Report on Executive Programme Funds: Second Tranche Allocations
SESSION 2001/2002 SECOND REPORT
Ordered by The Committee for Finance Personnel to be printed 16 October 2001
Report: 02/01 R to the Northern Ireland Assembly from the Committee for Finance & Personnel
REPORT ON THE OUTCOME OF CONSIDERATION BY THE STATUTORY DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL: MEMBERSHIP AND POWERS
Powers
The Committee for Finance and Personnel is a Statutory Departmental Committee established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement and under Standing Order No. 45 of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Committee has a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Department of Finance and Personnel and has a role in the initiation of legislation.
The Committee has the power to:
- consider and advise on departmental budgets and annual plans in the context of the overall budget allocation;
- approve relevant secondary legislation and take the Committee Stage of relevant primary legislation;
- call for persons and papers;
- initiate inquiries and make reports;
- consider and advise on matters brought to the Committee by the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
MembershIp
The Committee was established on 29 November 1999 with eleven members, including a Chairman and Deputy Chairman and a quorum of five members.
The membership of the Committee is as follows:
- Mr Francie Molloy (Chairman)
- Mr James Leslie (Deputy Chairman)
- Mr Alex Attwood
- Mr Billy Bell
- Mr Seamus Close
- Mr Nigel Dodds MP (appointed in replacement of Mr Oliver Gibson on 2 October 2000)
- Mr Derek Hussey
- Mr Alex Maskey
- Ms Patricia Lewsley (appointed in replacement of Mr Donovan McClelland on 15 January 2001)
- Mr Peter Robinson MP (appointed in replacement of Mr Gardiner Kane on 2 October 2000)
- Mr Peter Weir
Table of Contents
Report
Executive Summary
Introduction
Deliberation of Committee on Department of Finance bids
Deliberations of Committee on the bidding process
Deliberations of Committee on departmental bids
Appendices
APPENDIX 1 Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee relating to the Report
APPENDIX 2 Commissioning letter and guidance to departments
APPENDIX 3 List of Tranche 2 bids
APPENDIX 4 Submissions from Statutory Committees
APPENDIX 5 Minutes of Evidence
Executive Summary
committee for finance and personnel recommendations
The Committee for Finance and Personnel to examine Executive Programme Funds as part of its scrutiny of the Draft Budget. The Committee, when considering the funds also examined the process of generating bids looking specifically at the Tranche 2 bidding round, which is currently underway. The Committee scrutinized the DFP bids to EPFs that had been made as part of the Tranche 2 round. The Committee agreed to provide and collate responses from other Statutory Committees and the Committee of the Centre to DFP as part of this exercise. In examining the criteria for the funds, the types of bids received, the process employed and the overall quality of the material, the Committee agreed to make a number of recommendations to the Minister for his consideration:-
1. The Committee resolved to support the DFP bids. It was particularly supportive of the Neighbourhood Statistics project bid being cognisant of its cross-cutting nature and the benefits it should deliver, by way of information, to all NI Departments on social deprivation.
2. Clear and well publicised information on the bidding rounds and process is made available to Statutory Committees in parallel or in advance of the formal commissioning letter to the Departments. Committees must be informed of any changes in scheduling due to extraneous pressures or agreed latitude with Departments to allow them to reprofile their work schedule;
3. The role of Statutory Committees is fundamental to the evaluation of departmental bids and potential inquiries into future outputs and outcomes. The Commissioning letter should be specific about the responsibility of departments to provide committees with sufficient time to have a meaningful consultation period on their proposed bids and to allow the committees to make recommendations on changes to proposed bids or suggest additional/replacement bids;
4. The process is wasteful and encourages significant over-bidding against a finite budget. It should be more effectively managed and streamlined to encourage greater co-operation between departments on joint bids;
5. The requirement of committees to make formal comment, to whom and by what date needs to be made clear to all parties involved;
6. Timetables need to be negotiated with Departments involved and with the Statutory Committees to ensure that they are transparent, achievable and all parties are focussed and committed to them. Departments are not, currently, meeting the timetables as laid down and are therefore generating delays at the next stage in the process;
7. Bids submitted without the necessary supporting documentation and economic appraisal should be deferred for possible resubmission at a latter bidding round;
8. Information on the evaluation process and the weight given to each criterion should be made available to departments and Statutory Committees to both encourage stronger bids and to facilitate committees evaluation of bids;
9. Bids that clearly relate to core departmental functions and which may be unsustainable beyond the EPF period should be treated with some caution and subject to rigorous scrutiny against the fund criteria; and
10. The frequency of bidding rounds for tranches of Executive Programme Funds should be reduced. Where possible, the process of commissioning and generating bids from the departments should be scheduled to avoid monitoring rounds or budget round bidding periods to help minimize pressures.
11. The Committee considered that, due to the areas of concern with regard to the volume of bids and the variable quality and level of detail included with the bids that the Department or/and EPU should carry out a review of the process of bidding for Executive Programme Funds. The review should look at the following areas:
- The process of requesting bids;
- A methodology for identifying the correct "type" of bid and the appropriate volume of bids generated from the departments;
- Ways of improving the overall quality of the bids generated to allow them to be much more informative and, have contained within them, clear justification for the initiative and clear aims while at the same time being mindful of the need for efficiency in bid preparation;
- Methods of ensuring that proper, coherent and co-ordinated cross-departmental bids are submitted for appropriate "cross-cutting" projects to ensure that their opportunity for success in receiving funding is maximised in future;
12. Advice should be provided for departments on initiative sustainability;
13. Advice to departments on evaluation and monitoring of projects that receive funding through EPFs;
14. Advice to departments and committees on the weight attached to the bid and fund criteria;
15. The Committee was of the opinion that the bureaucracy of the process should be rationalised as far as possible. The Committee considered that permitting the departments to generate as many bids as they thought appropriate, more or less in isolation of activities in other departments, created a cumbersome inefficient system. The Committee therefore recommends that the number of bids should be limited.
16. Departments should be encouraged to submit cross-cutting bids and direction and assistance should be provided centrally on the need for departments to co-ordinate action to establish benchmarks and best practice. Departments, through this process could be guided away from multiple bidding for one project or bid repetition where the policy initiative is out-with the Programme for Government.
Report
REPORT 02/01
(COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL)
report on the outcome of consideration by the statutory committees on the second tranche of allocations from executive programme funds
INTRODUCTION
1. Background
1.1 On the 29 March 2001 the Executive Committee agreed the first allocations from the Executive Programme Funds (EPF). The Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mark Durkan subsequently announced these to the Assembly on 2 April 2001.
1.2 On the 19 July 2001 a joint commissioning letter was issued to departmental Principal Finance Officers by Central Finance Group in the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister seeking bids from Departments for second tranche allocations from 3 of the Funds. These were the New Directions, Service Modernisation and Social Inclusion/Community Regeneration Funds. The deadline for the submission of bids was 24 September 2001.
1.3 Departments were asked to "share" their EPF bids with Statutory Committees and to request a response from the Committees by 5 October 2001 after which, the Minister of Finance and Personnel would present a composite return, covering all the bids received, to the Committee for Finance and Personnel for consideration. This process was designed to ensure that there would be appropriate consultation on the EPF allocations before they were finalised and reflected in Estimates and that Statutory Committees would be consulted simultaneously by Departments.
1.4 In practice the outcome did not meet the expectations set out in the commissioning letter and the planned consultation between Departments and Statutory Committees did not, in most cases, take place. The Statutory Committees were, with one exception, not informed of the deadline for Committee responses and many Committees only received information on departmental bids some time after the 24 September deadline for EPF bid submissions. In an effort to correct the serious failings in the consultation process the Committee for Finance and Personnel sought and gained an extension to the 5 October deadline and agreed, exceptionally on this occasion, to co-ordinate the views of the Statutory Committees on departmental bids and the bidding process.
2. Report context
2.1 This Report contains the responses received by the Committee for Finance and Personnel from the Statutory Committees at Appendix 4. The Report is subdivided into three sections. The first section deals with the Committee for Finance and Personnel's deliberations on the 2 EPF bids submitted by the Department of Finance and Personnel. A section follows on concerns raised by the Committee and other Statutory Committees on the consultation and bidding process. The Committee for Finance and Personnel's observations drawn from its examination of a number of bids submitted by Departments are reflected in the final section, which also summarises the views expressed by Statutory Committees on departmental bids. The Report includes a number of recommendations summarised in Appendix 5. These are aimed in the first instance, at ensuring that future consultation between Departments and the Statutory Committees demonstrate none of the failings experienced in the first and second tranche allocation processes. Other recommendations are directed to the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. These relate to the EPF criteria and methodology and are aimed at ensuring that the bidding process is effective, streamlined, focussed on the objectives set out by the Executive for each Fund, and rigorously evaluated and monitored.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PERSONNEL EPF BIDS
3. Department of Finance and Personnel bids
3.1 The Committee questioned officials on the two bids submitted by the Department against the Social Inclusion/Community Regeneration Fund.
3.2 Departmental officials explained the background and purpose of the 2 bids. The cross-cutting nature of the bids was highlighted and anticipated costs were set against expected outcomes. The bids were analysed against the general and specific criteria for the Social Inclusion Fund with particular reference being made to their relationship to the Programme for Government and the potential positive impact on New TSN and equality issues under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
4. Neighbourhood statistics
4.1 This bid had been refined and improved since it was first submitted unsuccessfully for consideration in the first tranche of allocations. The bid was small in relative terms (£0.79m over 4 years). A full set of documentation and an economic appraisal had been submitted in support of the bid. The expected outcome was a free Internet accessed database of neighbourhood statistics with a mapping facility.
