot say when (or indeed if) the database itself will be destroyed.

By comparison, when the de-centralised model offered by Apple and Google is used all data stays on the individual’s device. This is the model that has been adopted by nearly all other countries developing similar apps. By choosing to develop its own centralised model, the UK has made itself something of an outlier in privacy terms.

Matthew Gould, CEO of NHSX, has acknowledged that the de-centralised model offers greater privacy protection whilst also maintaining that the centralised model does provide adequate protection and noting that the app must be optimised for both privacy and functionality. 

The DPIA highlights the fact that any privacy risk is reduced because the app does not use directly identifiable personal data. Whilst this is a valid point, it has been undermined by poor use of language. The app’s privacy policy repeatedly uses the term anonymous. 

However, in legal terms the data is not in fact ‘anonymous’ but is ‘pseudonymised’, meaning that it could be used to identify an individual if combined with other types of data, such as location data. 

Whilst the DPIA states that this will not happen, Gould has already indicated that the app may be further developed to capture this type of data in the future. It is exactly this type of inconsistency and uncertainty that are driving the accusations that the DHSC is being less than transparent.

Ultimately, whilst the privacy concerns raised are certainly not spurious, it is nevertheless true that many of the core issues relate to potential future actions and uncertainties that have yet to crystallise. Against the current climate, it therefore seems unlikely that the launch of the app in the UK would actually be blocked on privacy grounds. 

However, it must also be recognised that public awareness of the privacy issues posed by the app is increasing with every day of delay. If public confidence in the app is undermined the real risk is that individuals will vote with their feet and simply choose not to download the app. 

The Government is no doubt increasingly mindful that unless 60 per cent of the population can be persuaded to download the app, it will not make a material impact in the fight against coronavirus. 

• You can call Kitty Rosser on 01603 756559 or email her at: kitty-rosser [at] birketts.co.uk

Farmers in the UK are missing out on millions of pounds worth of Research & Development (R&D) tax credits every year, with the average cashback claimed by SMEs in the Farming, Forestry and Fishing industries less than half (£41,000) that of other industries (£85,000). Stuart Wilkinson, Office Managing Partner at EY in Cambridge and Head of Tax in the East of England comments on why farming businesses should make the most of innovation incentives. 

In February 2020, DEFRA released its report into agricultural regional profiles. It found that income from farming in the East of England decreased by 22% between 2014 and 2018. The biggest contributors to income were poultry meat (£533 million), wheat (£513 million), fresh vegetables (£307 million) and pigs (£255 million), together accounting for 50% of all income in the region. 

Predominant farming types in the East of England were cereals (accounting for 50% of farmed area in the region) and general cropping farms (accounting for 34% of farmed area). The average size of farm (118 hectares) in the region is also larger than the English average (86 hectares). It’s therefore not surprising that the economy of the region is supported greatly by the success of industries aligned with agriculture and farming and innovation holds the key to long term sustainability for the industry.  

The HMRC’s latest Research and Development Tax report revealed that less than one percent of SMEs in the sector, fewer than 400 companies, regularly claim cash benefits for R&D, with many businesses not appreciating the breadth of project activities that can qualify for the relief. As a result, businesses may have missed out on the opportunity to stimulate growth through additional funding. 

One of the biggest misconceptions is that activities being undertaken are ‘just part of the day job’. However, these activities can be considered as qualifying R&D, provided they are seeking improvement beyond typical approaches within the field (excuse the pun) of science or technology. For example: 

• Monitoring and improving soil formulation by changing the mix of treatments applied
• Improving crop yield / meat production through experimentation with irrigation or heating solutions
• Overhauling data management systems in poultry farming to enable new monitoring techniques

When considering project activities, we also see businesses who have not included the full extent of qualifying cost categories within their claims. These can include: 

• Payments to staff
• Payments to temporary workers 
• Expenditure on materials, including feeds, fuel, cattle and many more
• Expenditure on software for R&D
• Payments to qualifying bodies for research performed on your behalf
• Subcontracted expenditure for third parties to perform R&D for you

It’s important that companies consider the full breadth of both qualifying activities and cost categories. The correct support from professional advisers at EY can help with this activity. 

Grants

UK Government are keen to support innovation, and this can be seen from an increasing budget for Innovation Incentives and R&D Tax credits. Later in 2020, a new round of Agri-tech Catalyst is due to open, with the aim of supporting innovation in agriculture and food production business, including those operating in crop production; food processing and storage; and mitigation of climate change. Qualifying projects can be up to 18 months in duration and attract up to £800k in grant funding. 

Many farmers are familiar with land-based funding where payments are made directly from Government bodies, but these don’t always account for production, based on land size, or if there is woodland on the land. In fact, there are several grant funding options available to the UK agricultural sector, including:

• Farm Recovery Fund
• Woodland Creation Grant
• RDPE Growth Programme

There are also funds that continue to encourage collaboration between farming, food processing and manufacturing businesses, with grants such as the Smart Sustainable Plastic Packaging to support the removal of single-use plastic from the food chain. 

Furthermore, non-Government funds are available such as the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) offering funding for the conversion of food waste into energy. 

There are many sources of funding and eligibility criteria are not always obvious, so why not get in touch with a member of the team to find out more and consider the options for your business.