Innovate UK – written evidence (LSI0011)

1. Innovate UK is the UK’s innovation agency, a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). It is the prime channel through which the Government incentivises innovation in business. Innovate UK is business-led. Our governing board and executive team comprise experienced business innovators and experts.

2. Innovate UK works with people, companies and partner organisations to fund and connect the science and technology innovations that will increase productivity and exports and grow the UK economy. We channel our support through 4 sectors: emerging and enabling technologies, health and life sciences, infrastructure systems and manufacturing and materials. We also have an open programme to provide grants to any innovative UK company working in any high-value innovative area of the economy that includes cross-cutting and potentially disruptive technologies.

3. Our cross-cutting goals are to:

• accelerate UK economic growth by nurturing small high-growth potential firms in key market sectors, helping them scale to become high-growth mid-sized companies with strong productivity and export success;
• build on innovation excellence throughout the UK, investing locally in areas of strength;
• develop Catapult centres within a national innovation network, to provide access to cutting edge technologies, encourage inward investment and enable technical advances in existing businesses;
• turn scientific excellence into economic impact and deliver results through innovation, in collaboration with the Research Community and Government; and,
• evolve our funding models to explore ways to help public funding go further and work harder, while continuing to deliver impact from innovation.

4. In line with our goals, we operate across Government and advise on polices which relate to technology, innovation and knowledge transfer. We also support Government departments to become more efficient by supporting them in developing innovative solutions through harnessing the creativity that businesses can offer. Innovate UK uses a variety of different support mechanisms to deliver its strategic objectives these include; funding for Collaborative Research and Development (CR&D), the network of Catapult centres, management of the Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI), supporting the creation of Innovation and Knowledge Centres (IKCs) and the programme of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTPs).

5. Innovate UK was established in July 2007 (as the Technology Strategy Board). We have invested over £2.2 billion in innovation across all sectors, and have helped more than 8,000 innovative companies in 11,000 projects estimated to add up to £16 billion to the UK economy and created an average of 8 jobs per company we have worked with. Our investment over the last 10 years has meant that every £1 invested has returned up to £7.3 GVA to the economy and created 70,000 jobs. The private sector more than matches that investment, doubling the power of public sector money. We work with nearly every university in the UK to stimulate the commercialisation of leading-edge academic research and innovation.

6. The first wave of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund offers a welcome £1 billion 4-year investment into research and innovation, to enable the UK to lead in areas of strategic importance. Innovate UK will be a leading organisation in delivery of the ISCF.

7. The creation of UK Research and Innovation will bring together the seven Research Councils and involves the creation of a new organisation Research England. The reorganisation will establish a clear mechanism to develop a more integrated approach to funding between Innovate UK and the Research Councils. This change will offer new and exciting opportunities to improve the way the value generated through basic research is captured, so it contributes to growth in the UK. The change offers the opportunity to develop seamless funding pathways that can support academics through to the translation of innovation involving the formation and growth of new small companies.

8. Innovate UK welcomes the Committee’s inquiry into the Government’s approach to Life Sciences and the Industrial Strategy.  Our response to the specific questions raised by the Committee is set out below.

Science and innovation

1. How can investors be encouraged to invest in turning basic life science research into new innovations in treatment? Why has investment been lacking in this sector? Does the research base have the necessary infrastructure to be world-leading?

9. Despite dramatic advances in biology and medicine there has not been a matching expansion in investment in R&D in the Life Science sector in the UK[1] . Companies in this sector face particular difficulties in accessing funding to develop their products and technologies. The time involved in the long and complex development pathway from early research and development work through to a final product exacerbates the challenge. The situation is most severe for small and micro-enterprises that often struggle to raise the substantial capital investment required to take a product to market.

