Budget Resolutions

Debate between George Freeman and Chi Onwurah

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill). It is also an honour and a pleasure, after 14 years, to be able to rise as a free man—free to speak on the Opposition Benches liberated from the tyranny of the Whips’ handouts that are being so beautifully read from the Labour Benches, and from the tyranny of desperate ambition to get on to the Front Bench. I want to speak today, after 14 years on and off the Front Bench, about the state of the public finances. I shall speak much more in sorrow than in anger, not to score party political points but to share reflections on the real depth of the crisis this country faces in our structural deficits and the challenge that this Chancellor, this country and this Parliament face in tackling it.

As a former Minister for life science, for fusion, for quantum and for space, I am delighted to have been elected by, I think, the House to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. I am also chair of the parliamentary and scientific committee—the oldest all-party group—and chair of the APPG on science and technology in agriculture. I am also proudly and gladly pleased to declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am trying to repair my finances—I carry too much debt, like this country—by working with some great British companies to help them to raise money in the international markets and to grow. That is what this country has to do to get itself out of debt as well.

I want to say three things this afternoon: something about the real nature of the crisis in our public finances; something about why I so deeply believe the innovation economy is the only way to get us out of this doom loop spiral of structural deficit and debt; and something about my poor constituents in Mid Norfolk and the effect of this Budget on them. Tempting though it is to stand up and accuse the Labour Government of causing all the ills of the world, and to take no responsibility for them, I want to do the opposite and suggest that this Parliament and this country have for the last 25 years been failing to grapple seriously enough with the deep nature of structural deficit in our broken public finances.

I remember, when I was newly elected in 2010, having a brilliant briefing from Robert Chote and Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and having the structural deficit properly explained to me. That has stayed with me, and it is worth sharing for the benefit of those listening to this debate. Traditionally, all Governments in this country tax and spend. They earn money every year from tax revenues and then spend it. In some years, the economic cycle turns down, so we do not cut spending; we borrow a bit to maintain our spending and then repay it when the economic cycle turns. Occasionally in the cycle, we run deficits. The structural deficit is that bit of the public finances that means that, even when the economy is growing—even when it is growing at 2% or 3%—we are running a deficit, because there are bits of the economy that are constantly swallowing more money than we are capable of earning.

When we took office in 2010, debt interest was effectively the fourth biggest Department of state. We had a serious crisis on our hands. Looking back, if we are honest, new Labour did not pay enough attention to deep reform of our public finances during the “Cool Britannia” years of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. In the 2007-08 crash, that Government unleashed £700 billion of borrowing and quantitative easing. We can argue about whether that was the right thing to do, but it drove huge asset price inflation and left us with huge debts.

The coalition tried to get us out of that debt with austerity, on which I think the country was with us for the first two or three years before feeling that we had overdone it. Yes, we had that crash, the disruption of Brexit, a terrible once-in-a-century pandemic and a war in Ukraine—we had £700 billion of QE, £400 billion of pandemic relief and £40 billion of cost of living relief—but we have effectively come back to where we were in 2010, facing a structural deficit and flashing red lights in the public finances. I call it the bonfire in the basement of the British economy. Even when the economy is growing, even when we see Canary Wharf on the drive from Norfolk, the unseen bonfire in the basement eats away at the economy’s resilience and sustainability. That should worry all of us involved in public policy, and I have a sneaking feeling that the public understand this.

The people I spoke to on the doorstep during the election were not economists or seasoned political observers but, after observing successive Governments fail, their common sense told them that there is a deep problem in the state. I suggest that much of the political volatility in recent years comes from an inability, including in my own party, to be honest about the scale of the problem. I think the Brexit revolution was driven by deep anger and resentment not just at Brussels, but at the failure of this country’s political economy. People outside the golden triangle felt left behind by their own Government, their own country and their own model of growth.

The lecture I received in 2010 from Robert Chote and Paul Johnson is just as relevant today. Four things drive the structural deficit. The first is debt interest. There was an inflation surge because of the war in Ukraine, but we have been lucky that the markets have generally not punished us for borrowing too much. Second is welfare bills. The coalition implemented very painful reforms to stop the rise of the welfare bill. We did not cut the welfare budget; we just stopped its rise. Third is public sector pensions. Again, there were some very painful reforms, not to cut the costs but to prevent them from booming and bankrupting the public finances.

