Life Sciences Investment

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Ian Murray

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his place, but I wish it was under better circumstances. The loss of Merck’s investment, following the loss of AstraZeneca’s investment in January, will certainly be perceived as a blow to the UK’s life sciences sector, though we must not forget the amazing work that businesses, start-ups and researchers do in constituencies across the country, including my own. We also must not forget the importance of value for money in NHS spending.

The Select Committee will hold an urgent session on Tuesday to examine the issues in the life sciences sector, including tariffs, investment incentives from the US, access to capital and the relationship with NHS pricing. In the meantime, it is clear that the life sciences sector plan, published in July, does not reflect market conditions. Could the Minister update us on how, and how quickly, he plans to revise that plan?

[Ian Murray]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that constructive approach, and I look forward to the session on Tuesday to examine this really important issue. She mentioned the life sciences sector plan, which is really important. It comes with significant investment in research and development, improving clinical trial performance, and moving money and support from other key sectors into the sectors that are in the industrial strategy. Life sciences benefit from that. There is £2.5 billion a year going into life sciences from this Government, and that contributes to the £9 billion that the private sector invests every year.

As the Chair of the Select Committee will know, the Chancellor gave the most generous settlement for research and development ever in the spending review last year, with £86 billion over the spending review period. That is to support the industrial strategy, of which life sciences is a key sector. I know from companies in my constituency that the sector is growing and needs more support, and we are determined to deliver that.

Finance Bill

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Ian Murray

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah]

I will not give way because other Members want to speak.

From the “The Spirit Level” by Wilkinson and Pickett through “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by the current economic rock star Thomas Piketty to “The Entrepreneurial State” by Mariana Mazzucato, economists and social scientists are raising their voices against the claims from Government Members that inequality is good for growth. Recent analysis concluded that

“inequality is bad for both the magnitude and sustainability of growth”.

Before Government Members jump in, that is the view not of some left-leaning sociologist but of the International Monetary Fund.

Equally, President Obama’s chief economic adviser has said that reducing inequality is good for growth. In other words, we must not balance the efforts to reduce the deficit unfairly on the poor, as they are less likely to be in a position to reap the benefits of any growth that follows. None the less, that is exactly what the Government are seeking to do.

The new clause would make the impact of the Government’s policies absolutely clear. I know what the impact of their policies is from my Newcastle surgeries. One constituent who is on a low income uses his so-called second bedroom to store his wheelchair and oxygen bottles. The result is rent arrears and constant anxiety. The threat of eviction hangs over his head. He is only hanging on because he believes that the next Labour Government will abolish the hated bedroom tax. And yet, at the other end of the income scale, taxes are being cut. If the rest of the House does not join Labour in voting for the new clause, people will know what to think.

The next Labour Government will reverse the £3 billion tax cut for the top 1% of earners to ensure that the books are balanced in a fairer way. We will cut taxes for 24 million working people on middle and low incomes with a lower 10p starting rate of income tax. At the next election, the Labour party will put an alternative vision to this Government’s classic 1980s trickle-down economics to the British people. Our vision is to build a new kind of economy that works for communities and ordinary people, and that does not put a premium on social and economic inequality.

[Ian Murray]

It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). New clause 14 is simple, and I cannot understand why the Government would not want to produce figures showing whether the 50p tax rate raises more or less money. When the Budget was announced, the Red Book stated that the tax cut would cost £3 billion. If politics is the art of the possible, it is also about priorities, and if we consider the priorities of this Government, we see clearly why that cut was unfair and should be reversed, and why the Government should accept new clause 14 and state why they think that lowering taxes for millionaires is the right thing to do.

We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central about the bedroom tax—that was a priority introduced by this Government. The bedroom tax raises only 10%, if not less, of the £3 billion that the 50p tax rate cost. The use of food banks has exploded across the country in all our constituencies, which is a disgrace in a modern society, and people on welfare are waiting for their personal independence payment applications to be processed—at the current rate it will take perhaps 42 years. Tuition fees have trebled, which is hitting young people and aspiration in this country, and we have seen the NHS privatised, with money spent on a top-down reorganisation that nobody voted for. Those are the priorities that the Government have introduced, which is why it is important to get from them in black and white as part of the Finance Bill the implications of what a tax rate does, what it raises, what it does not raise, and how much other levels of tax could raise. It may be that some of the pernicious policies introduced by the Government could be reversed if they realised that they could raise more money from different levels of taxation.