← Back to House of Commons Debates
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill
23 March 2021
Lead MP
Kwasi Kwarteng
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
TaxationBusiness & TradeStandards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 46
At a Glance
Kwasi Kwarteng raised concerns about advanced research and invention agency bill in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy moved the Second Reading of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill. He emphasised the importance of high-risk research and innovation by highlighting the historical significance of Edward Jenner's work in immunology. The bill aims to establish an agency that will fund high-risk, high-reward research with a £800 million commitment over 2024-25. The Secretary outlined ARIA’s focus on patient investment and risk-taking, akin to DARPA in the US but adapted for UK conditions. He stressed the importance of strategic independence, flexibility, and transparency within the agency.
Aaron Bell
Con
Wales
Intervened to support the Secretary's case by stressing the need for ARIA to maintain a sense of urgency and crisis-driven research, even in non-crisis times.
Daniel Zeichner
Lab
Cambridge
Raised concerns about the American model's applicability and questioned which UK government department will serve as ARIA’s client.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Con
Westminster North
[INTERVENTION] The right hon. Gentleman will know from his years in government that these conversations with the Treasury are ongoing, and we hope to get a satisfactory result.
Richard Fuller
Con
North East Bedfordshire
[INTERVENTION] The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to my feet because he does a tremendous disservice to Dominic Cummings by not acknowledging his inspiration for this Bill. He also questions whether there is an opportunity for us to do something different without political interference, referencing the areas of research that are less explored.
Andrew Griffith
Con
Arundel and South Downs
[INTERVENTION] I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is a secret Cummings-ite because he constructs paper tigers to criticise ARIA, which could pursue new disruptive opportunities without replicating existing council work.
Greg Clark
Con
Bolton North East
Welcomes the introduction of the Bill and emphasises the importance of science during a year marked by scientific achievements, such as vaccine development. Highlights British science's exceptionalism in various fields including space technology and battery research. Supports the Government’s commitment to increase science funding from £9 billion to £22 billion by 2024-25. Recommends that ARIA should have no more than two focal points and clarifies whether it will focus on blue-sky research or practical applications. Argues for a careful choice of the chief executive to ensure efficiency in the use of resources, highlighting the need not to forget about existing 99% funding while focusing on new initiatives.
Stephen Flynn
SNP
Aberdeen South
Stephen Flynn expresses concern over the vagueness of the Bill's mission, suggesting that it should focus on climate change and net-zero technologies. He criticises the Government for prioritising nuclear weapons over environmental initiatives. Additionally, he questions the leadership criteria for ARIA, highlighting controversies involving eugenics. Flynn also raises concerns about transparency in public spending and the potential impact on Scotland.
Stephen Metcalfe
Con
South Basildon and East Thurrock
Welcomes the creation of ARIA, highlighting the UK's historical contributions to science and research. Emphasises the need for a high-risk, high-reward approach in R&D, advocating for the exemption from Freedom of Information requests to encourage innovation without fear of criticism. Stresses the importance of embracing failure as part of the process towards significant breakthroughs. Advocates for ARIA’s role in fostering collaboration between established research bodies and potential disrupters, aiding individual innovators with promising ideas but lacking resources. Concerned about the commercialisation aspect, calls for practical support to help inventions transition from lab bench to product or service.
Daniel Zeichner
Lab
Cambridge
Questions whether ARIA is a solution in search of a problem and if it can address the issues of bureaucracy. Points out that there are already efforts to reduce bureaucracy, such as Professor Tickell's review. Raises concerns about competition for funding and suggests that reforming the current system could better address concerns than introducing ARIA. Criticises the Government’s approach to research and innovation, questioning its effectiveness in addressing real problems. Highlights potential harm caused by cuts in research funding and warns against undermining trust with institutions.
Richard Fuller
Con
North Bedfordshire
Welcomes the Bill and its unique characteristics, emphasising that it aims to create an institution capable of addressing unknown unknowns without political interference. Argues against prescribing specific focus areas like industrial strategy or environmental research. Raises concerns about initial project evaluation frameworks, leadership appointments, staff turnover, and funding mechanisms. Questions whether ARIA can draw on a global pool of talent, similar to DARPA's practices. Suggests the need for parallel tracks with venture capital support as seen in ARPA’s early days.