Those are all significant issues, but the biggest one, by far, is healthcare. The structural cost of healthcare in our ageing economy, with increasingly expensive medicines and an NHS designed for the 1940s rather than the 21st century, is in danger of bankrupting itself and the public finances. I am on record as saying, and I will repeat it, that the Health Secretary’s honesty is a breath of fresh air. The NHS has not been broken by a lack of Tory funding—we have all poured money into the NHS—but the problem is that the model is not fit for the 21st century.

Much more in sorrow than in anger, I suggest that we need to start this debate by being profoundly honest about the real nature of the problem. The truth is that we cannot cut, borrow, tax or spend our way out of a debt crisis, and successive Governments have tried and failed.

I speak as a card-carrying supporter of industrial strategy, of increased R&D spending and of getting the country out of its current spiral and into a higher-growth model. I want to cheer much of this Budget, and perhaps there will be more to cheer when we read the Red Book tomorrow, but I am worried.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my fellow member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, for giving way. He knows that R&D funding is vital to driving innovation, productivity and future growth and prosperity. Does he agree that we should welcome the commitment to protecting core R&D funding, as well as the specific investment in high-tech areas such as automotive, aerospace and clean energy? Does he agree that the Committee looks forward to examining the detail of the Budget to see its impact on science and technology in every Department and across the country?

Draft Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023

Debate between George Freeman and Chi Onwurah

Monday 11th September 2023 General Committees

[George Freeman]

Tempted though I am to delay the Committee with long, exhaustive answers to all those points, which were well made, perhaps I could reassure colleagues on both sides of the House that we have thought about them. Some important points were made for the record, and I will try to keep my speech as short as possible. I thank you, Mr Hollobone, and the Committee: the feedback is incredibly helpful. I would value a chance to continue this discussion with those who have spoken today, many of whom have taken an interest in this subject for a long time.

Let me start with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, speaking for the Opposition. I congratulate her on returning to the position that I like to think of as my shadow. It has been a pleasure working with her. I also congratulate her on being the first to mention the internet of things in this House if indeed that is verifiable—I am sure it is, digitally as well as in many other ways. On the accusation that the Government were a bit slow to move in 2021, I will just gently point out that there were some other things going on, not least the pandemic, and that we are in fact, with this, quicker than the EU that we have just left. This is an example of us being more agile and more forward-leaning.

I will also make this point. Many of us have sat through and nodded through European legislation, knowing that there is really nothing we can do to change it. This is a good example of Members of Parliament, from both sides of the House, raising important points and the Minister listening, to ensure that we get our own legislation right. I think that if we had done that a bit more, we would not have had the frustrations that we did.

On the point about the hackers having a head start, I think the truth is that technology is moving at such a pace that of course those who want to harness technology for ill generally tend to move much more quickly than the Government. That would be true were the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central in my position. What we are doing today is moving to shut down that head start. There are genuine questions about how quickly we move and how we get it right. I make the commitment to all colleagues that this is a start and we intend to have an annual process of listening to colleagues in the House, listening to the industry and asking whether we should not be going further faster to keep up with technology. The Opposition, I know, have the monopoly on hindsight, led as they are by the extremely able Leader of the Opposition, often referred to as Captain Hindsight. I will just point out that none of us quite foresaw the pace at which this would all move. I know that Government are often not the fastest mover, but we are, here, moving more quickly than partners in Europe.

[Chi Onwurah]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Freeman]

I am on a roll. I have to say that no one cheered more loudly than when I heard the hon. Member talk about business certainty. As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is a member of the Committee, I cannot help but point out that the biggest business certainty was making sure that he never became Chancellor, with his agenda of radical socialism and neo-communism. I notice—for the record—that he is no longer in his place, which is probably a good thing for business certainty.

