Key Facts

• Amendment 7 would require the Secretary of State to consider the collective experience of ARIA's members in devolved nations.
• The Labour party supports using science as a driver for societal progress, benefiting all regions equally.
• Tabitha Goldstaub highlighted the importance of public service in attracting good board members.
• Chi Onwurah highlights the need for regional representation and diversity of thought on ARIA's board.
• She references the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which establishes factors to be considered in UKRI board appointments.
• The amendment is voted down with 5 Ayes and 9 Noes.
• Amendments proposed by Chi Onwurah aim to strengthen the Secretary of State's powers over ARIA appointments.
• The amendments would permit refusal or removal based on national security or unfitness/unability criteria.
• Current legislation restricts refusal grounds solely to national security.
• ARIA will spend £800 million of public money.
• The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 requires consideration of collective relevant experience when making appointments to UKRI boards, but no such floor exists in the current Bill for ARIA.
• Professor Philip Bond's evidence suggests that trust is placed on board members without oversight.
• The amendment seeks to provide greater transparency and oversight in ARIA's operations.
• Dr Peter Highnam from DARPA testified about rigorous conflict of interest rules at ARIA evidence sessions.
• UKRI is bound by a code of conduct for board members including public declarations of interests.
• The amendment sets out regulations for dealing with complex conflicts of interest involving new technologies and international supply chains.
• Dr Regina Dugan from Wellcome Leap supports detailed conflict management procedures due to potential equity stakes.
• Professor Pierre Azoulay notes that fixed expiration dates at DARPA ensure correct behaviour among programme managers.
• Chi Onwurah proposes amendment 14.
• The amendment requires ARIA's annual report to contain information on the proportion of its funding spent outside the UK.
• It also mandates details on national and regional distribution within the UK.
• Amendments would insert new sub-paragraphs in the Bill to require reporting on geographical distribution.
• £800 million over four years is designated for ARIA, which is considered a small portion of UK science spend.
• Amendment 14 is about basic transparency requirements without setting targets or constraining ARIA’s operations.
• Regional development agencies were abolished by the Conservative coalition in 2010.
• The abolition was described as 'positively Maoist' by Vince Cable.
• There is a lack of data on regional science spend, making it difficult for knowledge exchange frameworks to be accessible and understandable.
• Chi Onwurah withdraws amendment 14 based on assurances from the Minister.
• Amendment 16 seeks to have regard for benefits across the nations and regions of the UK.
• ARIA will be subject to public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010.
• Schedule 1 sets out ARIA's governance arrangements, including board composition and oversight mechanisms.
• Executive members must include the chief executive officer (CEO) and chief financial officer (CFO), with a maximum of five other members.
• Non-executive members must be in the majority, including the chair and Government chief scientific adviser.
• Amendment 15 aims to define ARIA's core mission as supporting the achievement of net zero carbon emissions for the first decade after the Act is passed.
• Thereafter, its mission will be set by regulations subject to parliamentary approval every five years.
• The amendment highlights concerns about directionlessness and potential mismanagement without a clear mission.
• The Prime Minister has set a new target to slash UK emissions by 78% by 2035.
• Achieving net zero is described as impacting every aspect of life and not being a narrow mission.
• UK is off track to meet current targets.
• ARIA could focus on reducing emissions from existing housing stock (20 million homes) or ensuring green transport.
• Professor James Wilsdon stressed the importance of clarity on ARIA's purpose.
• Philip Bond argued that it should be left to ARIA’s leadership, while others emphasized the need for Government input.
• Tris Dyson highlighted the mission's role in establishing a culture of constant review and target-setting.
• Mariana Mazzucato noted that past models like ARPA-E focused on renewable energy transitions.
• Adrian Smith stated £800 million by 2024-25 is not substantial for multiple missions, stressing focus.
• David Cleevely agreed that Government should set priorities such as climate change.
• The Bill is criticised for resembling Dominic Cummings' ideas.
• Marina Mazzucato advises that ARIA must have a clear mission to succeed.
• Witnesses suggested climate change as one of the potential missions for ARIA.
• Chi Onwurah proposed amendments to clause 2 of the Bill.
• The first amendment aims to make ARIA's primary mission supporting net zero carbon emissions or reducing climate change impacts.
• Another amendment would require ARIA to consider benefits across UK nations and regions in its functions.
• Chi Onwurah is discussing clause 2 of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill.
• Clause 2 outlines ARIA’s functions without specifying what it will do or achieve in detail.
• Chi Onwurah states she will not oppose clause 2 standing part.