Science and innovation questions in the House of Commons
This morning saw the first occasion of portfolio questions for the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade in the House of Commons, where ministers are required to answer shadow minister and backbencher inquiries on issues from across the departmental brief.
Business secretary Jonathan Reynolds opened by restating the UK’s overall R&D budget in the spending review period – £86bn, with nearly £39bn through UKRI. However, in answer to a later question about STFC multidisciplinary facilities, he indicated that some of the science budget would need to be diverted to fund the UK’s increased defence commitments made at the tail-end of the Starmer administration:
“There is an element of funding for the defence package that we had to find from the former Department for Science, Innovation and Technology budget.”
The spending uplift in June’s Defence Investment Plan was not fully funded at the time it was announced, and will need to be costed as part of the upcoming Budget or next year’s spending review. It is widely expected to require cuts in other government departments, and the exact disbursement of what was the DSIT budget have not yet been formalised.
Elsewhere, various questions sought government responses on issues related to Jodrell Bank and STFC budget decisions more broadly. Green MP Hannah Spencer asked for an explanation about how the Prime Minister’s commitment to “save Jodrell Bank” would be delivered in practice.
Secretary of State Jonathan Reynolds stressed the importance of making funding choices “on the basis of the science”, saying that the primary radio astronomy project at the site was being changed from e-Merlin to SKAO as a “science-based decision”. But he said that he hoped to have more to say on the topic soon, adding that he had recently met with the University of Manchester to discuss the issue.
A follow-up question from Conservative MP Peter Fortune, a shadow BIST minister, asked why the so-called Drayson partitions – the distinction between research spending and spending on facilities, infrastructure and subscriptions – had been “disregarded” in the STFC prioritisation process. Reynolds simply recognised the tension between the two areas, calling it a “serious point that has to be explored.” Both STFC leadership and government ministers were clear earlier this year that the partitions were not seen as formal ringfences of money, and that cost pressures needed to be dealt with across the portfolio.
Science minister Chris McDonald also answered a question on STFC, recognising the impact of imposed changes in staff working at council-funded facilities. He said that the central point of the budget changes was to “get STFC into a position where it has appropriate financial management, while also increasing productivity and modernising in response to new technology.”
Science committee chair Chi Onwurah asked a separate question on regional innovation data. The minister said he shared her concerns about the ability of spin-outs to attract funding in some regions, and was happy to work with the committee on “ensuring that regional funding is more appropriately spread.”