Asked by: Peter Fortune (Conservative - Bromley and Biggin Hill)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of reductions to Science and Technology Facilities Council programmes on university physics departments.
Answered by Kanishka Narayan - Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Jointly with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Technology)
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) has committed a record £58.5 billion investment in R&D over the next 4 years, including £38.6 billion for UKRI. STFC’s core budget is being maintained, at £835 million in 2025/26 and £842 million in 2029/30. Applicant-led research grants will increase from £83 million in 2026/27 to £90 million in 2029/30.
UKRI and STFC have undertaken a detailed prioritisation exercise to manage cost pressures from rising energy, inflation, foreign exchange and ambitious commitments from the previous Spending Review. On 9 July, STFC set out the outcomes of this exercise and its plan for living within its budget while seeking to protect the capabilities that matter most to the UK’s long-term scientific and international standing, and to the long-term health of UK physics. STFC will protect particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics (PPAN) grant postdoctoral funding at 2025/26 levels, protecting around 400 postdoctoral researchers, as well as PhD studentships and fellowships. All major multidisciplinary facilities will remain operational and international subscriptions will be fully protected, safeguarding UK access to world-leading facilities and collaborations. STFC will also generate more external income through supporting a more entrepreneurial model. While some activities will be reduced or reprioritised, this plan protects the fundamentals on which university physics departments depend: a strong research talent pipeline, access to world-leading facilities and research infrastructure, and participation in leading international scientific collaborations. More broadly, UKRI is investing heavily in areas that benefit the wider physics community, including around £1.6 billion in AI, £1 billion in quantum, and £750 million toward a new national supercomputer.
UKRI and STFC engaged extensively with the research community to shape this plan, including through more than 10 engagement events, written input from 48 Project Leads, and more than 30 Science Board, Council and expert advisory panel meetings and advice, including assessment of impacts across STFC’s portfolio, including PPAN, facilities and laboratories. This engagement included discussions with the Institute of Physics and Royal Astronomical Society, and Minister Vallance has corresponded with both organisations in his capacity as Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear.
More broadly, DSIT continues to work across government to understand developments across the higher education sector and their implications for research and development in universities. Through the reforms set out in the Post‑16 White Paper, we are strengthening universities’ long‑term financial sustainability, to ensure the UK’s R&D base continues to be world‑leading and capable of delivering excellence, innovation and economic growth.
Asked by: Peter Fortune (Conservative - Bromley and Biggin Hill)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what discussions she has had with the Institute of Physics and the Royal Astronomical Society on reductions to Science and Technology Facilities Council programmes.
Answered by Kanishka Narayan - Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Jointly with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Technology)
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) has committed a record £58.5 billion investment in R&D over the next 4 years, including £38.6 billion for UKRI. STFC’s core budget is being maintained, at £835 million in 2025/26 and £842 million in 2029/30. Applicant-led research grants will increase from £83 million in 2026/27 to £90 million in 2029/30.
UKRI and STFC have undertaken a detailed prioritisation exercise to manage cost pressures from rising energy, inflation, foreign exchange and ambitious commitments from the previous Spending Review. On 9 July, STFC set out the outcomes of this exercise and its plan for living within its budget while seeking to protect the capabilities that matter most to the UK’s long-term scientific and international standing, and to the long-term health of UK physics. STFC will protect particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics (PPAN) grant postdoctoral funding at 2025/26 levels, protecting around 400 postdoctoral researchers, as well as PhD studentships and fellowships. All major multidisciplinary facilities will remain operational and international subscriptions will be fully protected, safeguarding UK access to world-leading facilities and collaborations. STFC will also generate more external income through supporting a more entrepreneurial model. While some activities will be reduced or reprioritised, this plan protects the fundamentals on which university physics departments depend: a strong research talent pipeline, access to world-leading facilities and research infrastructure, and participation in leading international scientific collaborations. More broadly, UKRI is investing heavily in areas that benefit the wider physics community, including around £1.6 billion in AI, £1 billion in quantum, and £750 million toward a new national supercomputer.
UKRI and STFC engaged extensively with the research community to shape this plan, including through more than 10 engagement events, written input from 48 Project Leads, and more than 30 Science Board, Council and expert advisory panel meetings and advice, including assessment of impacts across STFC’s portfolio, including PPAN, facilities and laboratories. This engagement included discussions with the Institute of Physics and Royal Astronomical Society, and Minister Vallance has corresponded with both organisations in his capacity as Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear.
More broadly, DSIT continues to work across government to understand developments across the higher education sector and their implications for research and development in universities. Through the reforms set out in the Post‑16 White Paper, we are strengthening universities’ long‑term financial sustainability, to ensure the UK’s R&D base continues to be world‑leading and capable of delivering excellence, innovation and economic growth.
Asked by: Peter Fortune (Conservative - Bromley and Biggin Hill)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will publish a comparative analysis of glass packaging Extended Producer Responsibility fees in other advanced economies, including any measures taken to prevent disproportionate costs for the beer and pub sector.
Answered by Mary Creagh
The Department has considered the design of similar schemes in European countries as pEPR has been developed in the UK. However, direct comparisons of fee levels can be misleading because schemes differ in scope, in how drinks containers are treated, and how waste management costs are reflected.
In the UK, fees are calculated to reflect the real costs faced by local authorities. The methodology uses weight and estimated packaging volume, alongside other costs associated with collection, treatment and disposal.
PackUK plan to launch a Call for Evidence this year to inform future approaches to fee modulation.
