MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE IN ROOM 144, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS AT 2.00 PM ON THURSDAY, 29 JUNE 2000
1.Minutes of the Last Meeting
2. Matters Arising
3. Urban (EU) Programme II
4. Active Community Initiative
5. Any Other Business
6. Date and Time of Next Meeting
Present:
Mr F Cobain (Chairman)
Ms M Gildernew (Deputy Chairperson)
Sir John Gorman
Mr B Hutchinson
Mr G Kelly
Mr D McClarty
Mr E ONeill
Mr J Tierney
Mr S Wilson
Apologies:
Mr D O'Connor
In Attendance:
Mr G Martin
Mr L Hart
Ms V Surplus
Mr Cobain took the Chair at 2.15 pm
1. Minutes of the Last Meeting
The minutes of the last meeting were agreed.
There were no matters arising.
Public Session
Panel Members:
Dr Jeremy Harbison, Deputy Secretary, Regeneration and Community Development Group
Mr Mike Thompson, Director, District Partnership/European Union
Mr Brendan Murtagh, Consultant
The Chairman welcomed the panel to the meeting at 2.30 p.m. after which they spoke to a briefing document that had been copied to the Committee. There followed a question-and-answer session, which is summarised in Annex A. The Chairman thanked the panel, and they left the meeting at 3.25 p.m.
Agreed: The Committee will commission an independent consultant, Mr Gordon Welsh, to produce a report in response to the Urban (EU) Programme II Consultation paper. The Chairman will also raise the matter of Researcher selection at the next meeting of the Standing and Statutory Committee Chairmen's Liaison Committee, and to report back to the Committee at the earliest possible opportunity.
4. Active Community Initiative
Agreed: The Committee Clerk will provide a draft response to the consultation document for the Committee's consideration at its first meeting after the recess. Mr Kelly raised the matter of the statement issued by Mr Dodds regarding housing in North Belfast. He wished to have it noted that he and his party disassociated themselves from Mr Dodds's statement. He also raised the matter of the statement's having being issued from the Department. Mr Wilson claimed that it was a statement from Mr Dodds in his capacity as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.6. Date and Time of Next Meeting
The Committee will meet next at 2.00 p.m. on Thursday, 6 July in Room 144, Parliament Buildings.
The meeting ended at 3.35 p.m.
FRED COBAIN
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
June 2000
Q. Is this EU money actual 'additional' money, given the £11.5m cut in the Housing Executive budget and the budget cuts in Urban Regeneration programmes?
A. This money is European money and, by definition, is in addition to the Northern Ireland Block allocation. If this funding did not come, it would have no impact on the allocation of Block money.
Q. For areas like Taughmonagh, presumably they won't qualify because they do not fall within the Guidelines set down by Europe with regard population size. How therefore are these areas catered for?
A. There is scope in the Guidelines to look at areas with as little as 10,000 population, but there are other initiatives within the Department that look at even smaller areas, and these are intended to catch places like Taughmonagh.
Q. The Housing Executive is required to fix up it's properties, yet its budget is constantly cut. The responsibility for this lies with central Government. Is this EU money over and above the Government's responsibility? How was that decided? Did the Department bid for it and, if so, what criteria were used?
A. This EU money is not for rebuild or maintenance programmes. The money cannot be used for public housing and is solely intended for tackling social problems. Nine allocations in all were awarded to the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland got one, which is the same as the Urban I allocation. The decision on allocation was taken centrally in Westminster.
Q. What programmes were undertaken with Urban I and how were they measured? In this round of funding, how do you ensure that other Departments and Agencies tie in plans for a comprehensive programme? Will there be sustainability of projects after five years?
A. Urban I undertook the following programmes: physical projects in Derry; Early Years projects in the Shankill area, and Training and Employment programmes in the Springfield area. Lessons were learnt both in design of programmes and in community participation, and money was spent on the ground for community needs. As a result, there were hard measurable indicators. Urban II will take from and improve on the lessons of Urban I. This time around, there is scope for major grants to be awarded and for the restructuring of areas. The Department is acutely aware of the need to tie in other Departments and Agencies, and is in the process of talking to the other players. Regarding sustainability, the Department is currently thinking about this and is considering strategies. There are three options: to have projects that will last for five years only; to have projects that will be subsumed into mainstream funding; or to have an amalgamation of both.
Q. If other Departments and Agencies do not make these projects a priority, what happens to the projects? How does this all mesh together? Will gaps not develop in the long run?
A. These points are accepted by the Department. However, the European Guidance has also considered these points and incorporated elements of proofing proposals and sustainability of projects.
Q. There is a disproportionate rate for England in relation to Northern Ireland. Who negotiated that? The border areas are extensive in size and this therefore seems a proportionately bad deal. In Table Two, Greenisland is listed but its population size is only 5,000. There are huge areas of deprivation that aren't shown (for example Strabane and Dungannon). What were the criteria for the Table?
A. Northern Ireland is getting only one portion while it is accepted that England on the whole, is getting the lion's share. This is however a reflection of the concentration of people in areas and does not necessarily take into account levels of deprivation. The levels of deprivation in Northern Ireland are accepted as being equal to those in England if not greater, but Scotland also only got one portion and has perhaps a worse deal than Northern Ireland. The figures in Table Two are purely illustrative for comparative purposes and reflect concentrations of deprivation. They do not form part of rigid proposals and may be negotiated.
Q. Who negotiated the funding portions? The Tables are shown by electoral wards. Were these measures set by Europe? Is there a possibility that wards could be mixed?
A. The proportional distribution was decided pre-devolution in Westminster and the Tables were put together by the Department and are solely for illustrative purposes. They may be changed as required and wards may be mixed as long as they are geographically connected.
Q. Did the consultation process go into local areas? Was it given into areas for feedback?
A. There was a conference held to launch the consultation process with an extensive invitation list. The document was also distributed among community groups, and advertisements were placed in three main newspapers.
Q. How do you rebuild the fabric of the community if the people are still living in slums? Are you going to have agreements made with the Housing Executive before projects commence?
A. The Fountain area in Derry is a good example of rebuilding the fabric of the community with the Housing Executive joining in the redevelopment of the community. The progress of projects, however, will be stage-managed throughout the process but the Department cannot, at such an early stage, make binding agreements with outside Agencies such as the Housing Executive for their future plans or priorities.
Q. What proportion of Urban I funding went on salaries and people employed on schemes? What lessons were learnt from Urban I? And what proportion of Urban II will be going on salaries?
A. A Report on Urban I is being prepared at the moment and should be ready in two weeks. The Report will be made available to Members and will be able to answer these questions. With regards Urban II, the European Guidelines have provided a list of measures focusing on entrepreneurialism of projects.
Q. In relation to applications, how are bids going to be assessed if two close but separate areas/groups apply? If the Housing Executive have plans for a specific area, will these form parts of the criteria?
A. If two areas apply, then the Department may amalgamate the two in order to apply the Guidelines if this of benefit to both areas. The fact that the Housing Executive may have plans for a specific location might well influence the success of a particular area.
22 June 2000 / Menu / 7 July 2000