Welcomes the Bill but criticises its lack of clear focus and ambition, especially compared to Scotland's National Investment Bank. Questions whether ARIA will bypass devolved decision-making and ensure fair funding for Scottish researchers. Expresses concerns about cronyism scandals and the need for transparency in agency funding. Announces his resignation from Parliament.
Eleanor Laing
Welsh保守派
Expressed sentiments and good wishes towards an MP from another party.
David Morris
Con
Supports the establishment of ARIA, highlighting its potential to boost the UK's space industry. Argues for a clear line of investment and regulatory clarity, emphasising the economic benefits of £400 billion by 2030.
Alan Mak
Con
Havant
Welcomes the Bill, highlighting its importance in positioning Britain as a science superpower. Emphasises the role of ARIA in fostering innovation and supporting high-risk research.
Sarah Olney
Lib Dem
Richmond Park
Welcomes new public funding for science and technology but questions the origin of the agency. Concerned about Government analysis on fixing issues in science and innovation space. Asks who will lead ARIA and what qualifications they should have. Questions whether this is new money or if it comes from existing programmes, stressing the need to ensure taxpayer value for money.
Welcomes the Bill as part of increasing awareness of innovation's importance. Acknowledges the UK's success in life sciences and supports investment in public R&D expenditure. Emphasises the need for cultural change to boost risk-taking and supports ARIA’s potential to foster a science superpower. Advocates for ARIA being based in Bolton North East, highlighting local opportunities for radical innovation.
Carol Monaghan
SNP
Glasgow North West
Expresses scepticism about ARIA's ability to attract new funding amid cuts in official development assistance. Questions the specific mission and priorities of ARIA, highlighting the need for accountability and checks against cronyism. Raises concerns about national inequality in research spending and calls for clarity on long-term funding plans and international collaboration.
Nigel Evans
Con
Cannock Chase
Briefly adds good wishes to the Member who moved from chair. No substantial arguments or critiques presented, supportive in tone.
Simon Fell
Con
Great Yarmouth
Praises ARIA for its potential to drive scientific innovation and address major challenges like net zero emissions. Emphasises the importance of supporting high-risk projects, citing Barrow and Furness's role in cutting-edge research and technology. Supports ARIA’s exemption from public-contract regulations for speedier procurement.
Paul Blomfield
Lab
Sheffield Central
Expressed concern over UK's declining R&D investment, noting that the proposed ARIA does not provide clear funding and may reduce overall research capacity. Cited examples of research cuts from international development budgets and concerns about the sustainability of Horizon Europe funding. Emphasised the importance of stable long-term investment in science for economic growth.
Mark Pawsey
Con
Rugby
Welcomed the Bill, highlighting its potential to encourage innovation similar to Frank Whittle's jet engine invention. Supported ARIA as a complementary funding agency that could foster collaboration between academia and industry. Noted strong support from Catapult centres in his constituency for ARIA’s proposed structure.
Owen Thompson
SNP
Midlothian
Welcomes the general concepts behind the Bill, highlighting potential economic benefits and the importance of a healthy research environment. Supports additional funding from ARIA as long as it is not at the expense of other important funds. Emphasises the need for clear purpose and focus in ARIA’s operations to ensure success. Raises concerns about the oversight and governance of the new agency, including exemptions from freedom of information requests and public contract regulations. Advocates for increased transparency and accountability, suggesting that such measures would not hinder ARIA's effectiveness. Expresses dismay at the Government's dismissal of concerns regarding corruption risks and calls for more safeguards to be built into the funding body.
