Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the work of the Advanced Research and Innovation Agency since its
establishment in January.
(Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper—especially as it is the first time there has ever
been a Question about ARIA in this Chamber.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Science, Innovation and Technology () (Con)
ARIA’s initial focus has been on attracting world-class talent to
create transformative programmes and on developing the
organisation’s investment strategy. The Government have made a
long-term commitment to ARIA, and I am confident that its
creation will help cement the UK as a science and technology
superpower, attracting top talent to our shores to grow the
economy, boost prosperity and develop ground-breaking discoveries
that could transform people’s lives for the better.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. As I hope the
House knows, this is a really new and exciting part of our
scientific landscape, and I hope that the whole House wishes it
well. Nevertheless, we still have some obligation to keep an eye
on it. Could the Minister outline a little more about its early
stages. How often does the board meet? How much money has been
spent so far on premises and staff? How many programme managers
have been appointed? Have areas where they will operate been
identified, or is ARIA still in the business of encouraging
outside suggestions that they will continue?
In short—
Noble Lords
Oh!
(Lab)
In short, I think that the House would like to keep an eye on how
things are going, and we wish it well.
(Con)
Let me start by thanking the noble Viscount for raising the
Question about this exciting organisation and for helpfully
expressing his enthusiasm for it. He asked a range of questions,
which I shall answer with one overarching point—that ARIA has
been set up with complete strategic and operational autonomy away
from government, so the more that government tries to interfere
or find out about its day-to-day ongoings, the less autonomously
it can behave, and that would introduce a system that would end
up being antithetical to its existence.
(CB)
My Lords, I was a strong supporter of ARIA when the legislation
went through to establish it and I remain a strong supporter of
it. It is too early to know how it is performing because it is a
long-term strategy of a high-risk, high-reward enterprise.
However, I have absolute faith in Ilan Gur, its chief executive,
and the board of directors, who are the guardians of the funds it
is given. I have some information, but I too am not in a position
to reveal it—but I am confident that ARIA will succeed.
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his vote of confidence. It is a new
kind of organisation that will invest with a high-risk appetite
to shoot for outcomes that are bold, substantive and deeply
impactful.
(Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my philanthropic interests in this
area. Specifically, what I would like to ask the Minister is
again to echo the points on timing and the amount of effect we
will have through this effort.
(Con)
Indeed. As far as the timing goes, ARIA was legally established
on 25 January. The focus has been on recruiting the right people.
It is a small organisation, designed to be lean and agile. That
means it is absolutely dependent on the quality of the small team
it has working for it. That is the focus for now. We look forward
to the first announcements of programme directors. I hope that
will be in the autumn.
The Lord Speaker ()
My Lords, the noble Lord, , is participating
remotely.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, will this organisation, with its £800 million potential
budget, much of it public money, be subject to fully accountable
FoI applications? If not, why not? The public interest is best
served in conditions of transparency.
(Con)
Uniquely for a partnering organisation with the Government, ARIA
is not subject to FoI because it is designed to be a small
organisation. Laying on it the burden of FoI administration
would, I fear, be antithetical to its purpose. However, that is
not to suggest that there is an absence of transparency. It has
statutory requirements to publish audited accounts and an annual
report, both of which will be laid before Parliament.
(LD)
My Lords, there is some concern that there are no mechanisms in
place to plug in the appropriate humanities and social science
areas right from the beginning of projects. What reassurance can
the Minister give that social sciences and humanities will be
plugged in right at the beginning of projects?
(Con)
Decisions about what areas to investigate, what projects to
finance and what activities to conduct sit wholly within the
management and directorship of ARIA. That is the way the
organisation is designed, so it would not be appropriate for
government to dictate any emphasis in any particular area.
of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister can gather, the establishment of ARIA
received widespread support from all sides of the House. However,
ARIA benefits from £800 million a year of public money and the
wider research community, as well as the public, should be
entitled to know something about how that money is spent. I note
what the Minister said about accounts and annual reports, but it
is my understanding that ARIA has also promised to provide a
three-year strategy and corporate plan, which will be presented.
Can he confirm that that will also be publicly available? While
we have the Minister’s attention, could he please update the
House on progress on negotiating UK participation in the Horizon
programme?
(Con)
Quickly on Horizon, which we debated quite fully yesterday, I am
unable, since yesterday, to provide any further information, I am
afraid. Where appropriate, reports from ARIA will be laid before
Parliament and available for public scrutiny. I stress that we
really want to avoid a situation in which we create an
administrative burden on top of ARIA because, for it to succeed
in the way we envisage it succeeding, it must remain a lean,
agile and, ideally, small organisation.
(CB)
My Lords, this country has never been short of inventors with
good ideas, but it has been much less good at putting those ideas
through into marketable products, the economic benefits of which
have all too often gone elsewhere. What emphasis is being placed
in this programme on pulling sufficient private sector capital
into these initiatives at a sufficiently early stage—initiatives
which of course in some cases are bound to fail.
(Con)
I very much accept the thrust of the noble Lord’s point, which is
that nationally we perhaps have more of a tendency to invent than
to commercialise. As much as anything else, ARIA is in place to
help address that.
(Con)
My Lords, what is the potential relationship between ARIA and the
Pioneer programme, which as we heard yesterday might replace
Horizon if there is no agreement with the EU?
(Con)
Whether we reassociate to Horizon or go down the Pioneer
alternative, ARIA is designed to be complementary to those
programmes. It has a higher tolerance of risk and seeks more
long-shot opportunities, one advantage of that being that rapid
lessons learned can quickly be transmitted to organisations with
a necessarily lower tolerance of risk, thereby allowing everybody
to benefit from its learnings.
(CB)
My Lords, there is clear logic in protecting big and bold
thinking from the constraints of bureaucracy, but it would be a
mistake to think that there are two types of invention: the big
ideas and the day-to-day research that goes on in our institutes
and universities. Big ideas often start small. How can the
Government ensure that the ring-fence is permeable so that the
investment in ARIA benefits the entire research ecosystem?
(Con)
Indeed—again, the point is well taken. We cannot have these types
of organisations existing in separate universes and not talking
to each other. It is crucial that they exploit their
complementarity in this way.
(Con)
My Lords, we are all very supportive of ARIA, but the important
issue is the innovation principle and embedding that principle
across government in all departments. Defra published five
environmental principles—integration, prevention, rectification,
polluter pays and precautionary—but there was no innovation
principle. It is essential that we see the innovation principle
right across government.
(Con)
Indeed. As set out in the ARIA Act, ARIA is required to observe
three principles that come under the broad heading of innovation:
contributing to the economic growth of the UK; promoting
scientific innovation in the UK; and improving quality of life of
everyone in the UK.