4.2 A successful pilot project was ongoing and the proposed development would provide a source of key disaggregated statistical information for all departments to support the targeting of activities and resources. The service would involve the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) branches in every department.
4.3 The project would not create an obligation to collect more data but would meet the fund's value for money criterion by making better use of existing information. Comparable provision had been developed for England and Wales at greater cost. The wide provision of statistical data in blocks of 150 households would ensure that small areas of deprivation, which tend to be masked in the Nobel Indices of deprivation collected at Ward level, would be highlighted. This would provide an accurate baseline for targeted policies and aid assessments of service delivery across communities. Neighbourhood statistics would also help the public sector target and evaluate New TSN and Section 75 obligations geographically and effectively.
4.4 The project recognised the growing need for small area statistics. The project was interdepartmental in both conception and execution and the pilot project has been funded jointly by Departments for 2 years.
4.5 The Committee questioned officials on the potential for duplicating existing research and on the degree of accessibility to the information by public representatives and the community. The relationship between the project and the Nobel Indices was explored and explained in terms of their relative conceptual approaches and costs.
4.6 The Committee considered the cross-cutting nature of the project and noted that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (HSSPS) made a similar bid in its proposed Longitudinal Study. The differences between the two projects were explained by officials who accepted that the projects were complementary in nature and given the key input by NISRA to the HSSPS bid that both bids could have been submitted by the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP).
5. Statistical Compendia
5.1 This project aims to develop knowledge and understanding of socio-economic circumstances of Section 75 groups. The project would also help to evaluate the origins and extent of inequality and provide objective measures of the success of government policy to reduce inequality and promote social inclusion.
5.2 This bid is also cross-cutting in conception and funding, will avoid duplicating research and will provide efficiency savings and a more holistic and comprehensive understanding of the socio-economic circumstances of Section 75 groups. The project will facilitate enhanced equality impact assessments against which to target New TSN.
6. Conclusion
6.1 The Committee was satisfied that the 2 DFP bids were comprehensive, well documented and supported, cross- cutting in nature and in accordance with both the specific and the general Social Inclusion Fund bid criteria.
6.2 The Committee was particularly supportive of the Neighbourhood Statistics project bid. It considered that the statistical information that could potentially be exposed through the development of the project would be welcomed and useful to all NI Departments and beyond. The information should identify areas of deprivation in a more sophisticated and flexible way than the Noble Index but would also be compatible and complementary with it. The Committee believes that the cross-Departmental advantages are particularly attractive and fit very well with the spirit of the Executive Programme Funds.
7. Recommendation
7.1 The Committee resolved to support the DFP bids.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF THE BIDDING PROCESS
8. Commissioning process
8.1 The Committee considered the bidding process for Executive Programme Funds. It sought the views of DFP officials who had responsibility for managing the process and assessing the bids from Departments, in conjunction with the Economic Policy Unit (EPU) of OFM/DFM.
8.2 DFP officials stated that for the Tranche 2 bidding round, a Commissioning letter had been issued jointly by DFP and EPU to the Principal Finance Officers within each of the 11 Departments on 19 July 2001. The letter had, as an attachment "Guidance for Bidding". The two documents identified the parameters within which bids for EPF Tranche 2 would be accepted against 3 of the 5 funds. The amounts for allocation were finite and were outlined within the funds and years. The letter informed Departments that the deadline for bids was 24 September 2001 and that they should "share" with their departmental statutory committee their bids "as soon as possible after they had been finalised for presentation to DFP/EPU". The letter also included at Appendix B, a timetable identifying key dates in the process i.e. 24 September 2001 for submission of bids to DFP and committees and 5 October 2001 for comment by Committees to be made. DFP officials have informed the Committee that 89 bids were submitted by departments (excluding 5, which were withdrawn after submission) and only 15 bids (16.9%) were submitted on time.
9. Documentation
9.1 Departmental officials reported that DFP did not receive all the bids within the deadline of 24 September 2001 from the majority of departments, indeed bids were still being submitted up to 2 weeks later. The departments had in many cases failed to provide details of the bids to their respective statutory committee prior to the deadline, which would have facilitated meaningful consideration and advice by the Committee. Some departments provided the information simultaneously to their Committee and DFP/EPU or to DFP/EPU first and afterwards to the Committee. With only one exception Statutory Committees do not appear to have been clearly informed of the requirement for formal consultation, nor were they informed of the 5 October 2001 deadline for responses.
10. Conclusions
10.1 The Committee considers from the evidence it has received from other committees and from DFP officials that the process appears to have failed on a number of fronts.
10.2 The commissioning letter was ambiguous in its advice to the Principal Finance Officers in respect of consulting the committees. Committees need to be consulted at a point in the process when they can make a meaningful contribution to the departmental bids and influence the type and number of bids being proposed. The relevant time for consultation should, therefore, have been prior to the bids being submitted to DFP/EPU.
10.3 The committees were not made aware of the commissioning letter, the timetable for bids nor the requirement for them to comment by 5 October 2001. They were therefore, in all but one case, unsighted when they received the information from the departments as to the need for their urgent consideration of the material and the expectation that they should comment formally.
10.4 The committees were not informed on the route that their comments should follow i.e. was it back to their own Department, to DFP, to the Committee for Finance and Personnel or to all of these?
10.5 The majority of departments appear to have disregarded the deadline for submission of bids to DFP therefore applying more pressure to an already compressed schedule where the Executive Committee are due to consider a "Take Note" paper on the bids at a meeting on 18 October 2001; and
10.6 A co-ordinated and composite return, covering all the bids received, was not presented to the Committee for Finance and Personnel by the Minister as required in paragraph 16 of the commissioning letter of 19 July 2001 (Appendix 2).
11. Recommendations
11.1 In order to ensure that the same weaknesses in the process do not manifest themselves in future bidding rounds, the Committee recommends that:
11.1.1 Clear and well publicised information on the bidding rounds and process is made available to Statutory Committees in parallel or in advance of the formal commissioning letter to the Departments. Committees must be informed of any changes in scheduling due to extraneous pressures or agreed latitude with Departments to allow them to reprofile their work schedule;
11.1.2 The role of Statutory Committees is fundamental to the evaluation of departmental bids and potential inquiries into future outputs and outcomes. The Commissioning letter should be specific about the responsibility of departments to provide committees with sufficient time to have a meaningful consultation period on their proposed bids and to allow the committees to make recommendations on changes to proposed bids or suggest additional/replacement bids;
11.1.3 The process is wasteful and encourages significant over-bidding against a finite budget. It should be more effectively managed and streamlined to encourage greater co-operation between departments on joint bids;
11.1.4 The requirement of committees to make formal comment, to whom and by what date needs to be made clear to all parties involved;
11.1.5 Timetables need to be negotiated with Departments involved and with the Statutory Committees to ensure that they are transparent, achievable and all parties are focussed and committed to them. Departments are currently not meeting the timetables as laid down and are therefore generating delays at the next steps in the process.
11.1.6 Bids submitted without the necessary supporting documentation and economic appraisal should be rejected for possible resubmission at a latter bidding round;
11.1.7 Information on the evaluation process and the weight given to each criterion should be made available to departments and Statutory Committees to both encourage stronger bids and to facilitate committees evaluation of bids;
11.1.8 Bids that clearly relate to core departmental functions and which may be unsustainable beyond the EPF period should be treated with some caution and subject to rigorous scrutiny against the fund criteria; and
11.1.9 The frequency of bidding rounds for tranches of Executive Programme Funds should be reduced. Where possible, the process of commissioning and generating bids from the departments should be scheduled to avoid monitoring rounds or budget round bidding periods to help minimize pressures.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF DEPARTMENTAL BIDS
12. Sums for allocation
12.1 There are three funds from which further allocations could be made:-
- Service Modernisation;
- New Direction;
- Social Inclusion/Community Regeneration.
12.2 The table below outlines the sums available for allocation in total and disaggregated across the three years.
|
£m |
Sums available for allocation in October 2001 |
2001/02 |
2002/03 |
2003/04 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
New Directions |
22.1 |
2.1 |
10.0 |
10.0 |
|
Service Modernisation |
7.0 |
1.0 |
2.0 |
4.0 |
|
Social Inclusion |
8.8 |
3.8 |
2.0 |
3.0 |
|
Total |
37.9 |
6.9 |
14.0 |
17.0 |
12.3 Details of the bids were provided by DFP to the Committee. From the highest level information on bids, the Committee was immediately concerned about the large volume of bids and the wide variation in quantum funding terms, as to the requirements by some departments for new initiatives.
12.4 The Committee investigated the detail of a cross-section of bids made under the three funding definitions and mapped the details provided for each of the selected bids against the criteria both broad and specific, the quality of the supporting information required, and the New TSN/Equality aspects of the bids. It also considered the methodology used, the aims of the exercise against the apparent workings of it and the capacity for monitoring and evaluating the policies/initiatives/programmes that are being/will be funded under the Executive Programme Funds.
12.5 The Committee made a number of observations:-
13. Criteria considerations
13.1. The criteria, both general and specific, were clearly outlined to the departments in the initial bidding documentation to the extent that the pro-forma issued had the necessary sections inviting the departments to provide the required information if it was available.
