Speeches by Lowe.

“Is that developing now? Is it a new development?”

“They are rising hourly.”

“Have you yet cracked the fusion conundrum, and are you going to deliver us this cheap energy, Sir Ian? Is that on the way?”

“On that basis, Sir Ian, how did you get issues such as this one with the Airborne Laboratory, where it looks to me like somebody approved it and then it got junked? How did that happen?”

“Me again, I’m afraid. Intellectually, as I said, I do not like this centrally planned approach, but let’s assume that, as you say, Sir Ian, you have now whipped it into shape and you feel you have got on top of it. Michele says you are doing it very well, so we are encouraged to hear that, but my question relates to yo…”

“Can we avoid an intellectual debate on whether it is right for pension funds to be taking vast amounts of early-stage risk?”

“I think the Committee is keen to understand, when you get over-optimistic assumptions and projects that arguably are about to fail, how you actually identify them and deal with that. When I read on page 26, paragraph 2.6: “Of the 24 projects under way in December 2025 and funded by the Infrastructure Fund, 14 (58%) rep…”

“I am more interested in capitalising on the money that you are spending.”

“I am not saying that innovation is a bad thing. I think our job is to try to make sure we are getting value for money for the taxpayer. We all start on that premise. How it is delivered is a different issue. Whether you believe in centrally planned innovation is a different issue. That is something we can all debate at…”

“From what I can see, it has been going on for some time.”

“Experts who are not necessarily commercialising something always worry me a bit.”

“But you are relying heavily on the universities for the infrastructure investment, unless I have misunderstood it.”

“I have to say that I read this report with interest. I find myself confused by the all the disparate funding streams: the majority go through UKRI, but there are other bits and pieces and it all seems to be quite disjointed. The objective of my question is to make sure that we understand that you know that you are spen…”

“I think it is a question rather than a point.”

“I get frightened when I hear independent experts talked about. Innately, it worries me.”

“And when you do not have a fully integrated portfolio review—I read that you do not—how can you tell that the money going into universities is not going to fund this administrative burden that they are taking on? With Cambridge, we read about the influence of China—funding streams coming from China. If universities are…”

“So you are reassuring me that you are not working on the basis of what I call the bazaar theory, which is if you buy enough tickets in the tombola, in the end you come out with a cheap bottle of wine. You are telling me that is not the case. Is that right?”

“As you know, with merger comes dislocation—I do not need to tell you that. There is £5.6 billion needed; clearly there is an issue of under-investment, which is affecting research. Is that not what the NAO is saying in paragraph 3.6?”

“That is a very good point, on which I think the Committee would agree with you. On Monday, we heard from Sizewell C, which is spending vast amounts of money on ageing technology coming from France rather than using modular technology developed by Rolls-Royce, so you are right that there is not a lot of joined-up thinki…”

“The NAO says, in paragraph 2.9 on page 28, “We have previously observed that costs are more likely to rise if project sponsors have vested interests in ensuring projects are funded (which can lead to over-optimism not being challenged or even to deliberate underestimation).” Is that a concern to you?”