THE Welsh Government has not been advised the premise on which two native authority areas have been excluded from an inventory of 100 locations throughout Britain which have the very best likelihood of benefiting from a regional support programme run by Whitehall.

Last week we revealed that Bridgend and Caerphilly weren’t included within the record of precedence areas recognized by the UK Government as almost certainly to obtain cash from the £220m Community Renewal Fund.

The fund is supposed to exchange regional support money that beforehand got here from the European Union, and is a precursor to an even bigger programme referred to as the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.

When the UK was within the EU, a big area referred to as West Wales and the Valleys, which lined two-thirds of the nation, acquired billions of kilos in support from the EU as a result of the earnings per head of its inhabitants have been lower than 75% of the EU common.

The area included the county boroughs of Bridgend and Caerphilly, each of which have a number of the poorest communities in Europe.

Westminster’s resolution to exclude the 2 Welsh council areas whereas together with Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s affluent North Yorkshire seat of Richmond has prompted anger in Wales.

We’ve tried to determine how these funding selections have been made. A doc referred to as UK Community Renewal Fund: Prioritisation of Places Methodology Note has been revealed on-line by the UK Government’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

One of the overall ideas is “that any data used should be publicly available, so that the calculations are fully transparent”.

Getting entry to the related info is under no circumstances straightforward, nonetheless.

The doc lists 5 parameters that feed into the calculations: productiveness, expertise, unemployment fee, inhabitants density and family earnings. It goes on to state: “The selection of metrics… was subject to ministerial approval at the design stage based on alignment with the policy goals of the fund. Ministers accepted the recommendation of officials and no changes to the index, weightings or metrics were made as a result of ministers being on the list of places.”

The doc offers additional particulars of the 5 metrics that have been used:

  • GVA (Gross Value Added – a variation on GDP) per hour labored. Source: Office for National Statistics (ONS – 2018 figures). Worth 30% of the entire rating.
  • Gross Domestic Household Income per head of inhabitants at 2017 costs. Source: ONS. Worth 10% of the general rating.
  • Proportion of the 16-64 inhabitants with no {qualifications} to at the very least NVQ stage. 2019 figures. It additional states: Where native authority stage information factors weren’t obtainable, information factors for the closest aggregated geography have been used. Source: ONS. Worth 20% of the general rating.
  • Unemployment fee. July 2019-June 2020 figures. Also states: Where native authority stage information factors weren’t obtainable, information factors for the closest aggregated geography have been used. Source: ONS. Worth 20% of the rating.
  • Those aged 16-64 per sq. kilometre of land space. Source ONS. Population information 2019. Land space: Estimates from Geoportal Statistics 2020. Worth 20% of the general rating.

We requested the Wales Office for particulars of how the scores for Caerphilly, Bridgend and Richmondshire have been arrived at, however have been advised it didn’t maintain such info. We have been referred to MHCLG, however we acquired no response.



Source link