Research by the Welsh Liberal Democrats has revealed that administration and audit regulations imposed by the Labour-Plaid Government are costing Local Authorities in excess of £35 million a year.
Currently nearly £750 million a year is given to local government through grants where the money is ring fenced for particular initiatives. This method of funding has been estimated to cost Local Government in excess of 5 per cent of this figure on administration costs.
These grants are used by Welsh Assembly Government to ensure local authorities are obliged to implement WAG’s policy. Thanks to bureaucratic red tape necessitated by the Government, local governments have to spend £35 million purely on administration.
If this money was paid directly to local government then these administration costs could be avoided and more than £35 million could be saved every year which could be reinvested and used on essential front line services.
As part of the draft Budget last week, the Government has so far announced that three specific grants in total worth around £10 million have been rolled into the Local Government settlement. However there are still more than 50 grants remaining which could be transferred into the Revenue Support Grant for local government.
£35 million a year is a huge amount to be spending on administration costs when resources are scarce.
When I asked the First Minister about this in the Assembly today he stated that it was up to local government to drive efficiencies. However he has completely missed the point these administration costs are imposed by his government.
I find it incredible that at a time when everyone is pulling together to cut waste and spend less, the Labour-Plaid government is forcing local government to spend such huge amounts of money on overly bureaucratic, unnecessary processes.
This money could be saved and spent on frontline services. Here is an opportunity to save some money yet the First Minister has shown no interest in making these changes.”
Related posts:
We should be spending more resources on protecting Welsh innovation. It is notable that the Welsh Conservative Party are largely ignoring this issue – their fielding of Professor Dylan Jones-Evans who is largely silent on this issue is very telling indeed. Wales can no longer pay huge salaries to education leaders while simultaneously failing to protect Welsh innovation and the jobs that should flow from Welsh innovation. The University of Wales has a pathetic number of issued patents, some of its institutions with, e.g., engineering faculties have very few if any issued patents in the largest market for patent goods in the World.
I recently performed a search United States Patent Office (which represents the largest market in the world for patented goods) and found none in the United States issued to the University of Wales or its member institutions; I did find two issued patents but these were issued to the University of Glamorgan, which apparently is not a member of the University of Wales.
Data/Search Booleans:
Based on the following institutions, which probably define the current version of the University of Wales:
University of Wales, Newport
University of Wales Institute, Cardiff
Swansea Metropolitan University
University of Wales, Trinity Saint David
Lampeter and Carmarthen
Using the following Boolean (1) which covers all the above listed institutions (with “andnot an/Medicine to rule out the former school of Medicine (now merged with Cardiff University):
(1) an/(University and Wales and Newport) or an/(University and Wales and Institute) or an/(Swansea and Metropolitan and University) or an/(University and Wales and Trinity) or an/(University and (Lampeter or Carmarthen)) andnot an/Medicine
Results of Search in US Patents Text Collection db for:
(1) (((((AN/((University AND Wales) AND Newport) OR AN/((University AND Wales) AND Institute)) OR AN/((Swansea AND Metropolitan) AND University)) OR AN/((University AND Wales) AND Trinity)) OR AN/(University AND (Lampeter OR Carmarthen))) ANDNOT AN/Medicine): 0 patents.
Adding the University of South Glamorgan (also under its former name, Polytechnic of Wales) but leaving out “South” thus avoiding an unnecessary narrowing of the search to the above Boolean:
(2) an/(University and Wales and Newport) or an/(University and Wales and Institute) or an/(Swansea and Metropolitan and University) or an/(University and Wales and Trinity) or an/(University and (Lampeter or Carmarthen)) or an/(University and Glamorgan) or an/(Polytechnic and Wales) andnot an/Medicine
(2) Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for:
(((((((AN/((University AND Wales) AND Newport) OR AN/((University AND Wales) AND Institute)) OR AN/((Swansea AND Metropolitan) AND University)) OR AN/((University AND Wales) AND Trinity)) OR AN/(University AND (Lampeter OR Carmarthen))) OR AN/(University AND Glamorgan)) OR AN/(Polytechnic AND Wales)) ANDNOT AN/Medicine): 2 patents. (Issued to the University of Glamorgan both patents have the same title (“Determining the organic content of a fluid”) and are likely sibling patents (divisional patents possibly resulting from a two-way restriction imposed by the assigned patent Examiner). Specifically:
PAT. NO. Title
1 5,972,637 Determining the organic content of a fluid
2 5,863,749 Determining the organic content of a fluid
These searches do not take account individual staff members who might have filed patents on their own account or institute name changes beyond the use of the search term “Polytechnic (of) Wales”. Also, the search is limited to the largest market for patented goods, i.e., the United States of America, but as this is the cheapest place to obtain wide patent protection and represents the largest market for patented products, it’s not a bad place to start.