New Budget....so what's different?

March 2016 saw the Chancellor George Osborne announce his eighth budget from the Dispatch Box, and there was mixed news for science and engineering. The Chancellor announced a number of new science investments across the country, including funding for smart data, energy storage and nuclear manufacturing. The commitment to build new science capital facilities are welcome, however CaSE has concerns over the government’s ability to allocate sufficient running costs to keep them open. While the Chancellor says that he wants to “lead the world with long-term solutions to long-term problems”, a recent National Audit Office report found that BIS “has not used good quality information to decide which science capital projects to invest in to optimise scientific and economic benefits”. We’ve called on the Government to ensure that all science capital investments are now strategically planned and fully funded, so that public money stands the best chance of improving lives through science.

On the long-term budget forecasts, the Office for Budget Responsibility has warned of low productivity growth both globally and in the UK. CaSE is keen to remind the Chancellor that science and engineering are one of the few government investments that actually drive productivity upwards, delivering a rise in private sector productivity by 20p per year in perpetuity for every £1 government spends on R&D.

On science and engineering education, the Chancellor announced welcome support for flexible and part-time study in higher education. However, the government’s policy to convert all primary and secondary schools to academies has raised concerns. The evidence on outcomes achieved by academies is variable at best, and there is certainly no overwhelming case that they are beneficial. Academies are not obliged to teach the National Curriculum but have to follow a ‘core curriculum’ which does not require them to teach biology, chemistry and physics up to the age of 16. Academies are not required to employ qualified teachers, which gives them the freedom to use experts from other spheres of work to teach students. We know there is a considerable shortage of qualified teachers in the sciences. So, while non-qualified experts could be inspirational, there is a danger too that the policy could undermine the quality of science teaching by encouraging more teaching of sciences by people who have no qualification in those subjects.

Lastly, it’s great to see scientific evidence being used in the development of policy, such as the new levy on sugary soft drinks. This is particularly important at a time when a newly proposed anti-lobbying clause in Government grants risks undermining the use of scientific research in the development of Whitehall policy. CaSE is currently working the Cabinet Office and the scientific community to help resolve this issue.

Author: Dr Sarah Main, Director at CaSE.