Chris Skidmore
Con
Kingswood
Welcomes the Bill that establishes ARIA, emphasising its importance in driving innovation and R&D investment. Argues for the need to stabilise research funding with multi-annual budgets, citing an increase from £9 billion per annum to £22 billion by 2024-25. Highlights ARIA’s £800 million budget over five years as a small portion of total R&D spend and stresses its role in fostering disruptive innovation. Advocates for leveraging private investment through prizes like the Ansari X Prize, emphasising protection of intellectual property to prevent foreign exploitation. Discusses security measures necessary for collaboration with research partners.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Speaks in support of increasing public research and development funding, citing the success of vaccine development as an example. Emphasises the importance of cooperation between different parts of the UK for scientific progress, particularly referencing Queen’s University Belfast's work on health research. Highlights Northern Ireland’s skilled workforce and its potential contribution to R&D projects.
Noted a challenge for remaining speakers due to the time constraints.
Supports the Bill and emphasises the potential of sites like Gravity in his constituency, which has enormous potential for innovation and research. Mentions the support from local universities and colleges for such projects. Advocates for the levelling-up policy to ensure every region benefits from R&D funding.
John Redwood
Con
Wokingham
Mr. Redwood supports the bill, emphasising its potential to enhance national resilience through targeted research and development initiatives. He suggests that ARIA should focus on defining achievable objectives and securing adequate resources for commercialisation and security purposes.
Chris Green
Con
Bolton North East
Mr. Green supports the bill, stressing its role in fostering high-tech innovation, promoting national resilience across various sectors, and complementing other research initiatives. He highlights ARIA's importance for attracting investment and improving job prospects.
Paul Howell
Con
Sedgefield
Supports ARIA's establishment as it can stimulate high-risk, high-reward projects and help commercialize innovation. He cites Kromek’s work with DARPA in his constituency to illustrate how ARIA could foster local growth and job creation.
North East Derbyshire
Endorses the initiative for its potential to boost exports, create wealth and jobs through innovation. He stresses that ARIA should be free from bureaucratic constraints, appointing a forward-thinking CEO to lead it effectively.
Jane Hunt
Con
Loughborough
Supports Loughborough University’s science and enterprise park which aims to create pathways between universities, research establishments and businesses. Advocates for removing unnecessary bureaucracy and welcomes Government's proposals for ARIA modelled on USA's DARPA. Emphasises the importance of funding flexibility and freedom for innovative projects. Argues that a culture of tolerance for failure is crucial for R&D success.
Virginia Crosbie
Con
Anglesey
Highlights the Menai science park on Anglesey and its support for businesses in low-carbon, energy, ICT sectors. Mentions successful projects like Holyhead Hydrogen Hub funded by Innovate UK. Supports ARIA’s role in providing a new source of finance for transformational science projects. Believes it offers an opportunity to attract exciting talent and create further innovation and enterprise.
Andrew Griffith
Con
Arundel and South Downs
Supports the Bill, calling it bold and disruptive. Cites Government's existing commitment to research and development funding. References the success of the Vaccine Taskforce as an example of effective disruption in decision-making. Argues for limited exemptions from freedom of information measures to allow swift decisions. Acknowledges the constructive tone of opposition but questions their stance on the Bill.
Guildford
The MP supports the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill, highlighting its potential to drive UK innovation post-pandemic. She commends the £800 million funding secured from the Treasury and emphasises the importance of addressing climate change through research investments. Richardson notes the transformative potential in sectors such as space and satellite technologies, robotics surgery, and gaming. She also encourages ARIA to be independent of electoral cycles for unbiased judgment based on learning from failures.
Wirral West
The MP underscores the national ambition of the Bill, advocating for ARIA to model itself after DARPA due to its transformative success in launching innovations like GPS and ARPANET. He stresses the importance of having a client or customer base that can pose challenging questions and seek solutions for issues such as healthcare treatment for an ageing population and remote health monitoring.
Jerome Mayhew
Con
Broadland and Fakenham
Supports ARIA's role in fostering a vibrant research culture, increasing R&D investment, and learning from models like DARPA. Emphasises the need for ARIA to provide commercial exploitation opportunities and address deindustrialisation through shorter supply chains.
Highlights the importance of innovation as a driver of progress, praises the cross-party support for ARIA, and argues that ARIA must operate independently to reduce costs of failure and increase rewards for success. Advocates for flexibility in funding and multi-annual budgets.