Let me turn to the points that were raised. Perhaps, with your permission, Mr Hollobone, I can write to everyone with an update on our thinking about the timetable. We are looking to get the regulations in place as quickly as we possibly can. Perhaps I can come back to the point about the timetable, because it requires a detailed answer.

As I said, I will deal with the various points that were made. On the question of exemptions, this is a start. The Government are initially mandating security requirements that, in the opinion of the National Cyber Security Centre—this is not just my whim; it has been consulted on deeply—will have the most fundamental impact on the risks posed today by insecure consumer connectable products. We are confident that the requirements are robustly evidenced, are proportionate and are appropriate to mandate in law at this time. That is not a step we take lightly. The real key is to change the culture and to create a culture in which distributors and all those involved in the supply chains know that they are required by law to do this; they have a responsibility to consumers. However, should the Government deem it appropriate, the parent Act empowers Ministers to introduce further measures in the future, to keep pace with the changes in technology and the threat landscape. Those are powers that we intend to use, in consultation with the House.

Let me turn to the point about security updates, which a number of colleagues raised. The Government do not yet consider it appropriate to mandate and specify minimum security update periods for relevant connectable products, before the impact of the initial security requirements is known. Our mandating necessarily broad regulation across a sector as inherently complex as technology security will always run the risk of imposing obligations on businesses that are disproportionate to the associated security benefits, or leaving citizens exposed to cyber-threats. There is no consensus yet in the industry. One of the things that we hope this measure will do is trigger a broader conversation, on the timescale that we need—each year—to talk to industry about what is happening and ensure that we are keeping up to date.

Let me pick up the point about digital exclusions. A number of people asked, through the consultation, why conventional computers and non-cellular tablets were exempt. We do not have evidence at the moment that including them in the scope of the regime would significantly reduce risk. There is a mature anti-virus-software market that empowers customers to secure their own devices and, alongside this, mainstream operating system vendors already include security features in their services. As ever, we legislate in a way that we think is timely, appropriate and proportionate, trying to deal not with every single risk that one might envisage, but with those that are faced by consumers today. The result is that those devices are not subject to the same level of risk as others.

Let me turn to the point about Northern Ireland made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and others. Customers across the UK will be able to benefit from the security protections that the regime aims to deliver. For selected product categories, honouring the UK’s international commitments has necessitated that the regime will apply differently in Northern Ireland. I stress that, in practice, the exemption applies to limited types of products, such as lifts, pyrotechnic articles and personal watercraft, which are regulated already under legislation contained in the Windsor framework.

We are required to ensure the smooth flow of trade under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. The Prime Minister has also committed to ensuring smooth-flowing trade within the UK. The House should be reassured that the Government’s position on that is unchanged. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet made another, equally important point that we need to ensure that that does not inadvertently allow in a flow of products that would not be compliant.

My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked about how we are dealing with automotive vehicles and the internet of things in cars. As we indicated in the April 2021 call for views on the regime, the Government intend to introduce separate regulation to cover the cyber-security of connectable automotive vehicles. To minimise an unnecessarily duplicative regulatory burden on industry, our position remains that cars should be exempted from these draft regulations, because we will be introducing a different framework. Developments in the legislative landscape have precluded the Government from including an exemption for connectable automotive vehicles in this, but we intend to bring forward that legislation as quickly as possible.

[Chi Onwurah]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Freeman]

I will finish these points, if I may.

On enforcement, astute colleagues have observed that it falls under the Department for Business and Trade. The previous Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Minister for Small Business Consumers and Labour Markets, approved the recommendation for the OPSS to adopt the enforcement role for part 1 of the 2022 Act. The OPSS is part of the DBT and will therefore simply be enforcing the product security regime as the Secretary of State. It will begin enforcement functions as soon as the draft regulations come into force. To the question, I am reassured that the OPSS is properly resourced.

I have some final points. On the international aspect of the IOT security measures, the proportionality of implementing a given cyber-security measure for a product depends on a huge range of factors, from the product’s technical architecture to the settings in which it is ultimately deployed in. The Government are therefore mindful of the risk of imposing obligations on businesses that may in many cases be disproportionate. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Deputy Prime Minister, and the National Cyber Security Centre are keeping an active watch on the importance of updating that.

