Plans to boost UK research funding and reform post-18 education in England have been thrown into uncertainty after ministers abandoned their intention to set out government spending for the next few years.

The that ¡°in order to prioritise the response to Covid-19¡±, it would instead be conducting a?one-year review of departmental spending, to be announced next month.

It creates uncertainty about major plans, announced only in March, to boost research spending to ?22?billion by 2024-25. The details were expected to be set out in the multi-year review.

Andy Westwood, professor of government practice at the University of Manchester, said the decision was ¡°not?entirely surprising¡± given the economic upheaval wreaked by the pandemic, but it did ¡°put a?lot of?spanners into a?lot of government plans¡±.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

On research, he said there had been hopes that annual research spending would hit the ?18?billion mark ¨C representing the doubling promised by the Conservatives¡¯ last election manifesto ¨C during the review period, ¡°but that now can¡¯t be set?out¡±.

However, some of the early increases in research spending had ¡°already been baked?in¡± to?departmental budgets for this year following announcements made in March.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Graeme Reid, chair of science and research policy at UCL, also emphasised that some of the money was already ¡°in the pipeline¡± and working its way through the system.

He added that the Treasury¡¯s announcement also left open the possibility that longer-term spending could be mapped out too, given that it mentioned that the new review would ¡°confirm multi-year capital spending for key programmes where certainty is?needed to ensure no?time is lost in delivery¡±.

In his statement, the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, does not mention research as an example of an area where it would set out future budgets ¨C instead talking only about areas ¡°which are the cornerstone of our society, like the NHS, schools and infrastructure¡±.

But Professor Reid said research investment technically counted as capital spending and so could still be included in this.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

¡°We just don¡¯t know whether bits of R&D will be included in the long-term planning or whether the whole lot will be confined to the one-year rollover,¡± he said.

On post-18 education reform, Professor Westwood said the move to a one-year budget made?it ¡°almost impossible¡± to properly flesh out some of the government¡¯s plans, such as rebalancing funding towards further education and changing the loan system.

¡°Furthermore, it may well be dawning on the Treasury, at least, that the post-18 issues are going to get much harder as the pandemic is already wreaking havoc on the labour market¡­and therefore on likely [loan] repayment rates for graduates over the next few years. Even more drastic reforms may be required when all of this is over,¡± he said.

Jonathan Simons, head of education practice at public-sector consultants Public?First, said he thought there would still be a White Paper response to the Augar review of post-18 education in England, but ¡°it¡¯s hard to?say how you could theoretically amend tuition fees or allocate more money to?FE ¨C all of which will span multiple years ¨C when you don¡¯t have a multi-year budget.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

¡°My hunch is the White Paper will be stronger on rhetoric and weaker on policy and funding changes now.¡±

simon.baker@timeshighereducation.com