13.2 The Committee was content that the sample bids it considered had been submitted with the necessary basic information. However, it had concerns with the wide variation in the depth of detail that was provided in association with some bids. The level of detail appeared to bear no correlation to the quantum size of the bids. The departments had been informed that the projects for which they were bidding needed to follow "Green Book" standards commensurate with the scale of the proposals. There is evidence that this standard has not always been applied.
13.3 When considering the high volume of bids and the variation in detail provided, the Committee had concerns about the resource and quality implication of developing bids for 2 tranches each year. The Committee was also concerned that there appeared to be disparate levels of activity being expended on the bids at an early stage in the process from a wide cross-section of sources within Departments. In total the quantum of bids received would require an amount for allocation in excess of the amount that has been published and therefore the vast majority of activity would probably in the fullness of time prove nugatory.
14. Sustainability
14.1 The Committee noted when analysing the bids that a number of them were particularly "resource" focused as opposed to "capital" intensive. There were concerns that the resource element of the activity appeared to be an ongoing requirement and would not necessarily cease after the 3-year period of funding under EPFs. The Department clarified that any awards made under EPFs were for a ring-fenced 3-year period and there was no guarantee that the programme being funded would obtain continuity funding from the DEL or EPFs. Bids to allow the activity to continue would have to be made in the normal way. However, the Department also outlined that the policy surrounding EPFs was that the initiative might generate savings in its own discrete area or in a wider context and therefore the overall requirement should not increase in real terms.
15 Cross-cutting bids
15.1 The Committee had concerns about the apparent lack of cross-cutting bids made from a group of Departments for initiatives that would impact across a number of functions. They commented that from the bidding information there appeared to be no shortage of bids that were in fact cross-cutting across a number, or in some cases, all NI departments but that the presentation of them made this less than obvious. The Committee sought information on what additional weighting a bid received when it was obviously cross-cutting and had been presented as such. The Department stated that bids were considered against a score-card on the criteria that were applicable and that, as a standard rule, additional weighting was given to individual bids because they were cross-cutting. The departmental officials added that cross-cutting bids were very much encouraged from Departments.
15.2 The Minister had, in fact, said in his announcement on Tranche 1 allocations that he was disappointed in the numbers of cross-cutting bids that had been made at that time and stressed that he would be anticipating a higher volume for future rounds. The Committee informed DFP that it considered that cross-cutting bids should be treated more favourably than bids for activities that were beneficial to a single department and which therefore might be funded through the normal budget round.
16. Multiple bids for one programme of activity
16.1 The Committee commented that the bidding material identified multiple bids for one area of activity e.g. IT strategy confined to one department impacting upon numerous areas of business. There was concern that departments attempting to receive segments of funding for activity where it was doubtful about receiving funding for the holistic programme might use this approach.
16.2 The Committee was concerned that departments considered there was the latitude in the process to make multiple bids for one activity and that value for money (VFM) would not be maximised where there was a successful bid for one element of a programme in the absence of funding for the other elements.
17. Innovation
17.1 The Committee found evidence in the sample of bids considered of initiatives being included which had previously commenced and which were seeking additional funding streams to hasten the project time-scales for full implementation. The Committee considered that evaluation and resource monitoring could prove difficult where there was a blend of funding some of which was through EPFs.
18. Bid Repetition
18.1 There appeared to be examples, in the bids received, of applications for funding for projects, which had been applied for under Tranche 1 of the EPFs. DFP officials confirmed this but added that departments were actively encouraged to resubmit bids that had been unsuccessful in Tranche 1 with some further sophistication of the material. There was a recognition that some innovative but eventually unsuccessful bids had been included in Tranche 1 that were not discounted on a priority basis but on the need for further information to be provided.
19. Bureaucratic Process
19.1 The Committee was concerned about the general ethos of the EPFs and the associated bidding process. It was aware and accepted that the introduction of the funds had been as a result of an Executive decision but was concerned that the management of them had followed the normal bidding process route albeit segregated from annual and in-year budget consideration. The result, the Committee perceived, was a very bureaucratic process to allocate relative small amounts of funds.
20. Invest To Save
20.1 The Committee where interested in the potential for departments to utilise the funds to borrow from in the short to medium term with a view to repaying in to the Public Expenditure system in the longer term. As an example the Committee noted the potential for buying or leasing office space in less expensive locations to relocate staff and eventually free up more expensive office space. DFP confirmed that it was actively considering and encouraging this type of bid.
21. Evaluation and Monitoring
21.1 The Committee wanted assurances that the process was being effectively monitored and the initiatives to which funds were allocated through EPFs were evaluated for delivery and successful outcomes.
22. Social Inclusion
22.1 The Committee commented that there was a general lack of demonstrable contribution to the statutory obligations on Equality (NI) Act or Section 75 requirements in the documentation provided in many of the bids. The Members sought assurances that there would be challenging and improving standards expected of the bids for future rounds to ensure that the initiatives do have tangible benefits where possible in these areas.
23. Recommendations
23.1 The Committee made the following recommendation:
23.2 The Committee considered that, due to the areas of concern with regard to the volume of bids and the variable quality and level of detail included with the bids that the Department should carry out a review of the process of bidding for Executive Programme Funds. The review should look at the following areas:
23.2.1 The process of requesting bids;
23.2.2 A methodology for identifying the correct "type" of bid and the appropriate volume of bids generated from the departments;
23.2.3 Ways of improving the overall quality of the bids generated to allow them to be much more informative and, have contained within them, clear justification for the initiative and clear aims while at the same time being mindful of the need for efficiency in bid preparation;
23.2.4 Methods of ensuring that proper, coherent and co-ordinated cross-departmental bids are submitted for appropriate "cross-cutting" projects to ensure that their opportunity for success in receiving funding is maximised in future;
23.2.5 Advice should be provided for departments on initiative sustainability;
23.2.6 Advice to departments on evaluation and monitoring of projects that receive funding through EPFs;
23.2.7 Advice to departments and committees on the weight attached to the bid and fund criteria;
23.2.8 The Committee was of the opinion that the bureaucracy of the process should be rationalised as far as possible. The Committee considered that permitting the departments to generate as many bids as they thought appropriate, more or less in isolation of activities in other departments, created a cumbersome inefficient system. The Committee therefore recommends that the number of bids should be limited.
23.2.9 Departments should be encouraged to submit cross-cutting bids and direction and assistance should be provided centrally on the need for departments to co-ordinate action to establish benchmarks and best practice. Departments, through this process could be guided away from multiple bidding for one project or bid repetition where the policy initiative is out-with the Programme for Government.
SUMMARY OF OTHER DEPARTMENTAL STATUTORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION on departmental bids
24. Committee responses
24.1 Departmental Statutory Committees submitted comments on the consultation process, which have been taken into account in the Report's section on the bidding process. A summary of committee comments on departmental bids is set out below. The responses from Statutory Committees are set out in full in Appendix 4.
25. Committee for Culture Arts and Leisure
25.1 The Committee for Culture Arts and Leisure was content to support the bid from DCAL for a "CultureNorthernIreland website".
25.2 The Committee expressed concern about the bidding process and made its view clear that departments must consult committees before bids are submitted. The Committee also expressed reservations about the apparent limited degree of sharing between departments on cross-cutting issues and argued the need for strong central guidance.
26. Committee for the Environment
26.1 The Committee for the Environment welcomed the bids put forward by the Department particularly the three made under the Service Modernisation Fund in respect of the Planning Service. It also strongly endorsed the bid under the New Directions Fund to resource the Northern Ireland Coastal Forum. The Committee urged the Department to submit a late bid for strategic development of Sustainable Development.
27. Committee for Social Development
27.1 The Committee for Social Development supported the bids submitted by the Department. The Committee recorded that if it had been given time to have "real and meaningful consultation" it would have pressed the Department to have made additional bids for funds to help combat the growing problems of Homelessness and to help tackle Fuel Poverty more urgently.
27.2 The Committee considered that the failure of the Department to consult with it before submitting bids was unacceptable and has drawn to the Minister of Social Development attention a reply to a written question in which OFM/DFM gave a clear committment to improve arrangements for consulting with Committees "at an early stage". The Committee requested that the Committee for Finance and Personnel should raise this issue with the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
28. Committee for Education
28.1 The Committee for Education was generally in support of all the bids made by the Department but recognised that because of the finite resources for allocation there was merit in it prioritising the bids.
28.2 Under the Social Inclusion/Community Regeneration Fund the Committee prioritised "Making a Good Start (Primary 2); Youth Service - Outreach Workers for Upper Shankill/West Belfast and North and East Belfast. Under the Service Modernisation Fund the priority was the Special Education IT Project and under the New Directions Fund the priorities are Support for Children with Severe Learning/Physical Difficulties; Schools Tackling Disaffection - Early Intervention Programme and Youth Service - Support for Disaffected Pupils.
28.3 The Committee expresses its concern about the limited time provided for consultation and Committee scrutiny of the bids.
29. Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development
29.1 The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development was supportive of the three bids under the New Directions Fund. It did not support the two bids under Service Modernisation Funds because of lack of information and lack of evidence of potential savings in delivering public services. It also noted that there was not a clear link to the Programme for Government priorities or actions in either of the bids. The Committee suggested that the Department should have developed a bid to assist in the funding of the action plan which will be agreed from the Vision Group Document. The Committee considered that a "marker" should have been placed for funds at this early stage.