On SME information, I am absolutely delighted to undertake that we will provide tailored information and guidance to assist small and micro-businesses. As colleagues have observed, they do not always have the relevant bandwidth to keep abreast of technology.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet asked whether the self-certification and compliance mechanism—the duty placed on manufacturers—is sufficient to cover the risk. My answer to that would be that the draft statutory instrument is in our judgment the right place to start, but it is a start. We did not want to introduce heavy-handed legislation on day one, which would undermine business confidence and trigger huge fears in the industry. We wanted to start with something that everyone could at least acknowledge—our very important basic standards—then develop that, through consultation with the House, in a proportionate and agile way. I reinforce my comments on how that is a rather different approach from the EU one.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow made an important point about consumers. On the point about SMEs, we are actively engaging with consumer groups and we will ensure that any of their concerns are also reflected in our ongoing updates.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

The hon. Member makes an important point. Perhaps I could clarify that in my written note to all Members to follow up. I think everyone would be interested in the enforceability of consumer rights.

[Chi Onwurah]

I am sure the Committee will be pleased to know that I will not take up the Minister’s provocation as to whether waiting 14 years to address security on the internet of things is a question of hindsight. Can the Minister clarify two points that I may have misunderstood? I heard him say that distributors did have a requirement on them to publicise the information about software upgrades. I may have misunderstood that because I thought it was only manufacturers who did.

More importantly, on cars, I think the Minister is saying that autonomous vehicles are exempted. I may have missed exactly where autonomous vehicles are exempted—it was not in the list of exemptions that I had. I am happy to take a clarification on that. Obviously, not all cars are autonomous vehicles, but is the assumption that any car that has an internet connection is in some way an autonomous vehicle?

[George Freeman]

All distributors already have a duty to ensure that the goods they are selling and distributing are legal. What we are doing is placing the onus on manufacturers. Distributors take their responsibility to consumers very seriously, and the vast majority will be very concerned and actively move to ensure they are not distributing illegal goods. It is not that there is not an onus on distributors; it is that we are implementing it via the mechanism.

On the point about cars, I did not want to mislead the House—I say this as the previous Minister for the future of transport—but we are in the process of putting together legislation on the digital vehicle and the internet of things in not just autonomous vehicles but smart and intelligent vehicles generally. It is to that process that we are deferring; this SI is not focused on that.

With that, I think I have addressed the points raised. I will happily write to the Committee, and if there are any points that I have not raised, Members should feel free to collar me between now and the picking up of my pen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Freeman and Chi Onwurah

Wednesday 14th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is now 127 weeks of uncertainty, delay and broken promises since the Conservatives took us out of the world’s biggest and most prestigious science fund, Horizon Europe. Our scientists, universities and businesses have paid the price in lost jobs and investment, so will the Minister confirm or deny the reports that negotiations to rejoin Horizon have stalled because his Government are pushing for a reduced fee to reflect what they believe is a lasting reduction in grants won by UK scientists? If they have permanently damaged our success rate, should the Minister not be trying to fix that, rather than claim a discount?

[George Freeman]

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave a few moments ago. We have negotiated access to Horizon—it was the EU that kept us out. The Prime Minister has unblocked that through the Windsor framework. We have invested substantially through the funding guarantee for all Horizon programmes and through £850 million-odd of additional UK expenditure. We have also increased UK research and development to record levels. We will be at £52 billion by the end of this three years. There is no cutting of UK R&D as a result of this issue. We are actively negotiating to make sure that we get a good deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Freeman and Chi Onwurah

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Across the country, our regions are home to thousands of brilliant science start-ups and spin-outs, but they are being hit by a Tory quadruple whammy: slashing R&D tax credits, leaving with them an average of £100,000 less to spend on research a year; a £120-million cliff-edge loss of European regional development funding; lack of access to capital—the UK has the lowest business investment in the G7; and continuing uncertainty over association with the £95-billion Horizon Europe, the biggest science fund in the world. Which of those barriers to growth for our innovative businesses will the Minister sort out today?