10. Developers in this sector also face the challenge of complying with complex regulatory requirements as well as difficulties in getting therapies, diagnostics and med tech adopted by the healthcare system. The combination of factors mean that investors may be reluctant to support untested or proven approaches until they are relatively close to market and more easily valued. The need to overcome the imperfections in capital markets that inhibit the availability of finance for the life sciences sector, justifies the provision of subsidies for R&D expenditure to both address financial market constraints and de-risk projects. In this context Innovate UK welcomes the Patient Capital Review which was announced in November 2016[2] and looks forward to seeing any recommendations that could improve the availability of long-term capital for growing innovative firms.

11. To bridge this funding gap, or ‘valley of death’, Innovate UK and the Medical Research Council have worked in partnership to develop the Biomedical Catalyst programme. The scheme, which started in 2012, focuses on SMEs to deliver a high growth pipeline of innovative companies capable of tapping into a global healthcare market. Evidence suggests that the scheme has successfully encouraged companies to switch from low-risk / low-return projects to those with high-risk / higher return[3]. So far, the programme has awarded in excess of £250m to over 200 companies and more than 130 university ventures. Portfolio companies’ subsequent fund raising and licensing fees etc. already exceeds £1bn. Analysis of the companies awarded Innovate UK grants suggests that these companies are able to raise more money and achieve higher valuations through aligning the two key factors for success – a product and a market.

12.        As part of a strategy of broadening the range of support provided by Innovate UK to help businesses throughout the different stages of their journey from concept to commercialisation, Innovate UK has developed the Investment Accelerator Pilot. This scheme builds on the expertise in Innovate UK to find the most commercial opportunities where grant funding can materially change the risk profile of the proposition, alongside relevant investor expertise and the right management teams, to realise the greatest potential for growth. The programme offers UK companies involved in early-stage projects simultaneous access to grant funding and venture capital investment. Innovate UK has been able to encourage significant involvement from capital investment funds with innovative UK businesses, between 2011 and 2016, seven funds have invested over investing £900 million.

13.        Our Catapult network continues to support innovative businesses by providing access to the critical facilities and expertise they would not find together elsewhere. This network of centres plays a key role in supporting the innovation landscape, enabling SMEs to access the support needed to bring products and services to market for the first time. The Health and Life Sciences Catapults are the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult, and Medicines Discovery Catapult along with the National Biologics Manufacturing Centre under the High Value Manufacturing Catapult. The broader Catapult family also offers a great opportunity for innovation in health and life sciences with the Digital and Future Cities Catapults exploring the urbanisation of health and wellbeing and the creation of new markets. In addition, Innovate UK supports the development of a range of underpinning technologies that can be applied across the whole Life Sciences sector.

14.        The Government has commissioned an independent review of the Catapult network to ensure alignment with the Government’s new industrial strategy. This will provide recommendations on future Government investment in Catapults to Ministers to ensure that the Catapult network is fully focussed on meeting sector needs and providing value for money. The Catapult review is a single and wholly independent review that will be managed and delivered by external consultants. The review will benefit from key performance data provided by the local Catapult Review Committees commissioned by Innovate UK, which provide a deep dive into the performance of each of the more well established Catapults and will be considered as part of the regular strategic review of Innovate UK’s portfolio of activity and support. The independent, consultant-led review is underway, it will provide recommendations to Ministers on future government investment in Catapults based upon past and expected future impacts. It is expected that the review will report at the end of September.

15.          The Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult GMP manufacturing centre in Stevenage is an example of where Innovate UK has demonstrated that it is possible to develop specific solutions tailored to the needs of a specific sector. The manufacturing centre will offer a unique global facility able to offer developers the opportunity to accelerate commercial-scale production needed for late-stage clinical trials and early commercialisation by reducing the need for early capital investment. This approach has generated significant international interest and a number of countries are currently planning to develop similar facilities based on this innovative approach.

16.          In the case of advanced therapies such as cell-, gene- and tissue-based treatments, there is a much stronger link between operational know-how and manufacturing ‘comparability’ (i.e. equivalence of batches made on different sites or at different times) than is the case for traditional synthetic drugs and medical devices. The social capital that can be generated by building ‘demonstrator’ operational models in host institutions such as the Catapults and the receiving hospitals, can act as training facilities for researchers who wish to translate processes into manufacture. A new generation of ‘technology transfer champions’ can be created through leverage of the relationship between the Catapults and the existing, or new, Centres of Doctoral Training, making the UK the ‘go-to’ place for innovators to develop their processes.

