Hansard·Commons Chamber·Vol. 791

Jodrell Bank Observatory

Thursday, 15 October 2026

8 contributions4 members

Contributions

  1. Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)Green Party

    2. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the withdrawal of UK Research and Innovation funding for Jodrell Bank observatory from 2028.

    View contribution permalink →

  2. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)Labour (Co-op)

    I welcome this question from my constituency neighbour, and I am grateful to her for raising it. The Prime Minister and I have been clear that Jodrell Bank has a secure future. Just to be clear with the House about what is happening, the primary radio astronomy project will move from the e-MERLIN radio telescope to the Square Kilometre Array observatory in March 2028. That was a science-based decision, but we are exploring the long-term options for the sustainability of Jodrell Bank.

    View contribution permalink →

  3. Hannah SpencerGreen Party

    Funding for the e-MERLIN radio telescope network is due to end in 2028, putting Jodrell Bank’s future at risk. People across Gorton and Denton have made clear to me the vital role the observatory plays in opening science up to people of all ages. Many of us went there on school trips as kids. The Prime Minister assured us that his Government will find a funding solution, so will the Secretary of State explain how the Government intend to honour that heartfelt commitment and secure Jodrell Bank’s long-term future as an active sovereign scientific facility?

    View contribution permalink →

  4. Jonathan ReynoldsLabour (Co-op)

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I recognise the strength of feeling that she talked about in her question. She will know that, on a clear day, you can see Jodrell Bank from Matley Lane in Tameside and it is a wonderful sight. It is important, given that we have a very significant research and development budget in the UK, that scientific decisions are made on the basis of the science, but that still does not mean there is no future for Jodrell Bank as an asset. That is consistent with making sure that we are making science-based decisions on the prioritisation of that funding. I met the University of Manchester just a few days ago on this issue, and the local MPs for the area have been incredibly supportive in finding a solution. I hope to have more to say on that soon.

    View contribution permalink →

  5. Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)Conservative

    Order. Back-Bench MPs can only come in if the question is about Jodrell Bank observatory. [ Interruption. ] I call the shadow Minister.

    View contribution permalink →

  6. Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)Conservative

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—the renationalisation of the railways is not working. [ Laughter. ] The Drayson partitions exist to ensure that costs which the UK must meet and cannot change, such as international subscriptions that give us access to scientific facilities, are treated separately to costs that we have control over, such as grants funding. With the Science and Technology Facilities Council given a flat cash settlement, but with international subscriptions rising with inflation, the STFC now has less money to spend on actual research, leading to world-leading scientific research being dropped and to the closure of facilities such as Jodrell Bank. Can I ask the Secretary of State who made the decision to disregard the Drayson partitions?

    View contribution permalink →

  7. Jonathan ReynoldsLabour (Co-op)

    It is good to see the shadow Minister and I thank him for his question. Let me be clear with the House. If we take the UKRI budget in aggregate for the spending review period, it is nearly £39 billion. If we take the overall R&D budget for the UK in the spending review period, it is £86 billion —record levels of funding making a difference. It is absolutely crucial within that that we make sure the decisions on the prioritisation of funding are science-based. The issue the hon. Gentleman identifies, the tension between research projects and subscription projects and their funding, is one I am familiar with, and he is making a serious point that has to be explored. As for who made the decision, the process runs through, I think, 30 different meetings of the research council. It has a process where submissions are taken from a very wide range of areas. There will always be more people wanting more funding than is available, no matter how big I make the spending pot, but as a House we should be clear that we want these decisions to be made primarily on a scientific basis.

    View contribution permalink →

Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5417801.