[George Freeman]

It is a great shame that the shadow spokeswoman is so determined to talk the UK down. The truth is that in the last 10 years, the life sciences sector has grown 1,000%. The north-east, where she is from, is driving that. I do not recognise that the UK sector is being held back in the way that she says, but the Chancellor will say more this afternoon about the tax and business environment. The reason that R&D tax credits are up so much is that our innovation economy has gone from 1.7% of GDP to 2.8%. That is a huge success over the last 10 years, and we are responsible for it.

Artificial Intelligence: Intellectual Property Rights

Debate between George Freeman and Chi Onwurah

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Westminster Hall

[George Freeman]

The right hon. Member is well aware, as a veteran of these things, that for something to be a formal announcement on policy, a Government write-round has to go through the various Committees. That process is under way. Until that is done, I cannot formally confirm that it is collective responsibility Government policy, but the two Ministers concerned say that the proposals have not met with the support that was expected. [Interruption.] He has just said that that is good enough for him. I hope that it will be good enough for all those listening.

As colleagues have highlighted, the real issue is how we get the balance right. That is why AI is considered by the National Science and Technology Council, our senior Cabinet Committee, which is chaired by the Prime Minister and looks at the big issues that science and technology raise. I sit on that, and it is there to grapple with the big geopolitical and ethical issues that some of these technologies are raising. That is why we are working this year on both a creative industry strategy, led by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and an AI regulatory strategy, which will set out our approach to regulating AI.

As the global AI revolution accelerates, we need to be aware that we are working in a global environment, and to set a regulatory framework that does not drive AI creators and investors out. We are a leading AI nation. We have an opportunity to set the regulatory framework in a way that reflects the values that this country is respected for all around the world. I think the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) knows me well enough to know that I do not believe that there is a huge dividend from scrapping all the regulations that were put on the statute book during our membership of the European Union. There is, however, a very strong case for clearing up our regulatory statute book; there is an awful lot of dead wood and daft regulations. It can be very unclear.

I have led the charge in my party for saying that a lot of the Brexit regulatory opportunities are to set the frameworks in new and fast-emerging areas, whether it is AI, autonomous vehicles, nutraceuticals or satellites. The creation of regulatory frameworks that command the confidence of both consumers and investors helps to position this country as a global testbed for innovation, drives international markets, attracts investment and establishes the UK’s leadership in standards.

As Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, I am passionate about our leaning into that sort of leadership, as well as getting rid of some of the dafter regulations, such as the one that says that coffee machines have to turn off after 30 minutes. I do not know which Committee passed that, or nodded it through one day a few years ago. The truth is that our regulatory framework is incredibly complex for regulators, innovators and investors to navigate.

[Chi Onwurah]

I think the Minister will find that rather than our leading the way on AI regulation, both the US and the European Union have already made strides in AI regulation that it would be good for us to respond to. I wonder whether he inadvertently made an announcement with regard to the National Science and Technology Council, which he said the Prime Minister has chaired. Previous Prime Ministers have chaired it, but it was my understand that the new version was not going to be chaired by the Prime Minister. Is it chaired by the Prime Minister?

[George Freeman]

Unless an announcement has been made in the last few weeks that I have missed, yes. He has the right to depute the chairmanship of a particular meeting, but the point is it that it is the senior Committee of Cabinet dealing with science, technology and innovation. I am delighted that the Prime Minister reinstated it very early on—as soon as he took office.

The argument of the Intellectual Property Office last summer, presented to Ministers in good faith, was that if we look at what is going on around the world, there are other jurisdictions that have moved quickly to put in place similar text and data mining exemptions—in the EU, the US, Japan and Singapore. They are structured differently, but all are wider than the current UK exemptions. I do not want anyone to think that we were going out on a massive limb; we were making a move that was in the spirit of that made by other countries. There is an irony here, in that we were an active player in helping to shape some of those EU regulations. The challenge and opportunity for us, now that we are out of the EU, is to take the ambitions that we were pushing when we were in the EU and reach them more quickly and agilely—possibly even more digitally—in a new regulatory framework outside.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Freeman and Chi Onwurah

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

We do not know where the half a billion pounds announced last week to cover Horizon uncertainty is coming from, as the Science Minister refuses to answer my questions, but we do know that British scientists are still having to choose between the country they love and the funding they need. British science, British businesses and British jobs are at risk while the Government play a blame game, instead of keeping their manifesto promise to associate with the world’s biggest science fund. Will the Science Minister admit that no science fund can have the efficiency, effectiveness, influence, prestige or range of Horizon, and that he has let British science down?