Imran Ahmad Khan
Lab
Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland
Welcomes the Bill as fulfilling a manifesto pledge for innovative superpower post-COVID world. Highlights DARPA's model as critical, noting its success from flat management structure, sense of mission, minimal bureaucracy, streamlined process, culture fostering industry-academia connections, and temporary project managers. Emphasises the importance of replicating these factors in ARIA, citing funding of £800 million with recommendation for increased investment to support innovative projects. Addresses concerns over FOI exemption by arguing it reduces administrative burdens, enabling flexibility and agility.
Duncan Baker
Con
Orkney and Shetland
Supports the Bill as essential for UK’s scientific superpower status. Mentions local inventors like Christopher Cockerell and Sir James Dyson, highlighting their repeated failures leading to groundbreaking inventions. Advocates ARIA's potential to foster creativity and talent by cutting red tape and enabling risk-taking. Points out the significance of long-term research investment exemplified in Oxford University’s vaccine development, stressing its necessity for future innovations.
David Johnston
Con
Cambridge
Endorses the Bill’s ambition to invest more in R&D and establish a unique UK version of DARPA. Emphasises autonomy for programme managers, avoiding direct Ministerial control. Stresses the need for acceptance of greater risk and failure as crucial components. Supports ARIA's exemptions from traditional bureaucracy, public procurement regulations, and FOI laws to encourage innovation without hindrance.
James Sunderland
Con
Bracknell
Commends the Bill for its investment in R&D, highlighting the Government's ambition and vision for the future. Argues that it will foster innovation, economic growth, and improve quality of life. Emphasises the importance of ARIA’s funding to support collaboration between public and private research. Highlights the economic potential of Bracknell as a hub for businesses.
Andy Carter
Lab
Warrington South
Welcomes the plans to support innovators with ARIA funding, emphasising its role in driving innovation and economic growth. Argues that it should complement existing research bodies while avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy. Highlights the potential benefits for Warrington and the north-west region through investment at Daresbury laboratory and other high-tech sectors.
Aaron Bell
Con
Newcastle-under-Lyme
Aaron Bell supports the creation of ARIA and emphasises its potential to drive innovation, particularly in vaccine development. He highlights the importance of flexibility and autonomy for ARIA to foster a breakthrough response similar to that seen during the pandemic. He mentions the need to balance focus with agility, and suggests involving his Select Committee in pre-appointment hearings for ARIA's leadership. Bell also discusses various funding mechanisms proposed for ARIA and their potential benefits, including leveraging private sector investment. Additionally, he cites Keele University’s contributions to science and innovation, advocating for support from ARIA.
Richard Holden
Con
Basildon and Billericay
Richard Holden supports the creation of ARIA, praising its potential to drive forward innovative scientific research. He cites the success of DARPA in developing transformative technologies like the internet and GPS as a model for ARIA's approach. Holden argues that existing institutions such as UKRI are often too bureaucratic and risk-averse, using an example from his constituency where a professor struggled to gain funding for antiviral surface research due to scope limitations set by UKRI. He emphasises the importance of nurturing scientific innovation without excessive constraints, advocating for ARIA’s support in accelerating technological advancements.
Chi Onwurah
Lab
Newcastle upon Tyne Central
Chi Onwurah supports the establishment of ARIA as a step towards high-risk/high-reward research, noting the UK's historical scientific achievements. However, she raises concerns about the lack of direction for ARIA and calls for a clear mission to unite business, government, and public support. She warns against ideological disdain for scrutiny and advocates for external accountability to ensure effective use of public funds.
Amanda Solloway
Con
Brentford and Isleworth
Supports the creation of ARIA, citing it as a bold step towards cementing the UK's position as a science superpower. Emphasises that ARIA will fund high-risk, high-reward research differently from existing systems and will help reach brilliant researchers currently unfunded. Acknowledges concerns about funding, mission focus, need for specific customers, recruitment, oversight, procurement, location, and FOI requests but addresses each one by highlighting the unique nature of ARIA's operation.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.