2. Why has the UK underperformed in turning basic research in the life sciences into intellectual property? What needs to be done to address this historic weakness in the UK and grow new companies to commercialise new research and related technologies in the life sciences?

17.        Successfully capturing and developing Intellectual Property (IP) is important to the Life Sciences sector. The perception has been that while the UK has been strong in developing the research knowledge base and generating IP is has not been strong at translating this strength into commercial success. Notable examples of missed opportunities are monoclonal antibody technology and the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) where the UK initially was a global leader in the discovery phase but failed to translate this advantage into commercial success. The Catapult network will be an important vehicle to capture and commercially exploit advances in the academic sector so that fewer opportunities like these are missed.

18.        Innovate UK works actively with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) around the management of intellectual property for business success and commercialisation of research. The aim has been to support businesses to build the capability to develop IP and associated commercialisation strategies. Identifying the best way to realise financial benefit from patents and knowhow can be challenging and Innovate UK supports mechanisms, such as the KTN, to allow business to share best practise. The Catapults play an important role in supporting SMEs to develop IP with commercial value. The Catapults also work closely with university Technology Transfer Offices to encourage greater commercial awareness of the value of IP among academics and researchers.

3. What can be done to ensure the UK has the necessary skills and manpower to build a world class life sciences sector, both within the research base and the NHS?

19.        The development of the Life Science sector is dependent on companies being able to find suitable skilled employees and many of companies find that recruiting staff with the necessary technical skills is a major problem.

20.        To enable organisations to access knowledge, technology or skills from the UK's knowledge base Innovate UK co-funds Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTPs). These are company-led, challenge-focussed projects, involving a three-way partnership between a company, a university and a graduate working together on a project of commercial benefit to the business. Overall, the scheme represents the largest graduate recruitment programme in the country, providing opportunities for 350 graduates a year to work in industrial R&D and entrepreneurial roles. Innovate is currently expanding the KTP programme with an additional investment of £30 million that will enable annual recruitment to rise to 460 graduates each year until 2021.

21.        KTPs involve many large technology based companies including Unilever, Dyson, Jaguar Land Rover, and Rolls Royce but around 80% of KTPs involve SMEs. The scheme exposes graduates to commercial environment and helps forge links between academic and commercial organisations and thereby improve their competitiveness, productivity and performance. The scheme means that universities also benefit from an improved understanding of industry. The KTP scheme directly addresses the need to increase the interchange of people and ideas from the commercial sector to academia that is a key element of the skills agenda outlined in the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy (LSIS).

22.        Innovate UK continues to promote the KTP scheme to encourage new companies and especially SMEs to discover and understand how valuable the scheme can be allowing firms to access excellent staff with cutting edge academic knowledge. Co-funding from the devolved administrations has ensured that the KTP programme has had excellent UK-wide visibility and with significant involvement from all four nations.

23.        Diversity is an important element of the skills agenda and Innovate UK is committed to supporting and encouraging diversity and inclusion. In 2016, we launched ‘Infocus’ the brand for Innovate UK’s work on diversity and inclusion. The aim of Infocus is to encourage more diversity in business by identifying and celebrating role models that challenge perceptions of what and who can be an innovator or entrepreneur. To do this we will identify and invest in potential leaders in innovation working to understand and overcome the barriers that prevent businesses benefiting from diversity.

24.        Our first competition, launched in 2016, ‘Women in Innovation’ aimed to encourage more women with excellent ideas to innovate in UK businesses. The competition attracted significant interest and 442 applications. Out of 34 awards made 8 involved women working in the Life Sciences sector. Support for winners included being matched with a Senior Business Mentor and an Innovation Advisor from the Enterprise Europe Network as well as a tailored package of business support.

25.        In 2017/18 our In focus campaign will partner with the Prince’s Trust to encourage and support business innovation by young people who currently face particular challenges due to their background or circumstances.