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)]

In a word, no. I will tell the hon. Lady exactly where the £484 million that we announced last Monday—I think the Opposition supported it—is coming from. It is coming from Her Majesty’s Treasury to support universities, researchers and companies in this country that have been affected by—and this is the second point—the European Union’s block on our negotiated membership of Horizon, Copernicus and Euratom. I was in Paris last week negotiating. We are still actively pushing to be in Horizon, Copernicus and Euratom, but we have made provision, and early in the new year Members will start to see that we will be rolling out additional support for fellowships, innovation and global partnerships. If UK scientists cannot play in the European cup, we will play in the world cup of science.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Freeman and Chi Onwurah

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

The hon. Member makes a really important point that is at the heart of our £100 million innovation accelerator pilot programme. We have chosen the locations—Glasgow, Manchester and the west midlands—for the initial tranche, because we want to invest in places where there is strong world-class research and development and innovation cheek by jowl with lamentable deprivation. I very much hope that over the next few years we can extend it out to areas, including parts of Northern Ireland, where that similar pattern of excellence alongside deprivation is sadly still present.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Levelling up, really? The Campaign for Science and Engineering has shown that the proposals in the White Paper simply freeze the current proportion of regional science spend, with the golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London continuing to receive the majority of public sector science spend. When it comes to private sector science spend, London’s share has actually doubled under Conservative Governments, because they will not give our towns and cities the powers and investment they need to build strong science economies. Will the Minister say whether the proportion of public science spend going to the regions will actually increase as a consequence of the levelling-up White Paper, or is this just more broken promises from the department for funny numbers?

[George Freeman]

I suggest the hon. Lady reads the levelling-up White Paper. If she reads it, she will see that it is a very substantial document that deals with precisely the points she has just made. [Interruption.] I will deal with the specific question she asked about devolution and extending investment around the country. That is why we have made a pledge—a pledge that the Labour party never made, by the way—to increase R&D spending outside the greater south-east. Our Department, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which is responsible for 75% of R&D, will move to being 55% outside the south-east. The point she misses is that we do not level up this country by destroying the golden triangle; we level up by building the clusters, moving from a discovery economy to a development economy. As a Member for the north-east, I thought she would be applauding the phenomenal growth in the north-east as a result of our policies.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Debate between George Freeman and Chi Onwurah

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

The hon. Member raises a very important point. Yes, I am satisfied, and for this reason: the way in which the agency has been established through the Bill and our plans to appoint the CEO and the chair on the basis that they will set out a very bold vision for ARIA to be the agency for new science in new ways. All the support that we are providing is specifically designed to allow them to operate in an environment where they can draw on the very best of UK science infrastructure and expertise, but not find themselves bound by either the short-term grant application process that dominates or the often substantial interests seeking investment in their own field. We will be able to attract the people we intend to attract because of that freedom. For that reason, I am confident—as that will be set out in the framework agreement and held to account by the board of ARIA and the scientific advisory board—that we will be able to ensure that that is the case.

Although ARIA will operate independently, it will be guided by key obligations regarding economic and UK benefit. ARIA must, in all its activity, have regard to the economic growth or economic benefit in the UK, alongside other considerations. That statutory obligation is set out clearly in clause 2(6), and it is right that that is in the Bill. Public investment in R&D must drive long-term socioeconomic benefit and deliver value to UK taxpayers. ARIA will be scrutinised by Government and Parliament on how effectively it fulfils its functions, including that one.

I can confirm that mechanisms for that scrutiny will be in the framework agreement. This includes requiring an internal evaluation framework for ARIA programmes—that deals with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)—and looking at, for example, their expected benefits and alignment with the organisation’s strategic objectives. It also includes setting the terms on which ARIA produces annual accounts and reporting, through which ARIA’s CEO will be accountable to Parliament for how the resources allocated to it are used. The National Audit Office will be able to examine the value for money of ARIA’s activities, and we in the Government must be assured of that value, on which ARIA’s future funding will depend. Everyone involved is clear about that.