30. Committee for Employment and Learning
30.1 The Committee for Employment and Learning are supportive of the 7 bids made by the Department. The Committee agreed the top 3 priority bids and identified these in the letter included in Appendix 4.
30.2 The Committee was concerned that a number of previously failed bids, identified in the Committee's letter, had not been pursued.
30.3 The Committee raised concerns about the need for greater definition and clearer criteria between EPF bids and departmental budget bids to avoid departments using the funds as a potential 'top-up' mechanism. The need for transparency and prior consultation with committees before bids were submitted was highlighted.
30.4 The Committee expressed concern about the potential implications of the Minister of Finance's statement of 25 September 2001 in relation to using the funds as 'security' against a shortfall elsewhere. The Committee suggested that this approach might undervalue the concept of EPFs.
31. Committee for Regional Development
31.1 The Committee for Regional Development strongly supports the Department's bids. The Committee recommends that within the Social Inclusion Fund that additional funding should be earmarked for rural transport. Within the Service Modernisation Fund the Committee welcomes the bid for additional funding to provide a modern rail passenger information system and supports the need for additional funding to modernise and upgrade facilities at train stations. The Committee also strongly supports the Departments bid within the New Directions Fund for buses and Quality Bus Corridors.
31.2 The Committee welcomed the acting First Minister's comment to the Assembly on 24 September 2001 that an additional £40 million would be made available for the A8 road to Larne, the Newry to Dundalk road and the Westlink.
32. Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety
32.1 The Committee expressed strong concern to the Department for Health, Social Services and Public Safety about the way the bidding process had been handled.
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
SIXTY SEVENTH MEETING
TUESDAY, 2 OCTOBER, 2001
COMMITTEE ROOM 144, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Present: Mr Francie Molloy (Chairman)
Mr Alex Attwood
Mr Billy Bell
Mr Seamus Close
Mr Nigel Dodds MP
Mr Derek Hussey
Ms Patricia Lewsley
Mr Peter Weir
In attendance: Mr Alan Patterson (Principal Clerk)
Mr Peter Hughes (Clerk)
Ms Sheila Mc Clelland (Clerk)
Mr Joe Sloan (Assistant Clerk)
Ms Sharon Bowman (Executive Support)
Mr Jonathan Briggs (Administrative Support)
The Chairman declared the meeting open at 2.36 pm. The meeting was held in open session.
Draft Budget/PfG Timetable
The Committee was briefed by the Principal Clerk about its scrutiny role of the Department of Finance and Personnel's budgets and about its role in co-ordinating a response to the Minister of Finance and Personnel from the Statutory Committee's on the proposals in the Draft Budget.
The Committee agreed that it would wish to specifically scrutinise Executive Programme Funds (EPF) as part of the Committee's examination of the Draft Budget and to reserve its decision on which other areas to examine.
Nigel Dodds attended the meeting at 3.00 pm. Mr Attwood left the meeting at 3.00 pm. and returned at 3.12 pm.
The Committee discussed the resources and time required to scrutinise Departmental budgets and bids from DFP and those required to carry out an overarching role to scrutinise bids from all the other Departments. The Committee also discussed the purpose and value of its co-ordinating role and the absence of any statutory power to act as an arbiter of other committee bids.
Resolved: The Committee agreed to examine Executive Programme Funds as part of its scrutiny of the Draft Budget. The Committee also agreed to produce a co-ordinated response to the Minister of Finance and Personnel on the Draft budget on behalf of the Statutory Committees.
FRANCIE MOLLOY
Chairman
[Extract]
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
SIXTY EIGHTH MEETING
TUESDAY, 9 OCTOBER, 2001
COMMITTEE ROOM 144, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Present: Mr Francie Molloy (Chairman)
Mr James Leslie (Deputy Chairman)
Mr Alex Attwood
Mr Seamus Close
Mr Derek Hussey
Ms Patricia Lewsley
Mr Alex Maskey
Mr Peter Weir
In attendance: Mr Alan Patterson (Principal Clerk)
Mr Peter Hughes (Clerk)
Ms Sheila Mc Clelland (Clerk)
Mr Joe Sloan (Assistant Clerk)
Ms Sharon Bowman (Executive Support)
Mr Jonathan Briggs (Administrative Support)
The Chairman declared the meeting open at 2.34 pm. The meeting was held in open session.
Executive Programme Funds
The Principal Clerk briefed the Committee on work undertaken by the Clerks and Research Services to examine Executive Programme Fund bids from all the Departments. The Principal Clerk also described the scrutiny role, which the Committee needed to undertake on Department of Finance and Personnel bids, the bidding and consultation process and on a selection of the remaining departmental bids in order to produce a Report on its considerations of the second tranche of Executive Programme Funds.
Mr Hussey attended the meeting at 2.44 pm
Department of Finance and Personnel officials, Mr Michael Daly, Mr Edgar Jardine, Dr Gerry Mulligan and Mr Robert Beatty briefed the Committee and answered questions on the two bids on EPF for funding for a Neighbourhood Statistics project and a Statistical Compendia project.
Mr Attwood attended the meeting at 2.49 pm.
Resolved: That the Committee was content with and supported the bids made by the Department under Executive Programme Funds.
Mr Attwood left the meeting at 3.12 pm.
Departmental officials Mr David Sterling and Mr Norman Taylor briefed the Committee on the commissioning process and timetable for bids appraisal and allocations of Executive Programme Funds. The officials also told the Committee about the multi-lateral teams set up to appraise the bids involving officials from DFP and the Economic Policy Unit (EPU).
The Committee expressed a number of general concerns and a particular concern on the lack of communication and guidance to Assembly Departmental Committees on their expected participation in the bidding process and that these would be reflected in its Report on the second tranche of Executive Programme Funds.
Mr Maskey attended the meeting at 3.25 pm.
The Departmental officials briefed the Committee and answered questions on the volume, amounts and details of the bids received from departments.
Mr Leslie left the meeting at 3.32 pm. and returned at 3.47 pm. Mr Close left the meeting at 3.47 pm.
FRANCIE MOLLOY
Chairman
[Extract]
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
(Unapproved)
SIXTY NINTH MEETING
TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER, 2001
COMMITTEE ROOM 144, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Present: Mr Francie Molloy (Chairman)
Mr James Leslie (Deputy Chairman)
Mr Billy Bell
Mr Seamus Close
Mr Nigel Dodds
Mr Derek Hussey
Ms Patricia Lewsley
Mr Peter Weir
In attendance: Mr Alan Patterson (Principal Clerk)
Mr Peter Hughes (Clerk)
Ms Sheila Mc Clelland (Clerk)
Mr Joe Sloan (Assistant Clerk)
Ms Sharon Bowman (Executive Support)
Mr Jonathan Briggs (Administrative Support)
The Chairman declared the meeting open at 2.34 pm. The meeting was held in open session.
Executive Programme Funds
The Principal Clerk presented a Draft Report to the Committee.
Mr Hussey attended the meeting at 2.41pm.
The Committee considered the Report and agreed a number of amendments.
Ms Lewsley left the meeting at 3.05 pm and returned at 3.10 pm.
The Committee agreed the Minutes of Evidence by the Department of Finance and Personnel..
Mr Bell attended the meeting at 3.24 pm. Mr Dodds left the meeting at 3.25 pm and returned at 3.36 pm.
Resolved: The Committee ordered the Draft Report to be printed subject to the amendments provided to the Principal Clerk.
The Committee agreed to issue advance copies to Statutory Departmental Chairpersons.
[Extract]
Appendix 2
COMMISSIONING LETTER AND GUIDANCE
TO DEPARTMENTS
Commissioning Letter
19 July 2001
1. At its meeting on 29 March, the Executive agreed the first allocations from the Executive Programme Funds. These were subsequently announced to the Assembly by Mark Durkan on behalf of the Executive on 2 April 2001.
2. This minute seeks bids from Departments for second tranche allocations from the New Directions, Service Modernisation and Social Inclusion/Community Regeneration Funds with a deadline for the submission of bids of 24 September 2001. Annex A shows the amounts already allocated from the Funds and the amounts available for allocation now, which in summary are:
|
£m |
Sums available |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
2003-04 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
NewDirections |
22.1 |
2.1 |
10.0 |
10.0 |
|
Service Modernisation |
7.0 |
1.0 |
2.0 |
4.0 |
|
Social Inclusion |
8.8 |
3.8 |
2.0 |
3.0 |
|
Total |
37.9 |
6.9 |
14.0 |
17.0 |
children's and infrastructure and capital renewal funds
3. From the outset, the Executive has agreed that the voluntary and community sectors should be able to bid for resources from the Children's Fund. Some Departments will know that there has been extensive consultation with all relevant Departments and a wide range of children's lobby groups on how the voluntary sector input to the Children's Fund should be handled. This consultation revealed a consensus that the community and voluntary sectors, would welcome a delay before any further allocations are made. In this light, DFP and EPU will be recommending that there should be no further allocations from the Children's Fund this year.
4. In the case of the Infrastructure and Capital Renewal Fund and Executive has previously agreed that as it is necessary to commit resources in good time to infrastructure projects, only a single and early allocation is feasible each year. There will therefore be no further allocations from this Fund this year.
bidding guidance
5. The attached papers provide formal guidance for the bidding process; also attached are pro formae for use in making bids. In approaching the task of making further bids departments should give careful regard to this guidance and also take account of the following points in light of experience gained from the first round of allocations.
