Share
Jon Excell
Editor
The Engineer
Osborne ignites the bonfire of the quangos
So it’s farewell RDAs, adieu to the Infrastructure Planning Commission, and possibly soon goodbye to the Carbon Trust and the Energy Technologies Institute. That’s right. The long anticipated quango cull has begun.
So far, the reaction from industry has been reasonably positive. Many hailed the decision to replace the RDAs with a £1bn regional growth fund, while the latest bit of consolidation - the likely decision to bring all green investments funds under the auspices of a Green Investment Bank - is viewed by many as a sensible route to scaling up investment in some of the large scale projects considered essential to the UK’s future economy.
But in amongst the positive reactions there are already dissenting voices. Many in the renewables/low carbon sector are worried that such consolidation will mean that support will only be directed at big projects with immediate payback and that small businesses and start-ups - which are arguably in greatest need of government support - will miss out . (Read our latest report on the Green Investment Bank proposal here)
And with further cuts expected elsewhere this is a concern that is likely to resonate beyond the low carbon sector and throughout industry.
In the run up and immediate aftermath of the election the Conservative party repeatedly talked up the importance of long term research and declared itself sceptical over the use of impact assessments in making funding decisions. In its fervour to wield the axe it would do well to remember this.
- Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- Next Page
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (17)
Anonymous | 30 Jun 2010 3:23 pm
I agree with john Mc above, we could just as easily cut public spending by reducing politicians salaries, like they have doe in the private sector in some places.
Small companies will suffer from these moves, and many employers will cut back on R & D as a result.
Conservatives are always the same cut back highly publicised schemes and letting the dross that infects Government sit on their idle bums getting paid huge amounts of money for doing nothing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
tony smee | 30 Jun 2010 3:39 pm
I asked the guy at my local RDA for help and in chatting I asked his own background. He had had a failed business?
I would have preferred someone with a successful business.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30 Jun 2010 4:10 pm
Quangos at the end of the day are part of Government, operating with a few less levels of paperwork. merging them back into government will just fatten up the higher echelon who are all grossly over paid and get London weighting, while making regional workers redundant
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jonathan Douglas | 30 Jun 2010 7:27 pm
I have been perplexed by the proliferation of quangos in recent years. There has been some good grant funding, but the people one deals with seem to move around from quango to quango, and yet the previous quangos don't seem to disappear. I have dealt with some very good people, who have helped my business, but also plenty of people who are more concerned to ensure you have signed their self-justification form, and to arrange another meeting, but never seem to actually come back with anything new or responsive. I think a heavy rationalisation of quangos is in order, and the selection of the surviving staff should be based on the votes of real businesses.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
GP | 30 Jun 2010 7:51 pm
Good riddance!! lets hope this is the first 1% to go, they would be much cheaper on the dole looking for or training for a proper job
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Malcolm | 30 Jun 2010 8:57 pm
Halving the number of quangos by merging them doesn't save any money but does seem to satisfy the Daily Mail reader. Even if there are a few jobs lost it will cost more because they get a handsome payoff or full size early pension. Later those people will be replaced, sometimes by the same people, and the bill will be double.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6 Jul 2010 0:26 am
RDAs need to go. They are populated by paper-shufflers who would not survive in the world of industry. They do very little for their over-large salaries and for the most part, don't give a damn about anyone except themselves. The only reason they work for these over-staffed agencies is because no-one in industry would employ them - and it's easy money.
The best replacement for the RDA is the system which is now emerging; Venture Capital Trusts which share the risk of investing in early stage businesses with the Government. This includes, in particular, investing in innovative businesses and worthy R&D projects.
In my experience, RDA personnel are generally incompetent and putting extra effort into helping a company become successful is just beyond them. Besides, it makes no difference to them either way. VCs, on the other hand, have to really work hard to make sure a struggling company does well otherwise they don't get paid. In fact, its a dead-loss to them. They are happy to back a small company which is working on an innovative product so long as the government is prepared to underwrite the investment. It is not in their interest to back dodgy proposals so they will always use their expertise to pick sound projects whenever they can.
Underwriting a risky investment is far cheaper for the Government than supporting a full-blown RDA which, more often than not, is simply throwing good money after bad.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment