Protection of departmental R&D also being considered
Labour is expected to reveal that it will maintain protection for the science and research budget if it forms the next government, senior figures within the party have told Research Fortnight.
Sources say they are lobbying within the party for this commitment to be announced as part of a “set piece” speech by leader Ed Miliband or shadow chancellor Ed Balls at some point before the election on 7 May.
So far, the Conservatives have declined to commit to retaining the ring fence. The Liberal Democrats have said that they would like to keep the ring fence in place through the next parliament and for a total of 10 years.
Labour MP Andrew Miller, the chairman of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, says he believes Labour will commit to the “continuation of the principles of a long-term science strategy and the concept of the ring fence”. He says he has heard “pretty strong hints” from the shadow science and universities minister Liam Byrne on this. Byrne did not want to comment, but said the party accepted a recommendation from Andrew Adonis, a Labour peer and author of a 2014 Labour policy review, that it should develop a long-term strategy for science and innovation.
One Labour insider close to the shadow cabinet confirms that the party is “unlikely to go into the election with a worse offer for science than the government has”. He adds that the party would be wary of saving the ring fence only to cut departmental R&D. The Campaign for Science and Engineering has shown that half of Whitehall departments cut R&D expenditure by more than 20 per cent in 2011-12, compared with the previous year. “We’ve been critical of the government for doing that, so we don’t want to repeat the same thing,” says the Labour source.
However, many people outside the party have warned that committing to the ring fence is not enough. “Saying you’ll commit to a ring fence is very different from saying what’s in it,” says Naomi Weir, the acting director of CaSE, which would nevertheless welcome such a move as it provides stability. The research budget was protected in 2010, but capital spending on science was not. The government has announced new money for capital since 2010, but removing it from the protected budget has put strains on institutions. “The technicalities of the ring fence are crucial,” says Weir. “It’s essential to think about how the ring fence is defined.”
Miller says he is confident that not only will the ring fence endure but that the party will also “think about the broader definition”.
In a speech on 9 March, Balls attacked Conservative spending, arguing that the plans outlined in the 2014 autumn statement would mean cuts of £58 billion to unprotected departmental budgets. Balls said Labour’s plan was different and would depend on the rate at which the economy grows. However, although Balls has said that he backs protected budgets, such as for health, he has not said explicitly whether he supports the research ring fence. The details are said to depend on Labour’s ongoing review of public spending, due to be concluded before the election.
The party is also understood to be working on building its election campaign around immigration and the UK’s membership of the European Union. John Unsworth, who chairs the group Scientists for Labour, thinks the party could win votes from researchers on this point, as the UK’s research strength depends on mobility around the EU. “The free exchange of ideas and collaboration is absolutely fundamental to the whole research process,” he says.
Commenting on Labour’s plans, Greg Clark, the Conservative minister for universities, science and cities, told Research Fortnight that his party’s protection of a flat-cash research budget and allocation of £5.9bn in science capital up to 2021 shows that it cares about science. He adds that addressing the challenge of the UK having invested less in R&D than its competitor nations requires public and private involvement.
This article also appeared in Research Fortnight