Level of R&D spending to be maintained up to 2029–30

The government has announced that research and innovation funding will reach £22.5bn a year by 2029–30.

The release by DSIT calls this a “bumper funding package.” This is true in the sense that £22.5bn is objectively a lot of money. It is not a bumper package in the sense that it amounts to an inflationary increase up to 2029–30 from the Autumn Budget.

The most generous view of the announcement is that the Chancellor has maintained a previously announced increase to research funding at a time when issues which are both expensive and popular with the public, like eliminating the two child benefit cap or bringing back winter fuel payments, are on the table. It is a win that funding has been maintained in a period where everything is up to be cut.

The less generous view of the announcement is that a government which has staked its entire economic plan on the success of the research ecosystem (see industrial strategy now delayed until the end of June) has not invested extra cash into research. As friend to Wonkhe and Skills England board member Andy Westwood has said this is a decent result.

The part that we do not know is how the funding will be profiled. This will be clarified in the spending review but it is worth noting that there are already lots of claims on research spending including in the strategic review of defence which imagines new bodies, investment, and work by universities.

Universities will also be wondering how much will flow through their work. In April it was announced that UKRI would receive around £8.8bn of funding per year as part of a wider £13.9bn DSIT spending allocation. The release doesn’t hint at cuts to funding but the government approaches the spending review with a lot of research spending commitments outside of what universities would regard as their core funding.

The announcement includes a dedicated regional funding of £30m for each of the seven Mayoral Strategic Authorities. A useful chunk of cash for places to focus on their research strengths, and with wider infrastructure investment a useful tool in which to develop regional specialisms. It’s also difficult to know which places will be net beneficiaries of funding without knowing which universities, missions, or industries will eventually be the winners out of the new funding settlement.

Given that funding is constrained and where there are spending commitments they are in health, defence, and infrastructure, it may be that universities should be looking for broader impacts with a larger number of funders.