Western Gateway to close after five years of collaboration
That follows the UK Government's decision to end core funding for pan-regional partnerships.
Established in 2019, Western Gateway brought together 28 local authorities, businesses, and universities to drive economic growth across the region and attract investment.
Its achievements include securing more than £100 million for next-generation nuclear technology at the Severn Edge Low Carbon Energy Park, more than £10 million for the region's hydrogen supercluster, and delivering the first cross-border rail transport plan with local backing.
Sarah Williams-Gardener, chair of the Western Gateway, said: "This collaboration has shown the extraordinary potential of our region when business, industry, and political leaders unite behind a shared ambition.
"Thanks to the dedication of a truly outstanding team — and the vital support of our board — we've made a real, lasting impact.
"What we've achieved together demonstrates that transformative growth is possible when we look beyond traditional boundaries.
"I've been genuinely inspired by the readiness of our board members to come together, rising above political lines to focus on what truly matters.
"To see representatives from five political parties, 28 local authorities and two governments working side by side — with shared purpose and a deep commitment to the region's future — has been nothing short of remarkable."
The partnership began as the Great Western Cities initiative in 2016, linking Bristol, Cardiff, and Newport before expanding to cover a wider economic area.
Despite its closure, leaders of the founding cities have reaffirmed their commitment to continued collaboration.
Cllr Dimitri Batrouni, leader of Newport Council, said: 'Our area's potential for growth is unmatched.
"South Wales and western England are forecast to grow faster than any UK region outside London and strengthen the union and, as local leaders, we are committed to making sure we can deliver on that potential. 'We know business sees no borders and with over 100,000 car journeys across the M4 bridge every day, cross-border working will be essential for our area to ensure we can make decisions which capitalise on our potential.'
Tony Dyer, leader of Bristol City Council, shares the desire to keep working together.
'I am confident that the relationships we've built up through our time in the Western Gateway won't stop here," he said.
"I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues across the Severn and in the West of England to ensure we are delivering for the communities we represent.'
The UK Government's decision to discontinue funding for pan-regional partnerships was made in March.
While the partnership had recently secured around £2 million in additional support on top of £1 million in core government funding last year, the loss of funding means it will no longer operate in its current form.
Local authorities remain committed to exploring new ways to sustain cross-border collaboration in the region.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
30 minutes ago
- Times
How an inheritance tax raid could work — and what you can do about it
Rachel Reeves has already shown that she is not afraid to use inheritance tax as a revenue raiser. In her first budget, in October, the chancellor declared that from April 2027 pension savings would for the first time be pulled into the scope of inheritance tax — a change expected to raise billions for the Treasury. Now, with an ever deepening fiscal shortfall ahead of the next autumn budget, the Treasury is again rumoured to be targeting inheritance tax. On the table are said to be plans to tighten the rules around lifetime transfers of wealth and to end many widely used exemptions. It wouldn't be the first time that a government has gone further than simply taxing estates after death. The capital transfer tax introduced by the Labour government in 1974 applied to lifetime gifts and inheritances, and was generally unpopular. It was replaced by today's inheritance tax system in 1986. But with more estates falling into the inheritance net because of frozen tax-free allowances and decades of rising property values, the political calculation has changed. • We all should worry about this underhand attack on wealth Ian Dyall from the wealth manager Evelyn Partners said: 'Many households could regard this as a rather intrusive tactic, aimed at raising revenue from the very basic desire to pass on to one's own family hard-earned wealth that has usually already been taxed in some form or other.' Here's what could be on the cards, and what you can do to prepare for it. The Treasury has several levers it could pull to increase inheritance tax receipts, and one involves extending or scrapping the well-used seven-year rule. At the moment, if you away an asset — whether cash, property or shares — and live for seven years or more after making the gift, it will be exempt from inheritance tax. If you die before then, the value of the gift will be counted as part of your estate, the rate of tax due on it falling on a sliding scale after three years. Officials are reportedly considering extending the seven years to ten, or abolishing the rule entirely. Ollie Saiman, a co-founder of the advice firm Six Degrees, said that while a ten-year period would make planning more complicated, it may not be catastrophic 'as long as taper relief continued to exist'. But if all gifts made within the window could be taxed at the full 40 per cent inheritance tax rate it could have a huge impact on families. The Office of Tax Simplification previously recommended scrapping the taper relief on gifts made within four years of death and cutting the seven-year rule to five years, to make the rules simpler. A new time limit would be unlikely to be applied retrospectively. A gift made five years ago, for example, should fall under the old rules. But you would need to live for the remaining years of the original period for it to be inheritance tax-free. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts This little-known but highly valuable rule allows you to make regular gifts out of surplus income without them being counted as part of your estate for inheritance tax purposes. The amount you can give is unlimited as long as the gifts are genuinely from income (not savings or the sale of assets) and do not affect your standard of living. You need to keep records of everything you give, and your income. Dyall said that many families who had taken out insurance to cover potential inheritance tax bills could be caught out if the gifts from income rule was scrapped. He said: 'Regular gifts from income are a small part of the system, and scrapping the relief wouldn't raise much but could cause problems for families who have planned around the system as it is.' Saiman said that while the relief was not widely used compared with other inheritance tax strategies, it could be in the government's sights as part of a general clampdown. The biggest change the chancellor could make would be to introduce a value cap on all gifts made during your lifetime, regardless of when they were given. Rachael Griffin, a tax and financial planning expert at the wealth manager Quilter, said: 'Such a cap would bring more gifts into the scope of inheritance tax and could capture not just large transfers designed to reduce tax bills but also modest, routine support between family members. The UK has never had such a limit, and if it were set too low it could affect a large number of middle-class estates, particularly in areas where property wealth alone can easily breach the frozen tax-free allowances.' She said that a lifetime cap could lead to 'unintended behavioural shifts', with families rushing to make large transfers earlier in life, potentially before they were financially ready. It would require HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) to track gifts over decades, adding complexity and cost and increasing disputes. Saiman said that if the cap were set at US-style levels (around $14 million) 'it would only affect a small proportion of the population', while a lower cap would have huge political and practical impacts. • A ham-fisted inheritance tax grab on the middle class would end in tears A decade ago inheritance tax was seen as an almost voluntary tax because the wealthy and financial astute could avoid it through planning. That is becoming harder to do as more middle-class families face being caught in the net. All estates get a £325,000 inheritance tax-free allowance known as the nil-rate band. If you leave your main home to a direct descendant, and your estate is worth less than £2 million, you also get a £175,000 residence nil-rate band. Anything left to a spouse or civil partner is inheritance tax-free, and they also inherit each other's allowances, meaning that a couple can pass on £1 million between them. The nil-rate band, however, has been the same since 2009, while the residence band is unchanged since 2020. As a result, the number of families liable for inheritance tax is projected to double by 2030. Further pressure is on the way: from April 2027 the value of your pension pot will be included in your estate for inheritance tax purposes, while Labour's recent tightening of agricultural and business property reliefs is expected to draw more family enterprises into the tax net. The so-called great wealth transfer, in which an estimated £5 trillion is set to pass from baby boomers to younger generations over the next 30 years, is also in full swing. A government looking for extra revenue will be tempted to take a slice. Financial planners emphasise two golden rules when it comes to inheritance tax planning: avoid making irreversible decisions based on speculation, and never give away more than you can afford. This is particularly important given that the wealth manager Charles Stanley advises budgeting for costs of £100,000 a year for the last three years of your life. So, make the most of the rules now, and use up your annual allowances. You can give away up to £3,000 a year inheritance tax-free, plus carry over one year's unused allowance. You can make unlimited £250 gifts to different people, and wedding gifts of up to £5,000 for a child, £2,500 for a grandchild. These may sound small, but over time they add up significantly. If you have more income than you spend, consider setting up a pattern of regular gifts — while you still can. Keep meticulous records, including a note of intent and evidence of your annual income and expenditure to satisfy HMRC. Trusts are becoming more popular for passing on wealth while retaining some control over your assets. Discretionary trusts in particular allow assets to be distributed at the trustees' discretion, helping to protect against divorce or bankruptcy in the family. Trusts can be used in combination with life insurance policies to ensure that your family can cover inheritance tax bills. Life cover, including whole of life or gift inter vivos policies can provide lump sums to avoid your heirs having to sell assets to pay tax. Demand for such policies spiked after the chancellor announced her plan to tax pension pots. Saiman said they are a 'simple and highly effective' hedge against a 'disaster scenario'. Whatever changes come in the budget, clear documentation will be key. Keep receipts, bank statements and formal letters for significant transfers. If you have made gifts in the past few years, note the date and terms so it's clear that they should fall under existing rules.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Expert debunks everything you've been told about Scottish 'deficit'
Here, you can watch the full video. The transcription is also written below. It's GERS day: The day in Scotland when the Government Expenditure and Revenue Statement for Scotland is published by the Scottish Government. Every year it's presented as the truth about Scotland's public finances, and in reality, it's a Completely Rubbish Approximation to the truth or it's CRAp, as I've always described it. The real position is this. The Scottish Government balances its books. Every single council in Scotland balances its books. Every public agency that is reflected in jurors balances its books. In other words, the truth is Scotland's public finances balance, by definition and by law. So where does the deficit that GERS reports come from? Well, it comes from the actions of the UK Government. It has to, because nobody else can create this deficit on behalf of Scotland because nobody else has the legal power to do so. And, therefore, if Scotland is running a deficit, we know who to blame. It's Westminster, and nobody at Holyrood is responsible. READ MORE: What is the GERS report and how is it calculated? Now let's just look at some of the detail behind that, because as usual, GERS is saying that Scotland is running a large public finance deficit; one that is larger than that in the rest of the UK. And that is because people in Scotland are said to be paying a little bit less tax than people elsewhere in the UK. And I deliberately emphasised the point, "a little bit less tax". In fact, if we take oil into account, they pay no less tax than other people in the UK. But if we take oil out of account, it's about £500 or so less than other people in the UK. So, the