6. The essential points for inclusion in bidding documentation should be:
(a) that there is a clearly highlighted reference to each of the general criteria that apply to all the funds and the specific criteria in relation to the particular fund for which the application is being made - even if this is to say there is no direct point to make on that particular criterion - in which case, of course, you would be arguing that the merit of the bid depends on its relevance to other of the key criteria;
(b) a clear statement of the amount of the bid for each of the relevant financial years, including identification of the relevant unit of business within your spending plans. All figure work must of course be on a resource budgeting basis setting out the amounts required for resources and capital within the existing resource budgeting DEL and the impact on capital charges and depreciation which currently score in Annually Managed Expenditure (AME).
contribution to programme for government
7. The bidding guidance requires that all bids show a clear and effective link to one or more of the priorities identified in the Programme for Government. Where appropriate the bidding submissions should also quantify the impact a successful bid would have on existing PSA targets or what new targets would flow from them. Monitoring arrangements for existing EPF allocations, as well as allocations from this round, will be put in place, and it is hoped to provide further information to Departments soon.
cross-cutting work
8. The Executive wishes to maximise the benefits from cross cutting work between Departments and others in relation to these Funds. Joint bids by two or more Departments are therefore particularly welcome. In some cases, there could be contributions from other Departments to an activity where one Department is clearly in the lead; in others, there may be two or more equal partners in a bid. In all cases of joint bids, the bidding documentation should be agreed between the participating Departments. Each Department's letter to DFP/EPU about its bids should make clear whether it is a participant in any joint bids and indicate whether the relevant documentation is included with that letter or with another Department's return (or both). The financial information would be needed in respect of the contribution from each Department.
9. As before, DFP and EPU propose to deal with these Funds through multilateral discussions focussed on the strategy for each Fund, as distinct from a traditional bilateral approach. This is designed to emphasise the cross- cutting nature of the Funds, and the need for Departments to draw on each other's ideas in developing bids.
10. In the last round of bidding the Executive noted a number of cross-cutting opportunities where further work was needed before a number of proposed projects should be developed for possible agreement in subsequent funding rounds. Such areas included:-
a. Action for access to facilities in rural areas - some themes emerged from the discussions on problems over rural transport etc that might possibly be served better by better co-operation and discussion between departments;
b. Marginalised youth: as well as in the context of the Children's Fund, there were several areas where key issues in relation to Marginalised youth emerged in the bids on the funds. They suggest that a number of such bids merit support but argue that there is clear scope for DHSSPS, DE, DHFETE, DCAL and DSD to work further on this, some of it within the context of developing our Children's strategy;
c. Building community infrastructure and promoting community safety.
ppp/pfi
11. Several departments previously put forward bids under the Service Modernisation Fund for support with the development of the Private Finance Initiative and Public Private Partnerships. In recognition of the need to develop a coherent, inter-departmental approach to exploit the potential of PPP/PFI solutions £2 million was set aside from the Service Modernisation Fund to facilitate the development of strong PPP/PFI units within individual departments and to enable a strong central coordinating function to be established. OFMDFM and DFP Ministers have just reached agreement on the Terms of Reference for the Working Group, and this paves the way for proposals to go forward now on the distribution of this £2m. We will write to you separately about this shortly.
new directions fund
12. It has been agreed that this Fund should provide a basis for meeting the needs of the Student Support initiative. Previous allocations have also funded a range of initiatives in four departments: addressing environmental policy in agriculture; improving health services through new communications systems; assisting marginalised youth in their education; and providing support to the creative industries. However there are clear opportunities to better promote innovation in programmes across a range of departments and on a cross-cutting basis.
service modernisation fund
13. This Fund provides opportunities to modernise services as envisaged in the final chapter of the PfG for example by taking a co-ordinated approach to using electronic service delivery to modernise services. Some significant projects were supported by the previous allocations but it was clear that more could be done to develop strategic, interdepartmental approaches to this challenge.
social inclusion/community regeneration fund
14. The first allocations from this Fund provided support for Victims and Travellers; assisted with the development of a number of cross-cutting community regeneration projects; and also supported the new public health strategy and moves to improve reading among children. However there was a conspicuous absence of bids which would target the needs of women and it was clear that a number of other promising bids would require further development to address a range of cross-cutting themes. Other groups that could benefit from this fund include:
- marginalized youth;
- people from minority ethnic backgrounds;
- older people;
- disabled people;
- carers;
- lone parents
15. Analysis of the bids made in the earlier round indicated a lack of evidence of in-depth, cross-cutting work to address these themes on a strategic basis. As a foundation for this, the Group (chaired by DFP/EPU) which examines bids for this Fund should seek to reach a consensus on the target groups - ie, those who are the most disadvantaged in the community, and identify gaps in provision so that it can be shown that resources are addressing the needs of the most marginalised or disadvantaged in society. Clearly the analysis would need to be put to Ministers with the advice on the use of this Fund.
consultation with departmental committees
16. The Executive has previously agreed that each Department's EPF bids should be shared with the respective Departmental Committee - presumably as soon as possible after they have been finalised for presentation to DFP/EPU. Mark Durkan also intends to present a composite return, covering all bids received, to the Committee for Finance and Personnel. This will help ensure that there is appropriate consultation of the EPF allocations before these are finalised and reflected in Estimates. In this approach, it would clearly be advantageous if bids were presented at the same time to all Committees, and this points to the need to meet the deadline of 24 September. An indicative timetable for the roll out of Round 2 is attached as Annex B.
17. Any general queries on the Funds should be put to David Sterling or Eugene Rooney. More detailed questions on individual Funds should be put to your Supply Officer in the first instance who will consult colleagues within CFG ad EPU as necessary
ANDREW McCORMICK WILL HAIRE
ANNEX A
executive programme funds first round allocations
children's fund
|
2001/02 |
2002/03 |
2003/04 |
Total |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total |
4.0 |
10.0 |
15.0 |
29.0 |
|
|
Child Development Officer |
DCAL |
0.1 |
0.1 |
||
|
School Age Mothers Programme |
DE |
0.1 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.9 |
|
Juvenile Justice Liaison Teachers |
DE |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
|
Counselling Support for Pupils |
DE |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
1.2 |
|
Primary Schools - Pupil Referral Units |
DE |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
0.8 |
|
Youth Service - Children at Risk |
DE |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
0.9 |
|
Parental Support Services |
DHSSPS |
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.5 |
|
Residential Family Assessment Centres |
DHSSPS |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
1.0 |
|
Families for Life - Regional Adopting Service |
DHSSPS |
0.7 |
0.4 |
0.5 |
1.6 |
|
Disabled Children - Wraparound Schemes |
DHSSPS |
0.6 |
0.5 |
0.4 |
1.5 |
|
Specialist Residential Units |
DHSSPS |
0.8 |
0.5 |
1.3 |
|
|
Educational Facilities and Support for Residential Units |
DHSSPS |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.4 |
|
Total Allocated |
2.9 |
3.9 |
3.7 |
10.5 |
|
|
Total Remaining |
1.1 |
6.1 |
11.3 |
18.5 |
infrastructure fund
|
2001/02 |
2002/03 |
2003/04 |
Total |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total |
10.0 |
40.0 |
100.0 |
150.0 |
|
|
Rathmore Grammar School, Finaghy |
DE |
1.8 |
3.0 |
4.0 |
8. |
|
Rathfriland Hill Special School, Newry |
DE |
0.1 |
1.0 |
2.0 |
3.1 |
|
Lowwood Primary School, Belfast |
DE |
0.1 |
0.6 |
1.3 |
2.0 |
|
St Dympna's Primary School, Dromore |
DE |
0.1 |
1.0 |
1.2 |
2.3 |
|
Youth Service Facilities |
DE |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
4.5 |
|
Flood Prevention Programme |
DRD |
1.0 |
1.5 |
3.0 |
5.5 |
|
A4 - Dungannon to Ballygawley - Improvements to junctions and to provide crawler lane at Cabragh |
DRD |
0.1 |
1.1 |
1.0 |
2.2 |
|
A6 - Toome Bypass |
DRD |
1.0 |
9.0 |
2.5 |
12.5 |
|
A1 - Loughbrickland to Beechill |
DRD |
0.1 |
0.1 |
7.9 |
8.1 |
|
A8 - Belfast to Larne (Phase 1) |
DRD |
0.8 |
1.2 |
2.3 |
4.3 |
|
Ulster Hospital Redevelopment (Phase 1) |
DHSSPS |
0.5 |
3.0 |
6.5 |
10.0 |
|
Medium Secure Unit (Knockbracken) |
DHSSPS |
0.1 |
3.0 |
4.0 |
8.0 |
|
Residential Childcare Places |
DHSSPS |
1.0 |
3.0 |
4.0 |
8.0 |
|
Total Allocated |
9.1 |
29.0 |
41.2 |
79.3 |
|
|
Total Remainin |
11.0 |
58.8 |
69.8 |
