Serious concerns raised about the government’s commitment to Life Sciences Industrial Strategy

The ‘Life Sciences Industrial Strategy: Who’s driving the bus?’ report has been published by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, recommending that the government should simplify its implementation arrangements.

In the report, the committee raises serious concerns about the current commitment level by the government, which it states has been ‘wholly inadequate’.

The life sciences sector is considered to be vital to the UK economy as well as the health and wellbeing of the population, as such the report focusses on issues requiring immediate action to ensure the expansion and development of the sector.

Through its inquiry process, the committee revealed complicated arrangements by the government to implement the strategy as well as a lack of clear authority and accountability, raising the question about the commitment to the strategy’s implementation.

However, according to the report if acted upon promptly and vigorously by the government the strategy can be successfully implemented. There has already been commitment for the strategy from business, charity and academic communities, it is now up to the government to engage the NHS appropriately as this has a central role.

The committee recommends that a single body with complete oversight of the implantation of the strategy be put in place — to be called the Life Sciences Governing Body. However, the business, energy and industrial strategy secretary and the health and social care secretary must ensure this new governing body has the cross-government backing to ensure it is able to complete its work.

So far, the committee has found that the NHS has not been engaged effectively, leading to the health service’s commitment to the strategy falling short, being ‘incoherent, uncoordinated and ineffective’. Currently, the NHS has been shown to not have the capacity to be able to successfully implement the strategy and current structures in place in the health service actually suppress innovation.

As a result of its findings, the committee urges the NHS to prioritise the ‘uptake and spread of innovation’ as well as rewarding those clinicians and managers that make a success of this adoption. Additionally, there is a recommendation that the government explore how to offer financial incentives to NHS trusts that are adopting and spreading innovations.

The strategy itself contains a goal for the creation of four UK companies that have a value greater than £20 billion market cap over the next decade. Yet, during their investigations, the committee heard evidence that the UK is relatively poor at growing small and medium-sized firms into larger companies. To be able to meet the goal laid out in the strategy, the committee recommends a significant increase in the scale of patient investment capital available to innovative firms to enable growth.

“If implemented correctly the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy will make a major contribution to the future economic prosperity of the UK but what became clear throughout our inquiry is that it stands little chance of success without a detailed plan for implementation and clear lines of authority, responsibility and accountability,” stressed chairman of the committee, Lord Patel. “The government has an opportunity right now to get ahead of international competition. It can, and must, take bold steps to secure the future growth and expansion of the life sciences sector. This is even more vital as the UK prepares for life outside the European Union.”