There are many ways in which the obligations that I have set out might be felt in respect of how ARIA operates. For example, ARIA may employ contracting arrangements that require funding recipients either to seek to exploit the outputs in the UK or forfeit the funding, as other funders routinely do. In some cases, ARIA may retain IP rights—it has that freedom—and will be able to draw on specialist support from the new Government office for technology transfer. That will help ARIA to extract the greatest possible value from its knowledge assets.

In general, we expect ARIA programmes to produce long-term, deep scientific benefits that are felt over the long term, and to support the highest-risk research where there is a clear role for public funding. It would be premature to seek to legislate in statute at this point, before the appointment of the CEO and the chair or the establishment of the funding programme plan. In addition to that being premature, given that its very freedoms will be a major attraction for people to come from around the world to work at the agency, we are concerned that to be seen to shackle those freedoms in statute may well disincentivise the most innovative scientists and researchers from coming to join programmes.

Finally, this issue encompasses the entirety of our R&D system and approach to investment in UK science and technology and we are extremely focused on it, but changes to ARIA alone cannot alter the wider environment. We must ensure that funding from ARIA is not subject to more stringent conditions than other public R&D funders, because that would undermine the independence and agility that are the defining characteristics of this exciting initiative for UK science.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his place in leading on this important Bill and echo his thanks to the former Minister, the hon. Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway). I also thank colleagues in the other place who have worked so hard to improve the Bill. In particular, I thank my noble Friend Lord Browne for his successful and much-needed amendment to protect Britain’s intellectual property.

The UK has a proud tradition in science and innovation. We are renowned around the world for the scientific breakthroughs and discoveries that have pushed humanity forwards. From the discovery of penicillin to the invention of Stephenson’s Rocket—in Newcastle—UK science has again and again pushed the boundaries of humanity’s knowledge.

UK science is not only inspiring but key to our health and that of our economy, as the pandemic has shown. Our university research base alone contributes £95 billion to the economy, supporting nearly 1 million jobs in science institutes, charities and businesses of all sizes. We have many innovative start-ups throughout the country that require only the right support to contribute to the innovation nation that our history, economy, security and future prosperity all demand. That is why it is so important that we get the Advanced Research and Invention Agency right.

ARIA, originally the brainchild of very-much-former adviser Dominic Cummings, is positioned as a high-risk, high-reward research agency, based on the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency in the US. Labour welcomed ARIA and continues to support it—it has great potential to fill a gap in the UK’s research and development landscape and help deliver fantastic inventions—but we are clear that the benefits of ARIA’s investments must be felt in the UK. We are equally clear that without Lords amendment 1, that may not be the case.

Lords amendment 1 would give ARIA the option to treat its financial support to a business as convertible into an equity interest in the business and thus to benefit from intellectual property created with ARIA’s support. It would also enable ARIA to require consent during the 10 years following financial or resource support, if the business intended to transfer intellectual property abroad or to transfer a controlling interest to a business not resident in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

To assist the hon. Lady before she decides whether to divide the House, I just wanted to make it very clear that there is a statutory obligation on ARIA, set out clearly in clause 2(6), that it must have regard to

“economic growth, or an economic benefit, in the United Kingdom”

as a core part of its statutory duties. We simply want to make sure that the leadership team, through the framework agreement, have the freedom to set out what the right mechanism is, rather than to mandate it now.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for that intervention, which demonstrates that he is with us in spirit but he just does not want to be with us in actual legislation. There is something of a confusion of thought there. I am very familiar with the clauses that require ARIA to have regard to economic benefit, but if he thinks this is something ARIA should be doing and should look to do—again, as we have said, this amendment is enabling and not prescriptive—surely he should be happy to make that clear. If he thinks it is too constraining for ARIA to do this, he ought to make that clear. He is the Minister and this Bill should reflect what the intent is, and the intent should be to ensure that the benefits from intellectual property generated, created and invented in the UK should be felt in the UK.