new directions fund
|
2001/02 |
2002/03 |
2003/04 |
Total |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total |
7.0 |
40.0 |
55.0 |
102.0 |
|
|
Farm Waste Management |
DARD |
1.6 |
1.0 |
3.0 |
5.6 |
|
Nutrient Management Scheme |
DARD |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
0.9 |
|
Organic Farming - Conversion of animal houses |
DARD |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.8 |
2.0 |
|
Compensation Scheme for Voluntary buy out of commercial salmon nets |
DCAL |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.7 |
1.5 |
|
Creativity Seed Fund |
DCAL |
0.7 |
0.7 |
1.4 |
2.8 |
|
EOTAS (Education other than at schools) |
DE |
0.5 |
0.5 |
1.5 |
2.5 |
|
Ethnic Minorities - Access to the Curriculum |
DE |
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0.7 |
|
Key Skills I - |
DE |
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0.7 |
|
Electronic Links for GP Practices |
DHSSPS |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.1 |
0.8 |
|
Modernisation of GPs' IT systems |
DHSSPS |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
1.5 |
|
Information Sharing for Cancer Services |
DHSSPS |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.4 |
|
RVH - BCH Physical |
DHSSPS |
0.5 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
|
|
Road Safety Promotion |
DOE |
0.3 |
0.3 |
0.6 |
|
|
Total Allocated |
5.8 |
5.7 |
9.6 |
21.1 |
|
|
Student Support |
12.0 |
18.8 |
30.8 |
||
|
Total Remaining |
2.1 |
22.3 |
26.6 |
51.0 |
service modernisation fund
|
2001/02 |
2002/03 |
2003/04 |
Total |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total |
6.0 |
10.0 |
20.0 |
36.0 |
|
|
Electronic Libraries for NI Project |
DCAL |
0.3 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
2.3 |
|
Common Address File |
DCAL |
0.5 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
1.0 |
|
Job Centre Online - Enhancement to T&EA Internet Site |
DHFETE |
0.3 |
0.3 |
||
|
GRO - Integrated Database |
DFP |
0.4 |
0.1 |
0.5 |
|
|
Windows 2000: Centrally Developed Solution |
All Depts |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
1.2 |
|
Knowledge Network |
All Depts |
0.3 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.5 |
|
PSM Project (Phase 3) |
All Depts |
0.8 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
1.8 |
|
Portal to Government Services |
All Depts |
0.2 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
1.2 |
|
Integrated Medicines Management |
DHSSPS |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.1 |
0.6 |
|
Allocation to Support PPP/PFI Units |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
6.0 |
|
|
Total Allocated |
5.0 |
5.5 |
4.9 |
15.4 |
|
|
Total Remaining |
1.0 |
4.5 |
15.1 |
20.6 |
social inclusion/community regeneration fund
|
2001/02 |
2002/03 |
2003/04 |
Total |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total |
10.0 |
15.00 |
30.00 |
55.00 |
|
|
Reading Recovery |
DE |
1.60 |
2.00 |
2.70 |
6.30 |
|
Youth Service - Social Inclusion |
DE |
0.11 |
0.30 |
0.54 |
0.95 |
|
Leader Plus |
DARD |
0.50 |
0.60 |
1.10 |
|
|
District Councils Community Support Plus |
DSD |
0.30 |
0.30 |
0.40 |
1.00 |
|
Derry Peripheral Housing Estates: |
DSD |
0.20 |
0.20 |
||
|
Building Community Infrastructure and capacity in 12 areas |
DSD |
0.14 |
0.14 |
0.14 |
0.42 |
|
Adult basic education - literacy and numeracy |
DHFETE |
1.20 |
1.20 |
2.40 |
|
|
Victims Strategy |
OFMDFM |
0.50 |
0.50 |
0.50 |
1.50 |
|
Leaving and after care services |
DHSSPS and DE |
0.40 |
0.40 |
0.40 |
1.20 |
|
Out of hours community mental health service |
DHSSPS |
0.20 |
0.30 |
0.30 |
0.80 |
|
Building the community/pharmacy partnership |
DHSSPS |
0.14 |
0.19 |
0.20 |
0.53 |
|
Investing for healthier communities |
DHSSPS |
0.50 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
2.50 |
|
Travellers community health care programme |
DHSSPS |
0.10 |
0.10 |
0.07 |
0.27 |
|
Travellers health promotion and info needs |
DHSSPS |
0.05 |
0.06 |
0.05 |
0.16 |
|
Total Allocated |
4.20 |
7.00 |
8.10 |
19.30 |
|
|
Amount earmarked for Gap funding |
2.00 |
2.00 |
|||
|
Total Remaining |
3.80 |
8.00 |
21.90 |
33.70 |
ANNEX B
EXECUTIVE PROGRAMME FUNDS - 2001/02 - ROUND 2
INDICATIVE TIMETABLE
|
Bids to DFP and Committees |
24 September |
|
Responses from Committees |
5 October |
|
Multilaterals with Departments |
Week beginning 8 October |
|
Recommendations to Executive |
18 October |
guidance on bidding
Introduction
1. This document provides guidance on the process of bidding for support from the Executive Programme Funds (EPFs). The guidance covers both the general criteria that are applicable to all Funds and the additional criteria which are specific to a particular Fund.
Background
2. As part of the Programme for Government the Executive decided to create within the Budget five 'Executive Programme Funds' whose objectives were described as follows:
"EPFs will assist the development of new policies and programmes, and new, improved services, as well as dealing with major infrastructure projects. EPFs will have particular regard to the Executive's Priorities as set out in the Programme for Government and also its commitments to equality and new TSN."
3. The Executive Budget - Public Expenditure Plans: 2001/02 to 2003/04 makes provision for five EPFs totalling £360 million. The allocations to individual Funds are:
|
Fund |
2001/02 |
2002/03 |
2003/04 |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Inclusion/Community Regeneration |
6.0 |
15.0 |
30.0 |
51.0 |
|
Service Modernisation |
4.0 |
10.0 |
20.0 |
34.0 |
|
New Direction |
5.0 |
40.0 |
55.0 |
100.0 |
|
Infrastructure Renewal |
7.0 |
40.0 |
100.0 |
147.0 |
|
Children's Fund |
3.0 |
10.0 |
15.0 |
28.0 |
|
25.0 |
115.0 |
220.0 |
360.0 |
general criteria for support from EPFs
4. The EPFs are important and innovative mechanisms for focusing resources on the Executive's Priorities and encouraging co-operation between departments to deliver these priorities in the most effective ways.
5. Applications to the EPFs must have full regard to the criteria that determine eligibility for support. The following criteria for applications apply to all EPFs (these are not mandatory, but the material provided by Departments in relation to these points will be used to help assess the relative merit of applications). If no evidence beyond assertion is provided against a particular criterion it will be assumed that the project does not meet that criterion:
(a) a clear and effective link to one or more of the Priorities identified in the Programme for Government or its Chapter 7. Where a link is claimed to more than one PfG Priority the ranking of the linkages should be indicated;
(b) whether the action for which support is sought will generate a direct benefit through cross-cutting work involving more than one department. Proposals developed and agreed jointly by 2 or more Departments are particularly welcome. The primary or lead department should be indicated and the degree of interaction between the participating departments should be described;
(c) consistency with statutory obligations on Equality (NI Act, Section 75) and policy commitments to New Targeting Social Need. Bids are particularly welcome if they contribute strongly to:
(i) promoting equality of opportunity; and/or
(ii) promoting good relations between people of different religious beliefs, political opinions or racial groups;
(iii) tackling unemployment;
(iv) increasing skills, or otherwise removing barriers to employment or increasing employability; and/or
(v) reducing inequalities experienced by people in greatest objective social need or tackling the problems of areas objectively shown to be in greatest social need.
(d) additionality, that is the proposal generates activity over and above that which is anticipated in the bidding Department(s) forward plans;
(e) consistency with the need to demonstrate value for money. Bids for allocations form the EPFs require a supporting appraisal completed to 'Green Book' standards and commensurate with the scale of the proposal. This must accompany the Bid forms and the absence of an appraisal in September will be taken to indicate that expenditure in the current year is unlikely and the bid will be set aside;
(f) compelling evidence that the proposal would not be able to proceed without assistance from the EPF;
(g) transparent and containable costs so that an unmanageable commitment does not emerge in the medium-term;
(h) innovation - the proposal brings fresh thinking and ideas to bear as a problem;
(i) where appropriate, that the proposal would have a significant importance for the region as a whole;
(j) where appropriate, that the proposal would show positive evidence in relation to environmental impact and sustainability; and
(k) wherever practicable, that the proposed activity would be managed in a way that is inclusive of wider community interests through social partners and other organisations.
match funding
6. The Executive will wish to consider the scope for contributions to bids from Departments from other sources - and indeed some proposals may be in the nature of Departmental contributions to projects developed by non-governmental bodies. To help the Executive in this respect, applications should show the applicant Department's (or Departments') view(s) of the scope for contributions from sources other than the EPF itself.
financial management
7. Expenditure from the EPFs scores as public expenditure against the Northern Ireland Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL). The EPFs are therefore subject to the same standards as regard to regularity, propriety and value for money as all other public expenditure. Expenditure from the Funds will be authorised through the estimates/appropriation process and accounted for by the recipient department(s).
8. All allocations from the EPFs will be ringfenced and separately identified within the public expenditure system. Their spend will be subject to separate monitoring arrangements within the financial year.
9. Departments receiving allocations from the EPFs will be required to account for any shortfall of expenditure. Except for those elements of capital expenditure where the Executive has agreed that underspends may be carried forward, there is no presumption of automatic End Year Flexibility for EPFs. Underspends will be reallocated through the relevant EPF.
