The British government has rejected calls for it to increase funding
for civil aviation research and development to levels typical of those in
competing countries. Instead, it says it will try to convince more generous
governments 鈥� such as those of the US, France, Italy, Germany, Taiwan,
Indonesia and South Korea 鈥� to reduce their subsidies for aircraft research.
The government鈥檚 stance, which emerged last week, drew derision from
senior figures in the aerospace industry. John Green, chief executive of
the Aircraft Research Association in Bedford, warns that without support
for long-term research, 鈥榯he aerospace industry will have gone in 15 years,
just like the motorcycle industry and the car industry鈥�. A delegation from
the industry will meet the aerospace minister Tim Eggar this week to discuss
the issue.
The government made its position clear in its response to a report published
in April by the House of Commons Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
The committee called for a 鈥榮ignificant鈥� increase in aerospace R&D to
match large rises in state subsidies in other countries. The government鈥檚
response rules out further subsidies.
Advertisement
鈥楾he government does not accept the committee鈥檚 recommendation that
government support for civil aerospace R&D be significantly increased,鈥�
it states. 鈥楾he government鈥檚 priorities are to get the maximum benefit from
our existing expenditure, to encourage cost-effective collaborative R&D
and to seek lower levels of international state aids and other measures
which distort competition.鈥�
Green and other figures in the industry were astonished by the response.
鈥業鈥檓 surprised this government thinks it can succeed by persuading other
countries to reduce their funding to the pathetic levels we put in,鈥� says
Green.
John Stollery, professor of aeronautics at Cranfield University and
a member of the working group that drew up a national aerospace plan for
the government in 1992, says: 鈥業 think it鈥檚 naive to believe that all our
competitors are going to do as we do.鈥� In 1992-93, the Department of Trade
and Industry spent 拢26.3 million on civil aircraft R&D. The department
says this figure will fall to 拢22.7 million over four years.
By contrast, in the US, the Clinton administration has been increasing
assistance for aerospace companies such as Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell
Douglas, says Stollery. In Germany, the government announced an injection
of 拢250 million over four years for aerospace R&D. Last year,
the select committee estimated from government figures that Britain spends
less than Italy on civil aircraft R&D, one-third as much as France,
and one-quarter the amount Germany spends.
The Labour MP Richard Caborn, who is chairman of the trade and industry
select committee, was also dismayed by the government鈥檚 response. 鈥榃e were
trying to draw to the government鈥檚 attention what was happening elsewhere,鈥�
he says. 鈥榃ithout any doubt our aerospace industry is being disadvantaged.鈥�
Green says that the aerospace industry needs government funding because
of the long time it takes to develop new products. This makes it difficult
to raise money from private investors, who expect quick returns. 鈥楾hat鈥檚
recognised in other parts of the world, and that鈥檚 why governments put long-term
money in,鈥� he says.
