Language language
How do you get a response out of the BMA?
They put out a strongly-worded press release today claiming that health budgets are "robbed to run Assembly." In other words why should £40 million pounds from the Welsh block grant go on running the Assembly, rather than be spent on frontline services?
They are, of course, right that the money to run this place comes from the block grant. It always has. The same is true in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament's revenue budget for 2007/08 (running costs, staff and MSP salaries/ allowances) is £71.3 million. That, too, is taken from Mr Barnett's block grant, even though that grant is a proportion of money spent on services in England.
But why raise the issue today?
No response.
I try again. Are they following the lead of Adam Price MP who's been covering the same territory in the Western Mail today?
It takes around 2 minutes 30 seconds for the phone to ring.
"Certainly not! We're taking the lead on this! In fact the idea to raise it came from ... "
Let's just say it wasn't Adam Price but another (in this case former) politician who always seemed to know how to make it into the pages of the Western Mail.
The First Minister is unmoved. Well actually his eyes moved rather dramatically towards the heavens when I asked him what he made of their complaint. "Have they only just worked it out?" was the gist of it from Mr Morgan.
"It's an overhead of the business of running Wales" says the man whose glass office looks like the territory of a man who oversees the business of running Wales.
Incidentally Lord Elis-Thomas was called something very unparliamentary in the chamber this afternoon. An angry Eleanor Burnham wasn't called to speak on the issue of funding hospices and made her views on the Presiding Officer known, just that little bit too loudly. He heard; those who make a record of proceedings didn't.
"You didn't, did you Eleanor?"
"Well he IS".
I'm Betsan Powys, ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Wales' political editor. I'll be blogging the inside track on .
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Betsan, I am not clear, so please answer this one simple question - Is the amount of money spent on Health in Wales LESS as a result of the overheads of the Welsh Assembly Government ? Could the amount of money spent on health be greater if [hypothetically] the WAG were to disappear tomorrow ?
Bedd Gelert
In theory, if there were no civil servants (either in Wales or the UK) then there would be more money available for public services. In reality, money has to be managed by someone - and civil servants pay taxes as well. The difference between Wales and England is that the Dept of Health has separate settlements for programme and running costs, whereas WAG gets a single settlement from the Treasury that is not split into programme and running costs - or even health, education, transport, etc. As far as I know, WAG gets a proportion of the change in both of DH's settlements, not simply the programme costs.
The question is fundamentally unanswerable (the reply you would expect from a civil servant, perhaps!)
Is the amount of money spent on health in Wales less because £40 million goes on running the Assembly?
One answer: Barnett is based on a proportion of money spent on services in England. (Does that include money for running costs? Not sure. Anyone in the office know perhaps? No. Ring Lord Barnett they shout out .. . I just did. He's not at home but he'll be in at 4 Bedd G so I'll clarify that point later. )
Back to the question: The devolution settlement means once that's been calculated, some of the money in the pot - £40 million - is skimmed off to pay for the right to govern it/ourselves. That was the deal all along. Those who voted for devolution accepted it. Same goes for Scotland.
Does the health service lose £40 million then? That would build a few hospitals ...
No, it doesn't. Health gets around a third of the £14billion that comes to Wales so we're talking more like £13 million.
Whose fault is this? OR as you put it BeddG does health lose out because of WAG overheads?
No. The £40 million doesn't go to the Government. It goes to the Assembly - running it, paying AMs of all parties, staff etc After all someone's got to run the country, ask nicely for more money for services and decide where it's spent. Some (whom I meet every day when they visit the Senedd) will argue that's a waste of good money; some will argue it's too much money but that's not what the BMA are saying. They're pre-devolution. What they really want is for services in Wales to get every penny of the money they deserve AND for the Assembly to be funded as well.
Another question for you ... Why did the BMA put up such a junior representative on Radio Wales this morning? To make such a fundamental point in a powerful press release but not put up your top people when people come calling just seems odd to me.
Err is it me being stupid or has Bedd Gelert lost the plot.
If you abolish the WAG of course more money would be available - Wether this would be spent on Welsh NHS Services is another matter.
By the same token transfering the £90 millions squandered on S4C would also add this to the WAG budget.
But Adam Price would be one of the first to scream if this money was put to a better purpose.
Another answer comes to mind BG (as Rhodri Morgan has said more than once in lobby briefings): "If my Auntie had balls, she'd be my Uncle".
Don't really know how to put this, but it's NOT WAG costs we're talking about here, but the Assembly Commission's costs - it's that old chestnut about legislatures and executives again!
Who's Eleanor Burnham?
Out of interest.
Does anyone know how much money would we save if went on to abolish the Westminster Parliment ?
This would be an opportunity to ponder the relative value.
Dictatorships may be cheaper but would we want them !!!!!!!
I may be wrong Bedd G, but if the WAG was to disappear tomorrow (and I sincerely hope it doesn't)!, then it would be the responsibility of Westminster to manage Wales. I am sure that additional costs the Secretary of State would require, the increase in costs for the Wales office department and all the work that would have to be undertaken to manage all of the areas that are currently devolved to Wales, would certainly add up for more than £40 million.