4. How does the UK compare to other countries in this sector, for example Germany and the United States?

26.        The LSIS provides detailed evidence of the UK strength in basic Life Sciences where the UK has a strong international reputation. The report also notes that despite lower overall investment in R&D in Life Sciences than either Germany or the US the research community in the UK is twice as productive as in the US and almost three times greater than in Germany. The commercial life sciences sector in the UK remains significant and is one of the most productive sectors of the UK economy[4].

27.        The traditional view is that the UK has lagged behind internationally in the growth and expansion of the life sciences sector and failed to exploit successfully the great strength the UK has in basic life sciences. There may be some indications that the situation is beginning to change. The UK has long identified the development of cell and gene therapies as an area where the science base is particularly strong. A priority area for the UK, the sector has been supported by the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult and targeted investment through Innovate UK competitions. Data on the number of cell therapy manufacturing facilities shows that the UK holds the single largest share of the cell therapy manufacturing market with 44% of European facilities. Similarly, investment data suggests that UK companies are responsible for a higher proportion of high-value deals than their European counterparts, between 2006 and 2016, 81 UK companies were involved deals compared to only 37 in Germany and 27 in France[5].

Industrial Strategy

5. What can be learnt from the impact of the 2011 UK Life Sciences Strategy? What evidence is there that a strategy will work for the life sciences sector? How can its success be measured against its stated objectives?

28.        The impact of the strategy should be based on a clear, measurable objectives with a framework for baselining and tracking progress against those objectives. This should be done in a transparent manner, preferably as part of an overarching framework.

29. There is continuing evidence that SMEs in the life sciences sector struggle to navigate a complex and apparently fragmented landscape of facilities and funding opportunities. Innovate has recently completed a simplification of the funding mechanisms it uses, in response to recommendations included within Professor Dame Ann Dowling’s review of business-university collaboration[6]. The introduction of a simpler range of funding pathways has made it easier for applicants to identify the appropriate funding schemes and led to a significant increase in the total number of applications received. The Catapult network and KTN provide key elements of the strategy to support SMEs find identify partners and funding opportunities. The Catapults also provide an important function in providing the critical evaluation of potential markets and the potential routes to adoption.

30.        The work of the Catapults in mapping out routes to adoption can be reinforced by generating libraries of operational models of the kind more familiar to business researchers and social scientists. Such models, accompanied by appropriate metrology and human factors research, would remove much of the uncertainty currently facing innovators in the UK who have an invention but little grasp of the context into which the production must fit.

31.        Analysis of the impact of Innovate UK support to 2,700 UK businesses was published in March 2017[7], it revealed that companies who receive an Innovate UK grant not only performed well but performed better than they would have done without support from Innovate UK. The analysis suggests that on average the companies receiving support are more likely to survive with 95% of companies supported operating three years after receiving a grant, compared to 84% of comparable firms that did not receive a grant. The effect appeared to persist so that after five years the difference in survival rates was 16%. The companies receiving a grant also showed significantly higher levels of employment and turnover - both consistent with Innovate UK grants having a broad positive impact on company performance.

6. (If published) Does the strategy contain the right recommendations? What should it contain/what is missing? How will the life sciences strategy interact with the wider industrial strategy, including regional and devolved administration strategies? How will the strategies be coordinated so that they don’t operate in ‘silos’?

32.        The LSIS includes an ambitious call for the establishment of 2-3 entirely new industries based on innovation in the Life Sciences. It is probable that these industries of the future will have their foundations build upon a technology currently emerging from the research base. The Strategy notes the UK’s strength in genomics, biomarker discovery and the application of digital solutions in the healthcare sector. It also highlights that the UK is uniquely placed to drive healthcare innovation and needs to make more effective use of the opportunity that the NHS represents, as the single largest integrated healthcare system that provides cradle to grave care.