10. Departments should where possible absorb the running cost consequences of a successful bid on an EPF within the DRC allocations as approved by the Assembly for 2001/02 and (for 2002/03 and 2003/04) within the indicative DRC figures approved by the Executive. If a Department wishes to bid for additional running costs from an EPF there would need to be a compelling case demonstrating a clear link between the provision of additional DRC and a direct benefit to the public.
specific criteria for epfs
11. The following paragraphs set out the specific eligibility criteria for applications to each of the EPFs. The Funds vary widely in objectives and content and the specific criteria reflect this fact.
1. FUND: Social Inclusion/Community Regeneration
1.1 The purpose of this Fund is to support actions against poverty and the development of effective community measures in both urban and rural settings, as well as actions on community relations and for cultural diversity. Any proposal for support from this Fund will need to be able to demonstrate:
(a) A significant contribution to the objectives of the Fund through some or all of the following:
- the alleviation of poverty;
- the reduction of social exclusion among, for example, older people, people from minority ethnic backgrounds, carers, lone parents, etc;
- social or economic development aid in disadvantaged urban and/or rural areas;
- the promotion of good relations between people of different religious beliefs or ethnic backgrounds;
- the promotion of cultural diversity.
(b) Complementarity with the work of other bodies/funds operating in the same field, including the EU Special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation, other Structural Funds programmes and the Community Initiatives as well as the International Fund for Ireland.
(c) An effective and comprehensive management plan for these actions involving external organisations.
2. FUND: Service Modernisation
2.1 The objective of this Fund is to promote efficiency and innovation in the delivery of public services by Government Departments and the wider public sector, as set out in Chapter 7 of the Programme for Government.
2.2 Proposals for actions or activities seeking support from this Fund will need to demonstrate:
(a) That the proposal makes a significant contribution to the objective of the Fund by supporting some or all of the following:
- taking forward e-government;
- improving the quality of public services;
- developing invest to save measures;
- the reform of public administration.
(b) evidence that significant savings in the cost of delivering public services with no loss of quality will be achieved within a defined timetable;
(c) evidence of a significant modernising development which would lead to improved services to the public; or
(d) where appropriate, that the feasibility of a private finance/public private partnership solution has been fully investigated.
3. FUND: New Directions
3.1 The objective of this Fund is to encourage Departments to produce proposals that could deliver new and innovative policies. The Fund is open to proposals in any policy area, including creating a new vision for the rural economy, developing innovation in the delivery of health and education services and new approaches to producing a vibrant and dynamic economy, incorporating the creative industries.
3.2 Proposals seeking assistance from this Fund must be able to demonstrate:
(a) that the proposal represents a new and innovative development of policy;
(b) that the proposal involves challenging targets.
3.3 In addition, proposals should show that a credible strategy for managing any additional risks associated with the new policy development is available.
4. FUND: Infrastructure/Capital Renewal
4.1 This Fund exists to support the development and renewal of strategic assets owned by the public sector, or which are used to provide utility services to the public.
4.2 Proposals seeking support from this Fund must be made by a Department either on its own account or in support of a public sector body it is sponsoring. The Fund is available primarily to support investment in key strategic assets and networks.
4.3 Applications for support from this Fund must be able to demonstrate:
(a) that the potential adds to, or sustains a key part of the strategic infrastructure for the public sector;
(b) the existence of a solid business case and economic appraisal which would justify the investment;
(c) that the use of a PFI/PPP solution has been thoroughly examined for the proposal; and
(d) where appropriate that the proposal exhibits innovative characteristics in its delivery or management.
5. FUND: Children's
5.1 The objective of this Fund is to provide support for children in need and young people at risk. The development of the Fund will draw on the experiences gained from the operation of the Chancellor's Children's Fund.
5.2 The Fund will be open to applications for support from non-governmental organisations, particularly in the voluntary and community sector. Detailed advice on the arrangements for the Children's Fund is being finalised separately.
5.3 Applications for support from this Fund must be able to demonstrate:
(a) Ministers have emphasised in the New TSN Action Plans Report and elsewhere that this EPF is particularly relevant to New TSN. Bids should, therefore, make clear the extent to which the proposal will provide direct support for children in need or young people at risk;
(b) where possible, that the proposal involves co-ordinated actions across Departments;
(c) where feasible that the proposal complements existing actions by Departments or by non- governmental bodies; and
(d) where the proposal covers assistance for third parties, that there is a comprehensive management agreement available for the resources.
process
12. Departments wishing to apply for support from the EPFs should complete the main form EPF(1) which covers general criteria for the Funds and the relevant form EPF(2) covering the specific criteria of the fund from which support is sought. Evaluation of Bids will primarily be based on information provided on the forms. Supporting information on the following should, therefore, be included:
- a clear description of the problem to be addressed or evidence of the need (eg, research, statistical or practice evidence) and how the proposal will address that need; and
- a clear description of the aims and objectives of the proposal and how success will be measured;
This information should form the basis of the entry in the "Brief Description of Project" box on Form EPF(1).
13. Bids should be submitted through the normal finance channels to DFP in the first instance. All bids will be copied to the Economic Policy Unit and the Equality Unit in OFMDFM who will work with DFP in assessing bids and making recommendations to the Executive.
Bids to be submitted by: 24 September 2001
APPENDIX 3
LIST OF TRANCHE 2 BIDS
List of Tranche 2 Bids
consolidated list of all epf bids
|
New Directions Fund |
Table A |
£'000s |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
2003-04 |
|
|
Agriculture and Rural Development |
|
|
|
|
EPF Bids - Service Modernisation Fund |
£'000s |
||
|---|---|---|---|
|
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
2003-04 |
|
|
Agriculture and Rural Development |
|
|
|
|
EPF Bids - Social Inclusion Fund |
£'000s |
||
|---|---|---|---|
|
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
2003-04 |
|
|
Culture, Arts and Leisure |
|
|
|
|
EPF Bids Withdrawn |
£'000s |
||
|---|---|---|---|
|
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
2003-04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appendix 4
SUBMISSIONS FROM STATUTORY COMMITEES
SUBMISSIONS FROM
STATUTORY DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES
1. Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development 51
2. Committee for Culture Arts and Leisure 53
3. Committee for Education 57
4. Committee for Employment and Learning 59
5. Committee for the Environment 61
6. Committee for Health Social Services and Public Safety 63
7. Committee for Regional Development 65
8. Committee for Social Development 67
committee for finance and personnel
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE PROGRAMME FUNDS
(second tranche)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
(Letter from the Committee for Agriculture and
Rural Development to the Department for
Agriculture and Rural Development)
12 October 2001
Thank you for your letter of 3 October and for the additional information provided by Mr Rodgers.
The Committee considered your letter at its meeting this morning and agreed the following as its response (and that the response should be copied to the Finance and Personnel Committee):
1. The Committee fully supports the Department's three bids under the New Directions Fund. The Committee notes that, in all three cases, funds are earmarked for grant aid direct to farmers and that there are specific links to Programme for Government priorities.
2. The Committee has insufficient information to give its support to the two bids under the Service Modernisation Fund, particularly as members have not seen or discussed either the 'e-business' strategy or the 'IS' Strategy. Members note, however, that the Department has provided no evidence, in either case, of any potential savings in the cost of delivering public services. Furthermore, the Committee considers that the Department has not, in either case, provided a clear or specific link to Programme for Government priorities or actions.
3. The Committee notes that a number of e-business-type bids were successful in the first tranche of Executive Programme Funds but that these were small-scale, specific projects. The Committee would need to consider the bids, and the anticipated benefits, in great detail, given that, together, they are worth over £36m.
The Committee also noted that there were no bids in this round for funding for the implementation of an action plan to be developed from the Vision Group Document. Members accepted that this was a practical consideration but would argue that sufficient funding must be kept for further rounds of bids and that a marker should be put down that the Department will be bidding for significant funds in those rounds.
The Committee noted that the original deadline of 5 October for Committee responses was unrealistic, given the date on which information was forwarded by DARD. The revised deadline (today) was little better. Had the Department involved the Committee at an earlier stage, there would have been an opportunity for members to obtain and consider copies of the IS and e-business strategies, and to examine officials as they saw necessary. Members could then have made a more informed judgement on the Service Modernisation bids.
Members agreed that in any future bidding process, they must be given much more time in which to consider, and comment on, the Department's bids. They further agreed that the Deputy Chairman would write to the Minister regarding their inability to make an informed judgement.
PAUL MOORE
Committee Clerk
committee for finance and personnel
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE PROGRAMME FUNDS
(second tranche)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
COMMITTEE FOR CULTURE, ARTS AND LEISURE
11 October 2001
EXECUTIVE PROGRAMME FUNDS - SECOND ROUND
The Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure considered the Department's bids (summarised at Annex 1) for the second round of the Executive Programme Funds at its meeting today.
In particular, the Committee would strongly endorse the bid for the construction of the 'Culture Northern Ireland website'. One of the key issues emerging from the Committee's current inquiry into Cultural Tourism and the Arts in Northern Ireland, is the need for a comprehensive cultural information resource. At present, information of this nature is, at best, fragmented. The construction of a single information point on culture and history will be of immense value to Northern Ireland, both in terms of maximising tourism potential and in explaining and showcasing cultural diversity here. The Committee is strongly of the view that the relatively small amount of funding required (£75k in year 1) would have a considerable economic and social impact on our community.
