A report was submitted in relation to the Government Innovation Strategy which had been launched at the AMRC in July 2021, and had replaced the Industrial Strategy.  The Innovation Strategy had a clear and strong link to the SEP, which cemented the LEP’s strategic alignment with the Government on innovation.  Outlined within the Innovation Strategy were plans to cement the UK’s position as a world-leader in science, research and innovation, with a long term plan to boost private sector investment across the UK.  The long term vision was make the UK a global hub for innovation by 2035.

Members were referred to the three main areas for the emerging South Yorkshire innovation approach:-

·           To create the enabling conditions for innovation driven growth – R&D, clustering, ecosystems, technology deployment within business, business to business activity, and catapults etc.

·           To conversion/realising the economic benefit locally and inclusively.

·           The clarity, persuasiveness and credibility of the South Yorkshire story and experience.

The report set out three broad options:-

·            Option 1.  To do nothing - adopt a passive approach, and to wait and see if there was a role for the LEP’s.

·            Option 2.  To do something – within the context of developing delivery plans for the SEP.

·            Option 3.  To do more – same as Option 2, but also to mount a lobbying campaign to seek to be a commissioning/investment partner with Government, especially to areas with clear links i.e. Advanced Materials and Manufacturing.

The matter had been discussed with the Co-Chairs and the SCR Business Recovery and Growth Board.  At that meeting, Members had not considered it appropriate to adopt a passive approach.  They had also agreed that a focused innovation board should be established to enable South Yorkshire to become a leader in innovation, and that it would be necessary to know which schemes were available for potential funding.

P Kennan referred to a recent discussion with other private sector Board Members who had shown a great deal of support for Option 3.  He hoped that the Leaders and officers had observed the enthusiasm, with a view to devoting financial resource to appoint external consultants, if it was not possible to undertake everything in-house, and to embrace Option 3.

Mayor Jones CBE commented that most of the work was undertaken within the local authorities and that the MCA would pull together the bids.  She considered that there was a need to lobby the Government for an appropriate method in which they notified of potential funding.  She also considered that there should be lobbying in the medium and long term, in order to achieve proper schemes that could be delivered appropriately for the area.

P Kennan was aware of the pressures that were faced by the officers at DMBC, and he considered that resourcing was a problem across all of the local authorities.  He hoped that resourcing could be found to deal with the issue under Option 3.

In relation to the work undertaken by the MCA Officers on the South Yorkshire branding and the stories, J Chetcuti suggested that it would be helpful to ensure that the work undertaken within one section of the MCA was fed into the other areas.  He also suggested that objectives should be set to ensure that everyone agreed the content of the stories.

J Muir suggested that the Board should endorse Option 3, as highlighted within the report.  There was a need to establish a way for greater focus on what drives innovation at the source.  There was a clear deficit within the UK PLC which needed to be addressed, and collaboration of the two education institutions was required to provide support.  He considered that the largest issue to be addressed, which could be achieved uniquely within South Yorkshire or to take a leading stance, was to determine how to bring collaboration between the private sector, public sector and the academic sector.  It would be necessary for South Yorkshire to stand out as a centre of excellence and a source of innovation in specific areas, and to align those priorities with the ambitions of the anchor institutions in terms of the competencies that they had and those that were need to enable them to grow.  Therefore he considered that the MCA, which had financial resources at its disposal, should be prepared to invest a proportion of funding into innovation projects which translated into industrialised and job creation.  This would present an opportunity to deal with the Government in terms of co-funding on the public sector side, which would enable leverage of the private sector.  He anticipated that there would be a need for resource focus to specifically drive the innovation forward.

A further conversation would be held between Mayor Jones CBE and N MacDonald in relation to the context of business growth.

RESOLVED – That the Board:-

i)       Reviewed the summary of the Government’s Innovation Strategy.

ii)      Considered the emerging approach on innovation, provided a steer, and set out what role it would play within this.

Considered how it could galvanise activity to deliver more innovative start-ups, scale-ups and clusters.