33.        The Strategy notes the significant future role of digital developments to support a transformation in the delivery of healthcare and lead to a step change in efficiency. The launch of the Digital Health Catalyst, a £35 million initiative, will support an area that Life Sciences Strategy identified as requiring further targeted support.

34.        The digital Health Catalyst is part of a broader package of investment that forms the Leading Edge Healthcare Challenge; the first wave of Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund that will support a number of initiatives that aim to create an environment where the translation of research findings into new medicines and therapies are greatly improved. The package of support includes the £13 million to enable the establishment of a Medicines Manufacturing Innovation Centre that will directly improve the ability of the UK to translate the strong research base into new medicines.

35. An important strategic aim of Innovate UK is the identification and support of emerging and enabling technologies. This includes cross-cutting technologies and capabilities including digital, sensors, robotics and design. Innovate UK supports the development of a number of priority areas of emerging technologies in a way that their application and value can be realised. Emerging technologies present a broad range of challenges made harder as the technologies may be a long way from market and may require new business models.

36. To address the difficulties of supporting new and disruptive technologies, Innovate UK provides support through Open competitions for those concepts and opportunities that do not fit within the current sectors, or interface with multiple themes with different scopes. This programme aims to overcome the barriers that can prevent the disruptive industries of the future from getting the support they need. The Open competitions have proved extremely popular and attract many more applications than those restricted to a single sector, for example in 2016/17 the first two rounds of the Open competition attracted over 1300 applications.

37. The Catapults and KTN will also be important in supporting the sector by continuing to help academics and the commercial sector develop new and important partnerships. Their understanding of the broad innovation landscape will be important to supporting the development of new applications for a wide range of emerging technologies in the Life Sciences sector. Innovate UK also continue to play an important role in addressing the need for broad development of skills to support innovation and translation in Life Sciences through the work of the KTP programme (previously described in response to Q3).

7. What opportunities for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are there/should there be in the strategy? How can they be involved in its development and implementation?

38. Innovate UK is particularly well placed to support some of the key recommendations in the LSIS. Innovate UK can combine a detailed understanding of the Life Sciences sector with a broad interface with the commercial sector notably the SME community including organisations of all sizes to identify new opportunities for collaboration and targeted support.

39. The implementation of the strategy will be allow Innovate UK to lead the increasing alignment and blurring across the Life Sciences sector, where major advances in healthcare are likely to be based on the progressive integration of genomics with stratified medicine and the development of advanced therapies. In addition, Innovate UK will continue to support the development of enabling technologies in other sectors that are required to underpin developments in the Life Sciences sector, for example, the ability to analyse complex data in real-time as part of a diagnostic system.

40. The pace of development in healthcare in the next few years is likely to favour small and medium enterprises. Smaller organisations are more likely to be sufficiently agile to be able to identify and exploit the opportunities that will develop from the ongoing transformation of healthcare based on an understanding of genomics, the more effective and efficient use of data and the application of digital tools to healthcare.

8. Where should the funding come from to support the implementation of the strategy?

41. The Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund ISCF will be central to the implementation of the LSIS. Innovate UK has played a key role in the development of the ISCF and will now play a central part in its delivery. A significant element of the overall funding provided via the ISCF will be used to deliver market-leading commercial products and services that are aligned with the LSIS.

9. How do the devolved administrations and city regions fit into the strategy? Scotland has its own life sciences strategy, how will the two interact?

42. To drive excellence in the life-sciences beyond the ‘golden triangle’ will  require national initiatives to be better aligned with local strategies. Innovate UK has built-up a stakeholder facing team of regional managers who have regular engagement with the agencies of the devolved administrations, with the Local Enterprise Partnerships and with the new combined authorities, all of whom have focused innovation plans for their geographies, working to the policy of ‘Smart Specialisation’. The Smart Specialisation Hub, supported by Innovate UK and delivered by the KTN and The National Centre for Universities and Business (NCUB) provides access to local strategies and benchmarked data on regional strengths.

