Government Urged to Do More to Implement Life Sciences Industrial Strategy
In August last year, Professor Sir John Bell unveiled industry-led proposals to build the UK’s status as a world leader in life sciences. The strategy was independent of the Government, so the Government was not bound by it...
...but the Government had encouraged the strategy and seemed keen to support it. The Government subsequently appeared to back the strategy in a Life Sciences Sector Deal, announced in December 2017. These documents came at a crucial time with the Government looking for industry initiatives to cement the UK's place in the world in light of the changes through Brexit.
Sir John's report was launched with much fanfare, supported by Business Secretary Greg Clark and Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who at the same time announced details of £160 million of funding to support the sector. It had also followed comprehensive cross-sector review into the long-term future of the industry and brought together input and recommendations from a broad range of stakeholders, including global companies such as AZ, GSK, J&J and MSD through to healthcare groups, SMEs and charities.
The Bell report had five key themes – science, growth, NHS, data, and skills – with proposals to build on the UK’s strengths in each area. These included:
- Science - Reinforcing the UK science offer by sustaining and increasing funding for basic science to match our international competition and by further improving UK clinical trial capabilities.
- Growth - Improving growth and infrastructure across the country, through a tax environment that supports growth and by attracting substantial investment to manufacture and export high value life science products of the future
- NHS - Encouraging NHS collaboration by recommending the Accelerated Access Review be adopted with national routes to market streamlined and clarified, including for digital products.
- Data - Making better use of data and other evidence by establishing two to five regional innovation hubs that would provide data across regions of three to five million people.
- Skills - Ensuring the UK has the talent and skills to underpin future life sciences success by delivering a reinforced skills action plan across the NHS, commercial and third sectors.
An interesting development was the recommendation of the establishment of the Healthcare Advanced Research Program (HARP), a programme through which industries, charities and the NHS could collaborate on ambitious and long-term UK-based projects to transform healthcare and take advantage of the medical trends of the next 20 years.
Sir John saw HARP as a game-changer if enacted and would see the biggest projects be carried out in the UK. Some of the world's best innovations had come from high risk and high bets with great upsides, but there had not been the incentive for people to do this in the UK previously. HARP could take the lead globally on projects such as artificial intelligence, genomics and the early detection of diseases. In particular, the future of healthcare provision would depend on early detection of diseases such as cancer and cognitive diseases.
Sir John set out ambitious goals for the UK to turn small pharma companies into big ones, with a target of creating four UK companies valued at greater than £20bn within 10 years.
Now, while praising how well the Industrial Strategy was welcomed and what great vision it showed, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has issued a damning report on "wholly inadequate" progress, entitled Life Sciences Industrial Strategy: Who's driving the bus? The Committee has raised serious concerns about the Government's commitment to delivering the strategy. There need to be sweeping changes in order to actually implement the strategy, according to the report. It considers there have been complicated arrangements for implementation, a lack of clear authority and accountability and a failure to engage the NHS effectively. Meanwhile, the NHS commitment to the Industrial Strategy has been "incoherent, uncoordinated and ineffective".
The Committee argues that the success of life sciences as a sector is vital to the UK economy and particularly in light of Brexit. It has focused on steps that need immediate action to ensure the development and expansion of the sector. It has called for the following:
- The Government to take a lead in adopting the Bell report in full and provide a detailed implementation plan with timelines, milestones and metrics to which it and others are held to account.
- The Government to clarify how the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy in the Bell report interlinks with the Life Sciences Sector Deal announced a few months later.
- The implementation plan to have operational detail on how the Government will work together towards a single objective, and to provide information about providing and allocating resources for the many strands of implementation.
- In place of the Life Sciences Implementation Board and Life Sciences Council, there should be a single body - the Life Sciences Governing Body, responsible for delivering the Industrial Strategy, and which should report directly to Cabinet. The BEIS Secretary and Health and Social Care Secretary need to ensure that the Life Sciences Governing Body has the backing to do what it needs to do.
- There should be a new Office for Industrial Strategy to scrutinise the implementation of the Industrial Strategy.
- The NHS should be encouraged to adopt and spread innovation. The Government should explore how to make this work, eg through financial incentives to innovate. Academic Health Science Networks have a role to play in this and should have a clear link with the Life Sciences Governing Body.
- The Government should also develop solutions with how best to exploit NHS data, to make the most of the opportunities from the Industrial Strategy.
Comment
The 2017 Life Sciences Industrial Strategy is an exciting vision for the future of this key industry to the UK economy, particularly in the light of Brexit challenges. It would be a waste if the Strategy goes the way of previous visions. The House of Lords Committee does not dismiss the Strategy - quite the opposite. It seeks to set out its own vision of the necessary steps for how it should be implemented. Without being implemented properly, it will stay as a set of good ideas. The Committee says that it is not too late, and if its recommendations are followed then the Industrial Strategy can become a reality.