difference is insignificant, and that's amazing given that average incomes per head in Scotland are lower than in the rest of the UK. But let's look at the second part of this equation, and that is that the supposed spend on people in Scotland is £2670 per person more than it is on people in the rest of the UK. It's over £21,000 and it's around £18,000 per person in the rest of the UK; a figure, which you're probably going find pretty staggering because you're going try and work out how you get that much benefit. And the answer is, it is very hard to work out. But the point is that the deficit per person in the UK is £2200 per person, and it is claimed as a consequence of adjusting for these tax figures and for the extra spending for people in Scotland that the deficit per person in Scotland is over £4700 per person per year. And I'm going to put it to you that that is nothing to do with what is actually happening inside Scotland's public finances, for the reasons I've already explained. They balance. So what are the reasons for the deficit? First of all, as the GERS statement itself, rather pointedly says, expenditure on social provision and welfare in Scotland is higher than it is in the rest of the UK. And there's a little dig at the Scottish Government for that in this document. But in truth, that's not the reason. The truth is Scotland is poorer than the rest of the UK and has more social need than the rest of the UK, and also needs more support because of the environment of Scotland being different from the rest of the UK. It's colder for a start. And so, there are issues in Scotland that have to be addressed which Westminster is never going to care about, which are reflected in this report and which don't get adjusted for as a consequence. They are never going to be solved until Scotland is independent. But the rest of this deficit is created by Westminster because it is the only organisation that can create it because nobody in Scotland has the power to do so. And I'm saying that that is deliberate. Scotland is deliberately having costs dumped on it by Westminster in a way that is entirely unreasonable. It is claimed that Scotland has excess costs, in other words, in my opinion, and some of those are easy to identify. For example, Scotland is not buying new nuclear power stations in the south of England, and it would never need them because it has a power surplus. In fact, Scotland is underreporting its national income because companies in Scotland are being paid to not produce renewable energy. You couldn't make up a situation more bizarre than that, which is so biased in favour of England. And Scotland would never, if it was independent, waste the money that the UK does on defence so that Keir Starmer can continue to go around the world politically posturing as if the country is a world power when everybody knows it isn't. And nor would Scotland spend money on HS2, which is never going to come near the country. And nor would it pour subsidies into investment in the south-east of England, which is the absolutely standard norm in the UK Government accounts for which apparently Scotland has to pay. Independence could change all this. Scotland would have its own capital, which would boost its GDP. All profits earned in Scotland would be taxed in Scotland, and I very strongly suspect that is not the case at present. All interests paid in Scotland would be taxed in Scotland because it would have to be paid to Scottish banks, and I very strongly suspect that that is not being accounted for properly at present. And in addition. VAT paid in Scotland would definitely be collected in the country and once more, I'm not at all convinced that is happening right now. And Scotland could, if it was an independent country, crack down on the small company abuse that is now denying the revenue across the whole of the UK, tens of billions of pounds, and therefore costing Scotland a significant amount as well. And all of this could be done to change the way in which Scotland's accounting works. But Westminster isn't interested in doing that. So long as it can dump its costs on Scotland and Wales, and Northern England and Northern Ireland, then it doesn't care that it is making losses in those areas as a consequence of its accounting because it can blame them for being the burden on the rest of the UK. They keep wasteful projects alive on the basis of this while starving Scotland of funds to meet real needs. This is accounting abuse on a giant scale. READ MORE: We have to create an alternative to GERS to make the case for indy The figures that are used in GERS are flawed because the UK Government supplies what is, in my opinion, and I'm allowed to have this opinion, flawed apportionments of UK national data. And Scotland has no control over this. What it's charged for is a matter for the UK Government to decide and not for Scotland to decide. America sought independence for less reason than that. And these estimates would all change if independence was to be a reality. In fact, in fairness, GERS says that. There is no indication of what Scotland's finances would be like if it was independent from the extrapolation of the GERS statement. But if you listen to a Unionist, you would never believe that. They love GERS, they always have, and remember that it was created in 1992 precisely to prove that Scotland couldn't be an independent country, and more than 30 years on the Scottish Government, headed by the SNP for well over a decade now, is still producing this nonsense data and looks incredibly weak as a result for doing so. Year after year I have begged the SNP to change the methodology, to put forward a proposal as to how this can be properly accounted for, and to show, at least, the degree of expense which is reallocated which they would challenge, and that which is not. But it doesn't happen, and that's ridiculous. So, we end up with a situation where GERS is, as I've always described it, CRAp – a completely rubbish approximation to the truth. It's misleading. It's untruthful, and it's politically loaded against Scotland. It's time to scrap it, to replace it, and to show Scotland's real potential. Scotland can and must do better than this.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Rachel Reeves is coming after your inheritance, this is what you should do NOW to protect yourself, writes SIMON LAMBERT
It's a rare achievement for a tax to be incurred by just a fraction of people but to be widely detested. Inheritance tax pulls that trick off. Despite it only currently affecting about one in 20 estates, it is referred to as Britain's 'most hated tax'. Your browser does not support iframes.