43. To identify opportunities to improve the alignment between national and regional initiatives, Innovate UK is actively involved in a dialogue across all supported sectors. Innovate UK have been involved in programmes that bring together national and devolved funding, for example, in 2016 support for the Biomedical Catalyst came from both Innovate UK and Scottish Enterprise. This is one example of the way that Innovate UK works to draw together different funding streams so they can be delivered in a strategic manner. Similarly the UK-wide nature of the Catapults is illustrated by their geographical spread; projects involving the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult are located in almost every part of the UK.

44. Innovate UK continues to encourage regional delivery bodies to take a more strategic view and look for opportunities to join-up local resources within economic geographies (rather than political boundaries). It is important that cross-border collaborations are developed across whole value chains, a step change from initiatives, often at sub-optimum scale within too narrow a geography. The recognition of the value of developing regions and clusters in the UK is welcomed as is the need for the UK to promote a unified ‘offer’ to international partners and investors.

45. The current programme of Science and Innovation Audits[8] are helping government agencies, including Innovate UK, identify opportunities for further regional development.

NHS procurement and collaboration

10. How can public procurement, in particular by the NHS, be an effective stimulus for innovation in the Life Sciences Sector? Can it help support emerging businesses in the Life Sciences sector?

46. Public procurement can be an effective stimulus for innovation. Innovate UK has been able to use the Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) to bring together public sector organisations, including the NHS, with innovative businesses that can address the challenges faced by government. SBRI is a structured, risk sharing mechanism that harnesses the power of government procurement to help UK companies, especially SMEs to grow and scale. It works by increasing the demand from government departments and agencies (including the NHS) for innovation by awarding contracts to SMEs for the development of innovative technology solutions that address defined needs identified by those public sector organisations.

47. Innovate UK has, through SBRI Healthcare in partnership with the Department of Health helped to shape and validate numerous innovations where the NHS is acting as lead customer. In the last financial year 2015-16 the scheme awarded contracts with a total value of £17.5m to 44 companies working across the 15 Academic Health Science Networks.

48. The SBRI process has supported the Department of Health; in 2016-17 a total investment of £71m of the Department’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) allocation was allocated to competitions supporting 49 projects seeking to develop vaccines, vaccine platform technologies and manufacturing technologies. These projects will help enable a more effective and rapid response during future outbreaks of pathogens with epidemic and pandemic potential.

49. The Devolved Administrations have all invested significant sums using the SBRI mechanism; £5.1m across 37 projects in Wales; £782k across 27 projects in Scotland and £424k across 6 projects in Northern Ireland. Topics include from medicines optimisation, diabetes, nursing time, dementia, dermatology, IBD, and cancer Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)s.

50. Innovate UK is tasked with overseeing and managing the SBRI programme across government. It continues to play a key role in coordinating, practically supporting and helping government departments to use SBRI more effectively. By July 2017, SBRI had provided £473m in funding to 3075 different projects across 80 government departments.

51. A review was commissioned by the government in autumn 2016 undertaken by David Connell. The report and recommendations is expected to be published this autumn.

11. How can the recommendations of the Accelerated Access Review be taken forward alongside the strategy? Will the recent changes to the NHS England approval process for drugs have a positive or negative effect on the availability of new and innovative treatments in the NHS? How can quick access to new treatments and the need to provide value for money be reconciled?

52. The Accelerated Access Review highlighted a number of areas where existing mechanisms could be operating more effectively. This included supporting the integration of new technologies into the healthcare system. The Early Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS) offers a mechanism for NHS patients to get earlier access to potentially life-saving therapies. However, most SMEs have decided that the opportunities provided by the scheme did not merit the additional time and expense involved. To support SMEs to apply to the scheme Innovate UK is developing a competitive process that will allow targeted funding to reduce the barriers faced by SMEs applying to EAMS. The aim will be to increase the number of companies using the scheme and in turn mean that more patients receive potentially life-changing therapies sooner and the companies involved get earlier access to real-world data. Similar processes will also support the developers of medical devices and diagnostics to obtain the real-world evidence needed for healthcare systems to make objective assessments of cost-effectiveness. A key element will be early engagement with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to ensure that plans for data collection are designed in a way that they are aligned with the requirements for the relevant technology assessment processes used by NICE.