Asked by: Peter Fortune (Conservative - Bromley and Biggin Hill)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps she is taking to ensure that the extended producer responsibility scheme does not reduce investment in UK manufacturing.
Answered by Mary Creagh
Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging (pEPR) is designed to move the cost of managing household packaging waste from taxpayers to producers, while supporting investment in recycling.
Defra and PackUK continue to engage with industry, including packaging manufacturers, to monitor implementation and operational impacts of the scheme.
Industry estimates the Collection and Packaging Reforms, including pEPR, will create 25,000 jobs and underpin £10 billion of investment in the UK’s recycling capacity. [Source Environmental Services Association, Letter to Chancellor of the Exchequer 20 February 2025.]
Asked by: Peter Fortune (Conservative - Bromley and Biggin Hill)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what comparative assessment she has made of the fee structure of the Extended Producer Responsibility scheme and similar schemes in European countries.
Answered by Mary Creagh
The Department has considered the design of similar schemes in European countries as pEPR has been developed in the UK. However, direct comparisons of fee levels can be misleading because schemes differ in scope, in how drinks containers are treated, and how waste management costs are reflected.
In the UK, fees are calculated to reflect the real costs faced by local authorities. The methodology uses weight and estimated packaging volume, alongside other costs associated with collection, treatment and disposal.
PackUK plan to launch a Call for Evidence this year to inform future approaches to fee modulation.
Asked by: Peter Fortune (Conservative - Bromley and Biggin Hill)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when her Department will launch the call for evidence on the Extended Producer Responsibility scheme fees.
Answered by Mary Creagh
The Department has considered the design of similar schemes in European countries as pEPR has been developed in the UK. However, direct comparisons of fee levels can be misleading because schemes differ in scope, in how drinks containers are treated, and how waste management costs are reflected.
In the UK, fees are calculated to reflect the real costs faced by local authorities. The methodology uses weight and estimated packaging volume, alongside other costs associated with collection, treatment and disposal.
PackUK plan to launch a Call for Evidence this year to inform future approaches to fee modulation.
Asked by: Peter Fortune (Conservative - Bromley and Biggin Hill)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether her Department has made an assessment of the impact on pubs of Extended Producer Responsibility fees being applied to goods that do not enter the household waste stream and they already pay for through commercial waste management.
Answered by Mary Creagh
We are aware of industry concerns about producers being charged disposal fees for packaging that is disposed of through commercial waste streams, including in hospitality settings.
Defra is continuing to work at pace with stakeholders on the treatment of dual-use packaging and packaging that is unlikely to enter the household waste stream. Any future changes would need to be workable, enforceable and protect the operational integrity of the scheme across all business models.
Asked by: Peter Fortune (Conservative - Bromley and Biggin Hill)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the impact of the cumulative cost of the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme on the brewing sector.
Answered by Mary Creagh
The Government published an updated assessment in October 2024 of the impact of introducing Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging. This assessed impacts on packaging producers as a whole but did not assess impacts on individual products such as bottles of beer or individual sectors such as brewing.
The assessment estimated that the impact of Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging on overall inflation would be small, with a central estimate of around 0.07% on CPI.
Pricing decisions are for individual producers and retailers. The Department continues to engage with the brewing, hospitality and wider packaging sectors as the scheme is implemented.
Asked by: Peter Fortune (Conservative - Bromley and Biggin Hill)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the inflationary impact of the packaging Extended Producer Responsibility scheme on products such as bottles of beer.
Answered by Mary Creagh
The Government published an updated assessment in October 2024 of the impact of introducing Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging. This assessed impacts on packaging producers as a whole but did not assess impacts on individual products such as bottles of beer or individual sectors such as brewing.
The assessment estimated that the impact of Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging on overall inflation would be small, with a central estimate of around 0.07% on CPI.
Pricing decisions are for individual producers and retailers. The Department continues to engage with the brewing, hospitality and wider packaging sectors as the scheme is implemented.
Asked by: Peter Fortune (Conservative - Bromley and Biggin Hill)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what assessment she has made of the potential merits to consumers of competition in fixed telecommunications infrastructure.
Answered by Kanishka Narayan - Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Jointly with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Technology)
The UK telecoms market is highly competitive. The Statement of Strategic Priorities designated on 27 April 2026 sets out the government’s view on the benefits of competition in the fixed telecoms market for investment in high quality networks, innovation and consumer choice. As a result, the UK benefits from relatively low consumer pricing, and prices have declined in recent years when adjusted for inflation.
Ofcom, as the independent regulator, plays a key role in supporting competition in the fixed telecoms market, including by imposing proportionate remedies on Openreach where necessary. The UK’s pro-competition regulatory approach has been a crucial driver of fibre roll-out, with more than a hundred alternative networks entering the market in recent years.
According to Ofcom as of January 2026, 77% of residential premises in the UK have access to more than one network, and 61% have access to more than one gigabit-capable network.
In addition, Ofcom reported in February 2026 that out of six comparable countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the US), the UK had the second-lowest standalone mobile prices and the third-lowest overall standalone fixed broadband prices in 2025.
The Government and Ofcom also ensure that strong consumer protections are in place so that the benefits of competition are delivered fairly. Earlier this year, the Government published the Telecoms Consumer Charter, a set of voluntary commitments agreed with major operators to strengthen transparency, empower consumers and improve support for those struggling to pay, building on Ofcom’s existing requirements to ensure people receive clear, fair and easily understandable information.