Lords amendments 2 to 8 limit ministerial powers to dissolve ARIA, in response to the delegated powers in the Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill, and we will not oppose those amendments. They prohibit the Minister from making consequential amendments to primary legislation and from dissolving ARIA in the first 10 years. Lords amendments 9 and 10 remove the Minister’s powers to determine a pension or gratuity for non-executive ARIA members. It should be noted that the Minister appoints non-executive members to ARIA’s board, and it is refreshing to see a Conservative Government taking steps to limit cronyism in advance of major losses to the public purse. Lords amendments 11 and 13 mean that ARIA will no longer be treated a reserved matter in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and we also do not oppose this. Labour is clear that devolved voices must be heard and that scientific opportunities must be spread across the UK, so the consent of devolved Administrations is crucial.

Lords amendments 12, 14 and 15 provide for ARIA to be treated as a public body under the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, the Enterprise Act 2016 and the Data Protection Act 2018. My colleague in the other place, Baroness Chapman of Darlington, pointed out, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), that this would not be necessary if ARIA was subject to freedom of information requests, something that Labour has repeatedly called for. The Government were so busy trying to ensure that ARIA would not be treated as a public body for the purposes of FOI that they had to tack on these amendments. That these amendments were tabled only at the Committee stage in the Lords points to Government negligence. We have here a Government too busy trying to avoid accountability to do their job properly— why does that sound so familiar?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Freeman and Chi Onwurah

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

As per usual, my hon. Friend makes an important point. I am not the Minister responsible for the vaccine taskforce, but I am already reaching out to my colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care on that very point to make sure that in the light of this pandemic we boost our manufacturing centre as well as our research.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

British life scientists led the world in the battle against covid, and we need them to lead the fight against another great health challenge: dementia, which destroys so many lives and imposes huge private and public health and social care costs. This month, research published in The Lancet found that by 2050 worldwide dementia cases will treble and cases will go up by 75% in the UK. That is why Labour is promising to double research and development spend on dementia—a commitment that was also in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. Will the Minister confirm that dementia R&D spend has gone down since his Government took office?

[George Freeman]

I agree with the hon. Lady that that the dementia research and treatment sector is incredibly important, which is why, when then Prime Minister Cameron set up the G20 summit, I was incredibly proud, as Minister for Life Sciences, to launch the UK Dementia Research Institute. In the CSR, we announced another £340 million for motor neurone disease research. As I say, I am in the process of allocating the biggest ever R&D increase and we will look to make sure—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is heckling me from a sedentary position; perhaps she will listen. We are in the process of allocating that money to make sure that dementia gets the recognition that it needs.

Help to Grow: Digital

Debate between George Freeman and Chi Onwurah

Monday 20th September 2021 General Committees

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I did not express any pessimism about our fantastic businesses and economic opportunities. I was talking about some of the figures for business start-ups in the last few years, which I hope he recognises.

[George Freeman]

Having a run a few myself, as colleagues here have, I am all for them. I simply make the point that we are the fastest growing economy in the G7, so we must be doing something right. The hon. Lady is right to highlight, as this measure does, the importance of SMEs.

This is a targeted measure. We are not trying to boil the ocean; we are trying to target specific funding at businesses for which all the evidence shows that the uptake of digital technologies such as those I have described will have maximum impact in terms of productivity and competitiveness. A number of us have started companies. Very often in the first three, six, nine or 12 months we find that digital technology is not necessarily the biggest barrier to getting going. It is important, but we are doing here is focusing where all the evidence from the business community suggests that support for digital uptake will have the biggest.

I will take the questions in turn. First, this is designed specifically for businesses, so charities are not eligible, but I am delighted to say that all social enterprises—businesses that recycle their profits back into good causes—are eligible, which sends an important message.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Freeman and Chi Onwurah

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes a really important and specific point. He is absolutely right, and that is one reason why we are committed to our seven-day NHS. It is improving—I can share the data with him—but he makes a good point, and that is one reason why we need to continue.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the effect of changes to local authority social care budgets on demand for health services.