12. How can collaboration between researchers and the NHS be improved, particularly in light of increased fiscal pressures in the NHS? Will the NHS England research plan help in this regard? How can the ability of the NHS to contribute to the development of and adopting new technology be improved? Responsibility and accountability?

53. The evidence suggests that there is scope for increased support. Applications to the Innovate UK competitions for support under the Biomedical Catalyst are currently regularly over-subscribed, with only a proportion of the applications assessed to be high quality receiving funding. The projects supported by the Biomedical Catalyst have been highly successful (see response to Q1), however funding constraints means that not all applications judged to be of high quality can be funded. This suggests there would be scope to increase the number of awards without reducing the quality of projects funded by the Biomedical Catalyst scheme.

54. There is further scope for more seamless coordination between funding agencies. The establishment of UKRI will solve some of these issues, but clearer processes for co-funding of applications involving the NIHR and Innovate UK would enable greater commercial involvement in the development of new therapies and treatments.

13. Who should take responsibility for the implementation of the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy and to whom should they be accountable? What should the UK Government’s role be? What should the role of the academic, charitable and business sectors be?

55. The creation of UKRI will mean that the new organisation will be able to take an important role in leading on the implementation of the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy for the UK. Maximising Innovate UK’s impact on innovation and growth in the UK. Innovate UK is ideally placed to lead on supporting SMEs in alignment with the goals of the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy.

14. What is the role of companies within the sector, particularly the large pharmaceutical companies, in the implementation of the strategy? How are they accountable for its success?

56. The pharmaceutical industry is moving towards an increasingly collaborative research with large pharmaceutical companies often working closely with a range of SMEs to develop complex new technologies. There is a need to support the establishment of a clear pipeline of development from clinical research to phase I studies. The Medicines Discovery Catapult has been created by Innovate UK to maximise the opportunities to support the development of a syndicate approach bringing together high value users. The location at Alderley Park was selected to take advantage of the pre-existing cluster of skills and organisations that were already working in close proximity.

15. Does the Government have the right structures in place to support the life science sector? Is the Office of Life Sciences effective? Should the Government appoint a dedicated Life Sciences Minister? If so, should that Minister have UK-wide or England-only responsibilities?

57.   A dedicated Life Sciences Minister was seen by many in the sector as a good indicator of high-level engagement with central Government. When working with the previous Minister for Life Sciences, Innovate UK found that this was an effective mechanism to drive engagement across the sector and signal the recognition of the importance of the Life Sciences sector to the UK.

Brexit

16. What impact will Brexit have on the Life Sciences sector? Will the strategy help the sector to mitigate the risks and take advantage of the opportunities of Brexit?

58.        The UK has a long-tradition of working in a collaborative manner with many European countries and has actively participated in a number of important pan-European support mechanisms including Horizon 2020 and EuroStars. Devising mechanisms that allow such collaboration to continue after EU-exit would benefit both the Life Science sector in the UK but also in partner countries and would support the more rapid development of new patient therapies, diagnostics and med tech.

17. How should the regulatory framework be changed or improved after Brexit to support the sector?

59.   Innovate UK has a particularly close relationship with the commercial sector and works actively to identify where regulation can be streamlined or eliminated. Brexit offers an opportunity to review the regulatory environment for the Life Sciences sector and Innovate UK continues to work with regulators to support the development of the regulatory environment. UK firms need a framework of regulation in the UK to be established that will enable them to sell products across Europe with minimal barriers.

60.   The UK should continue to be active at a global scale leading the development of best practice across the Life Sector through contribution to guidance documents from standards organisations such as ISO and thus embed our practice in international norms.

18. To what extent should the UK remain involved with and contribute to agencies such as the EMA post Brexit?

61. Innovate UK looks to others more expert in this area to respond to this question.

Evidence submitted on behalf of the Innovate UK by:

Dr Ruth McKernan, CBE

Chief Executive, Innovate UK

13 September 2017