Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Chi Onwurah (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 10 November 2010. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Science Research.


Science Research

I apologise. The STFC, which funds that laboratory in the Minister's constituency, is likely to be hit as the bulk of its budget is capital. High-tech European partnership projects such as JET—the Joint European Torus at the Culham centre for fusion energy in neighbouring Henley—are funded through the capital budget. They will need to find extra money to cover inflation. That might result in UK researchers having to cut usage while still paying high fixed costs, or to cut other areas. As the Royal Society says, that would dramatically reduce the efficiency of our investment. Overall, there could be far-reaching consequences in the UK economy. Research Councils UK has calculated that a cut of £l billion in science spending results in a drop of £10 billion in gross domestic product. Therefore, the protection offered by the Chancellor seems rather flimsy, especially in the competitive world of global science. China is stoking its engine of innovation with 2.5% of its GDP and an 8% rise this year. I hope the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will be listening to his hosts in China in that regard at least. The situation is somewhat worse than it first appears. We have agreed that we need to rebalance our economy, but we do not want to do that by reducing the financial sector—absolutely not. We want to do it by growing other sectors, such as advanced manufacturing. In addition to the cuts to science funding, we have further cuts disabling the vital economic levers that translate scientific understanding into commercial ideas. For example, programmes funded by the RDAs, which supported the commercialisation of scientific discoveries, which we have discussed, have already been cut—such as the Innovation Machine in Newcastle. It was mentioned that the Prime Minister announced funding for the technology and innovation centres to the tune of £200 million. However, in Germany, where the model they are based on is located, six times more is spent each year on running costs. Given that our situation and the funding for science are under such threat, I ask the Minister to confirm a number of points. Will Government spending on science that is not in the £4.6 billion be safeguarded? Are the Government intending to increase science spend as a proportion of GDP, in line with European targets? Do they acknowledge the vital role they must play in helping to commercialise new technologies? Finally, will R and D tax credits be safeguarded? We need the jobs that come from the timely exploitation of scientific discoveries. The Government's plans for science and research endanger all our futures.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
518 c130-1WH 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Capital investment Engineering Medicine Universities Technology Research Science Research and development tax credit Mathematics Research councils STEM subjects
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk