| Home | Committees | Membership | Publications | Legislation | Chronology | Commission | Tour | Search |
COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Preparation for the
28.
Full Participation by Under-Represented Groups 28.1. The Committee concluded that the Department, and the Rural Development
Council, were sincere in their stated intentions regarding inclusion and participation,
in the Rural Development Programme, of four target groups: the farming community,
women, young people and the long-term unemployed. References to these groups
within Programme documentation and the opening of programmes to new categories
of applicant bore witness to this sincerity. 28.2. The Committee also found that the commitments had been met regarding
provision of information about the Programme. Members were content that the
approach represented a significant improvement over previous phases of the
Programme. 28.3. The Committee also concluded, however, that barriers remain, particularly
to farmers’ participation, and that the scale of the problem regarding their
inclusion may not have been fully appreciated by the Department. 28.4. The Committee fully endorsed the Rural Community Network’s comment
about the necessity for a coherent approach to each of the targeted groups,
in order to ensure that they all have access to the help they need. In this
context, the initially slow response, by farmers’ groups, to newly accessible
programmes, provided a prime example of the need for dedicated assistance for
farmers and other new applicants, particularly in navigating their way through
a cumbersome applications process. The Committee’s further conclusion was that
the Department must ensure that sufficient resources are made available to
its Rural Enterprise Division, given that this Division consists of people
to whom farmers can specifically relate. 28.5. Finally, the Committee’s conclusion was that the lack of targets
for participation of the four groups was a weakness in the programme, as were
the absence of ring-fencing of funding and weighting of project selection criteria in favour
of applications from, or affecting, those groups. These weaknesses, the Committee
believed, resulted in passive, rather than active, targeting of these groups.
That situation was not helped by the fact that neither DARD nor the RDC had
put in place the anticipated monitoring systems prior to the launch of programmes,
and the uncertainty as to whether the procedures would, in fact, actively measure
participation of all four groups. 28.6. Overall, therefore, the Committee acknowledged the work that the
Department and others had done to encourage participation, but was disappointed
about the difficulties and obstacles that remain. 29.
Full and Proper Appraisal of all Projects 29.1. The Committee’s positive conclusion was that the Department had
acted to ensure that satisfactory and appropriate appraisal procedures are
in place for all projects to be brought forward under programmes being managed
directly by its own Rural Development Division and by the Rural Development
Council. 29.2. The Committee further concluded that, while it was the Department’s
obvious intention and desire that other delivery agents would follow suit,
it must accept responsibility for ensuring that they did so. This would be
achieved through the provision, by DARD of detailed appraisal requirements,
together with stringent checks on compliance with these. 29.3. It was also apparent to the Committee that DARD has acted to improve
the procurement and management of consultants in the new round of the Rural
Development Programme. It was the Committee’s conclusion, however, that there
was a need for DARD to re-assess its scrutiny and review procedures regarding
appraisal standards. This was the case for both forms of appraisal: the pro-forma
type, where project costs fell below a certain level, and full appraisal, carried out
by consultants, for larger projects. The Committee’s recommendations
will, members believed, offer the best protection both for public investment,
and for staff involved in appraisal work. 29.4. The Committee remained unconvinced that DARD had lived up to its
commitments on having a Procedures Manual in place and operational, but was
content with the RDC’s ability to demonstrate the availability of its manual.
With the Department’s manual now in place, the Committee concluded that there
was a need for it to be assessed, in order to ensure it that it is of the necessary
standard and is actually being used by the Department’s staff. 29.5. Finally, the Committee concluded that, given the important role
played by staff in the appraisal process, DARD should regularly revisit its
staff training in consultation with RDC. This would help ensure that any changes
to the guidelines on appraisal result in updated training for all involved,
and that any identified short-comings are resolved quickly through re-training. 30.
Rationalisation of Programme Structures 30.1. In general, the Committee concluded that the Department had embraced
the concept of rationalisation and had demonstrated this through the ‘visible’
rationalisation of reduced numbers of delivery bodies in this phase of the
rural Development Programme. 30.2. Another conclusion, based on positive assessments by local community
representatives, was that DARD had acted to improve clarity regarding the delivery
structures, both within the structures themselves and to the Programmes customers. 30.3. Furthermore,
the Committee was content that DARD had accepted the need for consistency and
complementarity with other programmes. The most striking examples of
this acceptance were DARD’s promotion of the concept within the Natural Resource
Rural Tourism Initiative and its clear expectations of its agents to do likewise
in the LEADER+ programme. 30.4. The Committee did, however, sound a note of caution in this area,
citing farm diversification as an example where rationalisation has not been
apparent, but was desirable. The Committee also concluded that there was a
need for close co-operation between DARD and the Planning Service to ensure
that the Programme’s regeneration objectives are not frustrated by over zealous
application of planning regulations. Equally the Department must ensure that
its own criteria, when dealing with planning issues, are appropriate and up-to-date.
The Committee believed that an enhanced role for the cross-departmental Rural
Development Steering Group might be in order, in an effort to overcome such
difficulties and to ensure complementarity between agencies’ actions. 30.5. Finally, the Committee recognised the potential for confusion surrounding
the terminology of ‘rural development’ and highlighted the need for DARD to
clarify the distinction between the farm-based Rural Development Plan and the
wider rural community-based Rural Development Programme. 31.
Resources to be Assigned for Programme Delivery 31.1. The Committee’s
main conclusion in this area was that the Department, as a corporate entity,
had demonstrated its willingness to provide the numbers of staff considered
necessary to deliver the Rural Development Programme. The Department must also
be prepared to consider and meet further recommendations flowing from an external
review of staffing, and to ensure that its delivery agents are also appropriately
resourced. 31.2. The Committee also recognised that Rural Development remained a
relatively small area of business in the context of the Department’s overall
budget. The Committee’s conclusion was that the Department should consider
internal rationalisation, in order to improve co-ordination, efficiency and
effectiveness in areas involved in rural regeneration. This may also have the
effect of raising the profile of rural development both within and outside
the Department, and provide a sound baseline for the almost inevitable movement
of agricultural policy towards rural development and away from traditional
agricultural support. 31.3. In terms of programme funds, the Committee concluded that a flexible
approach was desirable to ensure that successful areas of the Programme could
be bolstered with additional funding, during the programme period, which would
be reallocated from areas that were less successful. The Committee also concluded
that DARD must, in the short term, set in motion contingency planning for the
delivery of rural programmes after 2006, when European structural funding will
either be unavailable to Northern Ireland, or be at significantly reduced levels. PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR FRIDAY 18 JANUARY 2002 Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP(Chairman) The Chairman declared the meeting to be in private session at 11.29am. The Chairman welcomed the Principal Clerk of Committees, Mr Joe Reynolds, to the meeting. The Clerk, having declared a possible interest in the next issue on the Agenda, withdrew from the meeting. Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme. The Chairman reported the Clerk’s concern that, in view of his previous employment in DARD’s Rural Development Division, there might be a perceived conflict of interest in his assistance to the Committee in producing its report into the Rural Development Programme. The Clerk had therefore requested an independent assessment of his work to provide assurances that his approach was entirely objective and based solely on the evidence before the Committee and members’ deliberations. The Principal Clerk explained the arrangements for clerking of committees including management, appraisal and guidance regarding the professional conduct of officers. In his role as line manager he offered to assist the Committee in addressing the Clerk’s concern by acting as independent reviewer of the Clerk’s work on the Committee’s report. Members were unanimous in expressing their confidence in the Clerk. Members deliberated. Resolved: that the Clerk was to be commended for his approach to this issue and that the Principal Clerk should act as independent reviewer and report back to the Committee. The Chairman thanked the Principal Clerk of Committees for his assistance. The Clerk rejoined the meeting and the Principal Clerk withdrew at 11.40am. Members were issued with draft papers relating to evidence given to the Inquiry and outline findings emanating from that evidence. The papers included correspondence, minutes of evidence and written submissions to the Inquiry. Members deliberated. Resolved: that members would examine the documents with a view to discussion of the outline findings at the Committee meeting on 25 January 2002. Resolved: that in view of developments since evidence was heard, the Committee would write to DARD and to the Rural Development Council to seek updates on the implementation of the Rural Development Programme. Resolved: that officials would be invited to the meeting on 1 February 2002 and asked to show the video used at the launch of the Strategy. Resolved: that the Assembly’s Research Services would be asked to confirm that the Department’s position regarding pro-forma appraisal for projects under £50,000 was in line with current Department of Finance and Personnel guidance. [EXTRACT] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR FRIDAY 25 JANUARY 2002 Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP(Chairman) The Chairman declared the meeting to be in private session at 12.37pm. Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme. Members had considered draft significant evidence and outline findings and other papers issued on 18 January 2002. Resolved: that members would advise the Clerk of any relevant views in relation to the findings. Resolved: that the Clerk was instructed to proceed to a first draft report in line with the outline findings, taking into account any views submitted by members. [EXTRACT] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR FRIDAY 8 FEBRUARY 2002 Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP
(Chairman) The Deputy Chairman declared the meeting to be in private session at 1.24pm. Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme. Members considered further papers and briefing prepared by the Committee Clerk including draft conclusions for incorporation in the Committee’s report findings. Members deliberated. Resolved: that the draft conclusions and proposals for inclusion in the Committee’s report were agreed. Members also considered a paper "The Rural Development Programme Strategy 2001 – 2006" that the Assembly Research Services wished to publish on the Assembly Intranet. Members deliberated. Resolved: that the Committee had no objection to the publication of the Assembly Research Services document on the Assembly Intranet. [EXTRACT] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR FRIDAY 22 FEBRUARY 2002 Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP
(Chairman) Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme. Members considered proposals for the conclusion of this Inquiry. Resolved: that members would consider, at next week’s meeting, DARD’s response to the Committee’s request for additional information and would agree outline findings and conclusions derived from this, with a view to considering a first draft report on Friday 8 March 2002. [EXTRACT] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR FRIDAY 1 MARCH 2002 Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP
(Chairman) Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme. Messrs Armstrong, Douglas and Kane declared an interest. Mr McHugh returned to the meeting at 10.58am. Members noted the positive report from the Clerk of Committees on his examination of the Clerk’s work in relation to this Inquiry, and were content that the papers were entirely, and solely, based on evidence put before the Committee and on Committee deliberations. Mr Dallat returned to the meeting at 11.03am. Members had received additional papers setting out further possible findings and conclusions based on recent updates. They discussed a number of issues in relation to the rural development programme. Resolved: that members would study the papers further for consideration at the meeting on Tuesday 5 March 2002. [EXTRACT] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR TUESDAY 5 MARCH 2002 Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP
(Chairman) Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme. The Chairman advised that no members had raised any amendments to the draft findings and conclusions prepared by the Clerk and included in papers for the meeting on Friday 1 March 2002. Members deliberated. Resolved: that those draft findings and conclusions were approved and that the Clerk was instructed to prepare a first draft of the Committee’s Inquiry report based on these, and previous, outline findings and conclusions approved by the Committee and on discussions, surrounding specific issues, that took place in Committee on 1 March 2002. [EXTRACT] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR FRIDAY 19 APRIL 2002 Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP(Chairman) Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme. The draft report into preparation for the next phase of the Rural Development Programme (2001-2006) was brought up and read a second time, paragraph by paragraph: Title page was read and agreed. Committee remit and table of contents pages were read and agreed. Introduction Paragraph 1.1 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraph 1.2 was read and agreed. Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.11 were read and agreed. Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4 were read and agreed. First Term of Reference Paragraphs 4.1 to 4.4 were read and agreed. Paragraph 4.5 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 5.1 to 5.11 were read and agreed. Paragraphs 6.1 to 6.5 were read and agreed. Paragraphs 7.1 to 7.7 were read and agreed. Paragraph 7.8 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 7.9 and 7.10 were read and agreed. Paragraph 7.11 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 8.1 to 8.13 were read, amended and agreed. Paragraph 8.14 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 8.15 to 8.18 were read and agreed. Paragraphs 9.1 to 9.9 were read and agreed. Paragraph 9.10 to 9.12 were read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 9.13 to 9.19 were read and agreed. Paragraph 9.20 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 9.21 to 9.23 were read and agreed. Paragraphs 10.1 to 10.25 were read and agreed. Mr Armstrong left the meeting at 1.52pm. The Chairman returned to the meeting at 1.53pm and took the chair. Paragraph 10.26 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 10.27 to 10.29 were read and agreed. Paragraphs 11.1 to 11.7 were read and agreed. Mr Ford left the meeting at 2.05pm. Paragraph 11.8 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 12.1 to 12.12 were read and agreed. Rural Development Programme Inquiry Draft Report – continued. The Committee continued consideration of the draft report into preparation for the next phase of the Rural Development Programme (2001-2006) as follows: Second Term of Reference Paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2 were read and agreed. Paragraph 13.3 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraph 13.4 was read and agreed. Paragraph 14.1 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 14.2 was read and agreed. Paragraphs 15.1 to 15.3 were read and agreed. Paragraph 15.4 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 15.5 to15.16 were read and agreed. Paragraph 15.17 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 15.18 to 15.25 were read and agreed. Mr Ford returned to the meeting at 2.36pm. Paragraphs 16.1 to 16.16 were read and agreed. Paragraphs 17.1 and 17.2 were read and agreed Paragraph 17.3 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 17.4 to 17.20 were read and agreed. Mr Douglas left the meeting at 2.42pm Paragraph 17.21 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 17.22 to 17.25 were read and agreed. Paragraphs 18.1 to 18.6 were read and agreed. [EXTRACT] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR FRIDAY 26 APRIL 2002 Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP(Chairman) Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme. The Committee continued its paragraph by paragraph consideration of the draft report into preparation for the next phase of the Rural Development Programme (2001-2006), begun at the previous meeting: Third Term of Reference Paragraphs 19.1 and 19.2 were read and agreed. The meeting was adjourned due to emergency evacuation of the building at 10.33am and resumed at 11.02am. The Chairman, Messrs Bradley, Douglas, Ford, Kane, Murphy, McHugh and Paisley Jnr were present. Members agreed a presentational amendment to the third bullet point of paragraph 14.1. Paragraph 20.1 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 21.1 to 21.15 were read and agreed. Mr Armstrong returned to the meeting at 11.11am. Paragraphs 22.1 and 22.2 were read and agreed. Paragraph 22.3 and 22.4 were read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 22.5 to 22.10 were read and agreed. Paragraph 22.11 and 22.12 were read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 22.13 and 22.14 were read and agreed. Mr Armstrong left the meeting at 11.25am. Paragraph 22.15 was read, amended and agreed. Mr Armstrong returned to the meeting at 11.28am. Paragraphs 22.16 to 22.18 were read and agreed. Mr Bradley left the meeting at 11.32am and Mr McHugh declared an interest as a participant in an ESA project. Paragraph 22.19 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 22.20 and 22.21 were read and agreed. New paragraph 22.2 was agreed and inserted. Paragraph 23.1 was read and agreed. Paragraph 23.2 was read, amended and agreed. Messrs Ford and McHugh left the meeting at 11.47am. Paragraphs 23.3 to 23.9 were read and agreed. Fourth Term of Reference Paragraphs 24.1 to 24.3 were read and agreed. Mr Bradley returned to the meeting at 11.49am. Paragraphs 25.1 to 25.3 were read and agreed. Paragraph 26.1 was read and agreed. Mr McHugh returned to the meeting and Mr Paisley Jnr left the meeting, at 11.56am. Paragraphs 26.2 to 26.5 were read and agreed. Paragraph 26.6 was read, amended and agreed. Paragraphs 26.7 to 26.16 were read and agreed. Paragraphs 27.1 to 27.7 were read and agreed. Conclusions Paragraphs 28.1 to 28.6 were read and agreed. Paragraphs 29.1 to 29.5 were read and agreed. Paragraphs 30.1 to 30.3 were read and agreed. Mr Savage returned to the meeting at 12.27pm. Paragraph 30.4 was read, amended (including consequential amendment to paragraph 23.8) and agreed. Paragraphs 30.5 was read and agreed. Paragraphs 31.1 to 31.3 were read and agreed. Members discussed further deliberations on, and handling of, the Inquiry report. Resolved: that the Committee would consider the draft Executive Summary, a draft Motion for debate in the Assembly, and a draft Press Notice at the meeting on 3 May 2002, and that the agreed motion should be put forward for debate in the Assembly on 20 May 2002. [EXTRACT] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR FRIDAY 3 MAY 2002 Present Mr G Savage (Deputy Chairman) Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme Inquiry. The Committee continued its consideration of the draft report into preparation for the next phase of the Rural Development Programme (2001-2006). Executive Summary. Paragraphs 1-4 were read and agreed Paragraphs 5-6 were read and agreed Paragraphs 7-13 were read and agreed Paragraphs 14-20 were read and agreed Mr Paisley Jnr returned to the meeting at 12.49pm. Paragraphs 21-26 were read and agreed Paragraph 27 was read, amended and agreed Paragraphs 28-32 were read and agreed Paragraph 33 was read, amended and agreed Paragraphs 34-37 were read and agreed Paragraphs 38-49 were read and agreed Recommendations. Mr Armstrong left the meeting at 12.55pm. Paragraphs 1-32 were read and agreed. Resolved: That the Report be the Report of the Committee and that the Committee orders it to be printed. Resolved: That the Rural Development Council request to add footnotes to the minutes of evidence of 25 May 2001 was agreed and that the footnotes should be inserted. Resolved: That the minutes of evidence taken from witnesses on 30 March 2001, 25 May 2001 and 8 February 2002 should be printed with the report. Resolved: That lists of published and unpublished memoranda are approved and memoranda are to be included in the report according to these lists. Resolved: That extracts from the Committee’s Meetings of Proceedings relating to the report should be reported. Members agreed the draft motion for debate. Resolved: That the Business Office will be advised that a 2-3 hour debate is anticipated Members agreed a press notice for release, under embargo. Resolved: That Committee staff should finalise the printing of the report. [EXTRACT] MINUTES OF EVIDENCE LIST OF WITNESSES WHO GAVE EVIDENCE TO THE COMMITTEE EVIDENCE TAKEN ON FRIDAY 30 MARCH 2001 Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Paragraphs 1 - 105 Mr G McWhinney – DARD official Mr A Morton – DARD official EVIDENCE TAKEN ON FRIDAY 25 MAY 2001 Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Paragraphs 106 - 199 Ms B Rodgers - Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Mr G McWhinney – DARD official Mr A Morton – DARD official Rural Development Council for Northern Ireland Paragraphs 200 - 300 Mrs J McVey – Chairperson Mr M McDonald - Chief Executive Ms C Taggart – Director of Operations Mr S Henry – Director of Programmes EVIDENCE TAKEN ON FRIDAY 8 FEBRUARY 2002 Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Paragraphs 301 - 397 Mr G McWhinney – DARD official Mr A Morton – DARD official MINUTES OF EVIDENCE Friday 30 March 2001 Members present: Witnesses: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. The Chairperson: Everybody has declared their interests, so we have abided by the law. Welcome Mr McWhinney and Mr Morton. We have a huge task before us and the Committee will be preparing a report on the issue. We will ask you a fairly extensive series of questions. They will be pretty intricate and if you feel that you are not in a position to answer them we would like you to provide written answers because they will guide us in our report. 9. Do not worry too much about making a long introductory statement. After your statement, we will come to questions that we feel must be answered. We are in the beginning, as it were, and there is a lot of topsoil that must be lifted before we can get to the foundations. 10. Mr McWhinney: It may be worthwhile if I make a brief introduction. The Committee has invited us to make a formal submission and we will endeavour to respond as fully as possible. Even if we respond only in part, it will be without prejudice to our formal submission because, as you say, there is a lot of detail involved. 11. Over the past three years, the Department has been engaged in extensive consultation and discussion with rural interests about the next phase of the Rural Development Programme (RDP). Those negotiations and discussions started in late 1997, and there has been enthusiastic participation by those involved. The result of the output is the Minister’s strategy, which was put to the Committee. 12. The requirements of the European funding programmes to which we are submitting bids, and the departmental co-financing which we have sought to secure in the public expenditure round are combined with the output from those consultations and the demands from local and rural interests. 13. The intention of the strategy is to provide a flexible framework in which the broad spectrum of rural interests — which include farmers and their families — can apply for assistance towards projects. We see that coming from the community or sectoral perspective, or from a business perspective, which would include agri-business and farm business activity. 14. The first phase of rural development in the 1990s concentrated largely on rural community organisations in disadvantaged areas. While assistance for community groups and towards addressing disadvantaged areas will remain a key focus, the programme will be expanded to take on a broad raft of potential activities. They can be placed under five headings. The first is strengthening rural communities — continuing with that work of strengthening communities through the provision of advice and assistance to help them build the knowledge and skills to engage in economic and environmental, social or cultural activities; local projects and programmes. 15. The second is local projects and programmes, which can be on a non-profit basis — that means that any profits would be ploughed back into the communities — or a for-profit basis, in this round. They can include community groups and collective or co-operative activity. 16. The third heading is sectoral or area-based projects or programmes. Support can be provided for programmes or projects designed to tackle needs or opportunities — perhaps on a tourism front, or for rural women, or something like that — which can best be tackled on a regional or area-based approach, as opposed to a series of small local projects. 17. The fourth category is small, very small, micro- business, where there are identified needs and opportunities. We had the opportunity to discuss the LEADER+ programme last year, and that tests new approaches to maximising economic potential for small businesses in rural areas, which can include farm businesses and on- farm activity. 18. The fifth element is natural resource rural tourism, which is a special programme to help those rural areas with particular tourism potential to take advantage of the opportunities for tourism to be presented in the context of greater political stability. This will become increasingly important as we endeavour to work our way through, and out of, the foot-and-mouth-disease situation. 19. The finance is through a combination of the European programmes, the structural funds, the Peace II programme, LEADER+ and INTERREG. Overall, the intended expenditure is around £75 million, which would take us through to about 2007. It should lever out another £25 to £50 million in spend in those areas, bringing a programme of around £100 million. 20. The Minister, through this programme and following some extensive consultation, is endeavouring to provide flexible hooks that can catch a broad range of need and opportunity. For example, from a farming perspective, the work would be complementary to the mainstream agricultural support and the agricultural rural development accompanying measures, which are under the RDP — the organic farming, marketing processing and less- favoured areas support, and to the farm family support measures which will be proposed under the Peace II programme. 21. Much work remains to be done on detail, but what we have been proposing has been well received so far in the European Commission and elsewhere. The key to success will be a series of good project proposals coming from across rural communities, individuals and representative organisations. What this is providing is the framework that can help to bring forward a very broad range of work. There have unfortunately been substantial delays in the formal negotiations with the European Commission, but we expect to get under way formally in the autumn of this year. Thank you Chairman. That is all I wish to say at the outset. 22. The Chairperson: What has been the framework for consultation on the RDP? Have you had consultations separate and distinct from the series of evaluations that have taken place around the previous 1994 and 1999 programmes? 23. Mr McWhinney: Yes. We have had some quite intense separate consultation exercises. 24. The Chairperson: Who were they with? 25. Mr McWhinney: We started in October 1997 with all the players who had been involved in the first round. They included the agri-food and LEADER network representatives, the Rural Development Council (RDP), and the Rural Community Network (RCN). We had a series of workshops in the rural colleges that were facilitated by Graham Cash who was a senior partner in PricewaterhouseCoopers and Lybrand. The output of that was a discussion paper in 1999 called "The Rural Development Programme" which went out very widely to farmers’ groups, district councils, LEADER groups, community groups, the women’s sector and so on. There were a series of responses. Overall, we have had over 100 written responses and submissions on the various aspects of the RDP. 26. From February 1999 there were Common Agricultural Policy conferences promoted by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). I presented the rural development side of that at those conferences. One was at the Stakis Hotel and two were held at the agricultural colleges. 27. We then produced other consultation papers in April 1999. These were called the "Blue" books and the "Pink" books, for anybody who remembers seeing them. They were in a series of different colours. At that same time, the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) started to get into the formal engagement of the round of consultations towards the next round of structural funds. We worked in parallel with that. There was a series of other consultations and documents. 28. The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee was involved in the LEADER+ consultation that came on stream in March 2000, and we had 44 submissions from the public on that, which were taken in to account, and the document was worked up. That document has been well received in Brussels, and I am glad to say we just had a report last week that it is being held up as an exemplar to other regions as to how a document should be shaped up. There has been a series of consultations, written and conference-based. 29. The Chairperson: Beyond 1999? 30. Mr McWhinney: Beyond 1999 and right up to date. This is a part of it, and that it is pulled together in in this document. 31. The Chairperson: In attempting to target those most disadvantaged in rural areas, how far has the RDP taken recognition of the policies outlined for less- favoured areas in the Rural Development Plan of 2000-06? 32. Mr McWhinney: The focus of our work has been almost entirely in disadvantaged areas in the first round. Our disadvantaged areas, which were south Down, the Sperrins, the back end of the Glens, peripheral Fermanagh, south Armagh, were essentially many of the areas which co-ordinated exactly with the less-favoured areas. 33. In the next round we will continue to focus on disadvantage, but not exclusively. We have not yet made a proposal about the percentage of input into disadvantage, but it will be somewhere around 65% to 70%. The focus will be on disadvantage, but also recognising that work has to take place outside those areas, in some instances, to maximise the impact inside the disadvantaged area. It is a broader approach retaining the focus, and the focus very much flows from the less favoured areas’ definition of disadvantage — geographically and otherwise. 34. The Chairperson: Will the largest percentage definitely be focussed on less favoured areas? 35. Mr McWhinney: It will be. 36. The Chairperson: Your up to date reference to the impact of the foot-and-mouth-disease crisis in Britain is welcome. If our position deteriorates, God forbid, does the RDP have flexibility to respond to targeting those most affected? There is a crisis in the fishing industry, which is nothing to do with you and for which you are probably thankful. In a programme like this, in an emergency, is there anything in the RDP that allows you to switch to emergency measures? 37. Mr McWhinney: One does not want to go too far, but a key factor in this programme is its flexibility. It is an attempt to create a series of hooks on which proposals can be hung. For example, if there had to be rebuilding because of a deteriorating situation, which resulted in a need to promote tourism further, this programme could pick up sectoral proposals in that regard with a particular focus. It is very flexible and will be open for bids, which will reflect the demand at the time. 38. Mr McHugh: This is a huge subject and we would need a lot more time to go through it properly. My questions are to do with the implementation of the strategy. You will be aware of the difficulties I have had from my own area regarding area based strategy area groups (ABSAG) and how projects and funding will pan out in the next round. A lot of people were dissatisfied with the way it went in the last round and they fear the same will happen again. Are the same people in control of those funds and deciding who gets what projects? LEADER II was quite good regarding farming the last time round. One of my difficulties is appointments to the overseeing bodies, with questions against some of the people these groups represent. They are not elected, and are placed on those bodies. I often wonder who actually appoints them. In some instances they would certainly not represent the interests of farmers. 39. You say that the focus will be on disadvantaged areas. A number of people, in all those areas, would be against deciding where was disadvantaged using that as a criteria under the Robson Index. Some people were against Erne-east ABSAG getting funding in the first place, to the detriment of other areas. It has now been broadened out to almost a county basis, and worked through councils. Is there a possibility that farmers may be left out in the cold regarding funding, or that there could be overlap with projects that should be funded by central government? 40. Mr McWhinney: The flexibility that I referred to will help to address what you are suggesting. It is intended that any area-based work will be in accord with the developing partnerships at council level. Those are the new regional district partnerships that are being worked up with a particular focus on Priority 3 of the Peace II programme. That is one aspect that will form the framework. 41. There will be a process bid for LEADER+ groups. It will be up to consortia at local level to bid for LEADER+. There is no formal diktat for the exact representation of the LEADER group, but the bid will have to show the representative nature and how it will respond to local need. 42. Both the RDP and the LEADER programme will offer opportunities for farmers and farming input. LEADER will offer, to the individual support for some aspects of individual farm business. Where a collective or co-operative group comes forward with a proposal in an area, the RDP will allow, for the first time, an opportunity to look at those proposals. Those things were not permissible previously in the last round. This recognises both the need and our wish to get farmers more engaged. 43. All proposals will have to be scored against criteria that will be laid down and will come in a bidding process. There will also be selection panels. That will all have to be set up in the systems and procedures, which are not yet established, because the formal programme complements that shape that are still being considered with the European Commission. Have I covered all the main elements? 44. Mr McHugh: The appointments not just to LEADER but to the various deciders of where projects go was another area. I was thinking of LEADER because I know who was on that. 45. Mr McWhinney: When we were starting out the last time there was no formal selection panel or bidding procedure and systems were still being formulated. It was perhaps a little looser then than it is now that it has been mainstreamed. Each element of our programme will be subjected to formal selection. There will be formal procedures and appeal procedures will be in place. 46. Mr Molloy: There are a lot of proposals on diversification, within farming, to micro-business on farm businesses. Can there be any cross-departmental liaison to ensure that the Planning Service will actually recognise that? Is there a process in operation that will ensure that planning permission is given for diversification? 47. The project appraisal was a fairly big bone of contention the last time. What changes are envisaged with that? One of the criticisms that I found locally was that too much money went to consultants and various different bodies that came up with appraisals, yet the evaluation of those showed there was no means of actually doing that. 48. Finally, one of the problems that we found last time with the basic services was that every time an application was made for basic services — electricity, child provision or whatever — it was turned down because it was irrelevant or because another department or statutory agency was responsible. 49. Mr McWhinney: The planning issue is always very difficult for me because it is outside my particular jurisdiction. However, we have, through the RDP, worked as far as possible with planning, colleagues and through liaison groups on the ground to ensure as smooth a path as possible for project delivery with planners. What we cannot do is assume a role that carries planning authority responsibility. 50. We can endeavour to influence and we share our policy and our proposals. I am glad to see that the regional strategy, which is being promoted by that Department, takes account at this stage of the need for local planning strategies that recognise that a balance is required between economic and social delivery in those areas. There will be recognition of that as we proceed. However, I am not in a position to go any further than that. 51. The Public Accounts Committee criticised us over project appraisal. The projects looked at were the pre-1995-96 projects and the major projects — 15 out of some 3,000 overall that we have underway. Since late 1995-96 all projects have been subject to an economic appraisal and business plan before they can get underway. That will be part of the next round. The scale of the appraisal will relate to the scale of the project. 52. I note with interest the point you made about consultants. It is our intention that we, as the funding body, engage the consultants under our terms of reference, as opposed to the community group or others doing so. We endeavour to have particularly tight terms of reference and make sure that they are formally addressed. That is all I can say on that subject, but I recognise the point that you made. 53. You mentioned childcare as an example of local services. I spelt out a flexible programme, which indicates that we will be able to pick up on such an approach where the case is made — either locally or by a sectoral organisation — for a project that will bring, enhance and increase those services in rural areas, and which scores within the selection panel. Therefore, the ability to do that will be there. 54. We have a broad range of activities and some very good pilot childcare schemes in Fermanagh. I recently co-chaired a conference at the Slieve Russell Hotel, attended by over 300 ladies. A pilot childcare scheme with three projects on each side of the border was doing some good work. People from the Northern side expressed intent to bring a proposal to us, which we await. That is an illustration of what may come forward. 55. The Chairperson: I have been asked to raise a matter that overlaps with another Committee — Mr Cobain’s Committee for Social Development. He is adamant that he is going to guard his bailiwick, and our Committee is just as adamant about defending ours. There are certain things that we must look at under law. I would like to ask you three simple questions from Mr Cobain. 56. Mr McWhinney: Who is asking the questions? 57. The Chairperson: The Committee for Social Development. The Committee had a long debate and decided that it had to be careful not to tread on our toes. However, it would like to tread on them a little. Have you consulted with that Committee and with that Department? The Committee for Social Development tells me that it runs certain programmes under the umbrella of rural development. It wants to know if that will be impinged upon. Those are not my questions — I have my own view. 58. That Committee says that rural housing is strictly in rural development strategy under its Department. Do you agree with that? Would we not be allowed to look at housing at all? I would find it amazing if we were going to do something and could not have a look at housing. That would be difficult for us. However, Mr Cobain asks if there are strict lines of demarcation in your new programmes, which will enable us to say that some matters relate to our Committee and others relate to another Committee? 59. Mr McWhinney, I do not wish to hurry you but please be brief. |