The Committee also has a number of comments about the process for the EPF exercise. There seems to have been some uncertainty about the terms of DFP's commissioning memo to Departments, which advised Department's to "share" their bid information with Committees. In addition, the timetable indicates that bids were to be with DFP/EPU by 24 September, and that Committees were to respond to Departments by 5 October with comments on the bids. We understand, of course, that the submission of the bids is not the end of the exercise, and that Committees' views can be fed in as part of the multilateral discussions which are the next step in the process. However, you will understand that we would much prefer that the arrangements can be clearly seen to provide for the views of Committees to be taken into account before the bids are submitted.
While we have asked for (and received) an assurance that, in future, DCAL will consult the Committee about proposed EPF bids, in the same way that we are involved in the budget process, there seems to be a need for some consideration to be given to this issue centrally.
One further issue emerged as a result of our discussion today with DCAL. There appears to be a problem with sharing of information between Departments where cross-cutting bids are concerned. In the particular instance that we noted, a bid by DCAL for funding to include in the new Strabane Library a community resource had to be withdrawn because DSD had formulated a similar bid. There would seem to be an issue for strong central advice to be provided about the importance of proper and timely communication in relation to bids which have cross- departmental implications.
Finally, could I take the opportunity to thank your Committee for its help in securing a little more latitude for the submission of all our EPF responses than would otherwise have been the case.
EAMONN ONEILL MLA
Chairperson
Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure
ANNEX 1
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, ARTS AND LEISURE
Bids for 2nd round of Executive Programme Funds
|
Details |
£ million |
£ million |
£ million |
|---|---|---|---|
|
PRONI (Freedom of Information) |
0.00 |
0.249 |
0.257 |
|
PPP/PFI (In-house unit) |
0.052 |
0.205 |
0.214 |
|
Football Development Centres & Football Academy |
0.104 |
0.869 |
1.748 |
|
Culture NI Website |
0.075 |
0.15 |
0.153 |
|
Total |
0.231 |
1.473 |
2.372 |
committee for finance and personnel
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE PROGRAMME FUNDS
(second tranche)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION
12 October 2001
INTRODUCTION
Whilst the Education Committee welcomes the opportunity to consider and comment on the bids by the Department of Education for Executive Programme Funds we are concerned about the lack of time available in which to do so. This has severely limited the scrutiny and consideration we have been able to give to these bids and the situation must be improved for future bidding rounds.
COMMITTEE VIEWS ON THE BIDS
Taking account of the consequences if the bids are not met the Committee would generally be in support of all of the bids submitted by the Department.
We do, however, recognise that the amount of money available for each of the funds is limited and there will no doubt be many competing bids from other Departments. The Committee has therefore focused on what we believe should be the priority bids by the Department and which should be strongly promoted in the bidding round.
The Committee continues to firmly believe that investment in Early Learning/Early Intervention must be a priority for the Department and is an investment in the future. The priorities we have identified are consistent with this and are as follows:
Social Inclusion/Community Regeneration Fund
|
Priority |
Bid Title |
2001/02 |
2002/03 |
2003/04 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Making a Good Start (Primary 2) Will provide improved classroom support for Key Stage 1 children - critical to later educational development. Will buy qualified classroom assistants for lowest |
500 |
1,400 |
2,400 |
|
Recognising this bid is for a substantial amount of funding, if it cannot be met in full partial funding should be provided. |
||||
|
2 |
Youth Service - Will assist Youth Service providers to extend access for socially disadvantaged children and young people and provide a programme of outreach/detached youth work in these areas including interface areas |
234 |
247 |
251 |
|
The Committee wishes to see equality of treatment for all areas of Belfast and therefore the same number of youth workers and the same services should be provided in the areas rather than the numbers of workers outlined in the DE bids |
||||
Service Modernisation Fund
|
Priority |
Bid Title |
2001/02 |
2002/03 |
2003/04 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Special Education IT Project Replace manual systems with a common IT database to facilitate better management information, planning and co-ordination of service delivery to improve quality of services to children with special educational needs |
30 |
400 |
30 |
New Directions Fund
|
Priority |
Bid Title |
2001/02 |
2002/03 |
2003/04 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Support for Children with Severe Learning/Physical Difficulties Provision of access for severely disabled children to ICT enabling them to learn and communicate, often for the first time, and thus improving equality of opportunity and quality of life |
13 |
168 |
20 |
|
2 |
Schools Tackling Disaffection - Early Intervention Programme Support for 50, increasing to 100 schools to develop school-based alternative education programmes designed to re-engage pupils |
45 |
1,075 |
2,680 |
|
3 |
Youth Service - Support for Disaffected Pupils Provision of support for 300 disaffected pupils, in their last 2 years of school through a development programme offered by youth workers |
210 |
220 |
230 |
CONCLUSION
The Education Committee believes that the bids outlined above would make a significant contribution in assisting some of the most disadvantaged young people in the school system and therefore should receive a very high priority for funding.
DANNY KENNEDY MLA
Chairman of the Education Committee
committee for finance and personnel
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE PROGRAMME FUNDS
(second tranche)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
Committee for Employment and Learning
12 October 2001
Committee's response on the Department for Employment and Learning's Executive Programme Fund Bids - September 2001.
1. The individual bids submitted by the Department are set out below in Table 1.
Table 1 - Summary of the Department for Employment and Learning's Executive Programme Fund Bids, September 2001 (£m).
|
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
2003-04 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Research and Development |
0.5 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
|
Further Education/Small and Medium Enterprise Links |
0.3 |
0.5 |
0.9 |
|
Office of Industrial Tribunals and Fair Employment Tribunal Website |
0.125 |
0.075 |
- |
|
E-Business/Kiosks |
0.078 |
0.205 |
0.175 |
|
Skills Agenda (Priority Skills) |
1.6 |
1.7 |
1.7 |
|
Employers for Childcare - Match Funding |
0.07 |
0.222 |
0.166 |
|
Equal Match Funding (programme costs) (technical assistance) |
0.102 0.05 |
0.842 0.5 |
0.745 0.5 |
2. The Committee is supportive of the seven bids made under this round of Executive Programme Fund Bids. Many of the bids address recommendations made in the Committee's recent Inquiry Report into Education and Training for Industry.
3. The Committee agreed the top three priority bids. The top priority was given to the bid for Research and Development. This is followed jointly by the Further Education/Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Link and Skills Agenda (Priority Skills) bid.
4. The Committee for Employment and Learning were concerned by the lack of follow-through on the failed bids made in the earlier part of the year.
(a) Creation of a "one-stop-shop" through the Northern Ireland Business Education Partnership (NIBEP). Officials stated this would be resubmitted in the next round. This still begs the question why it was not improved and resubmitted in the current round.
(b) New Build on the present site for East Down Institute of Further and Higher Education.
5. The Committee is still concerned with the overall approach to bidding for Executive Programme Funds. It would appear that there is insufficient definition between bids submitted under this programme and that for additional financial resources per se. We suggest further clarification and definition with greater emphasis on the requirements for Departments putting bids forward that meet the criteria precisely. Indications are that there is still a view that this is an alternative source of top-up funding.
6. The entire process needs to be more open and transparent with Departments consulting Committees before, and not after, the submission of bids.
7. It is the view that the comment made by the Minister of Finance and Personnel, in his statement of 25 September 2001, ". EPFs provide 'security' against risks affecting our decisions," (ie equivalent to the Treasury's Contingency Fund), somewhat undervalues Executive Programme Funds and the entire concept taking into consideration the relatively small amount of net available funds.
DR ESMOND BIRNIE, MLA, Chairman
committee for finance and personnel
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE PROGRAMME FUNDS
(second tranche)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
COMMITTEE For THE ENVIRONMENT
(letter from the Committee for the Environment
to the Department of the Environment)
12 October 2001
1. Thank you for your letter of 9 October 2001 which referred to the 7 bids from the Department on the current round of Executive Programme Funds (EPFs) allocations.
2. The Committee recorded its disappointment that the Department failed to put forward successful bids in the First Tranche allocations of EPFs in April 2001 - with the exception of the £300k 'award' for Road Safety in Years 2 and 3. The Committee received an assurance from David Thomson, the Director of Corporate Services, that, in the next round of bidding, the Department will be bidding as strongly as feasible.
3. The Committee welcomes the bids put forward by the Department. In particular, the Committee strongly supports the three Service Modernisation Fund bids which would enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the Planning Service. The Committee has received numerous representations from organisations and individuals highlighting the need to enhance and reform the existing planning system to enable the Department to complete the work of dealing with the backlog of planning applications. Furthermore, the Committee Chair and Vice Chair recently met with the Director of the CBI in Northern Ireland to discuss the increasing concern from the business community about the capacity of the Planning Service to cope with current levels of economic activity. Mr Smyth highlighted 'the whole planning process can be slow, expensive, uncertain and variable and appears to be unable to deal with the fast changing needs of modern business with potentially serious consequences for economic development and competitiveness'.
4. The Committee would also strongly endorse the New Directions Fund bid to establish and resource a Northern Ireland Coastal Forum. Again, the Committee has received numerous letters from the public highlighting the need for coastal protection and management schemes. The Committee heard directly from Coastwatch Europe, along with representatives from WWF Northern Ireland and the Ulster Wildlife Trust on the urgent need to set up a Coastal Forum. It is also clear there is widespread support within the Assembly for the establishment of a Coastal Forum. The Minister said back in June 2001 that he sees 'merit in the proposal', yet no progress on the actual setting up the Forum has occurred to date. The Committee therefore strongly supports this bid.
5. The Committee understands a bid to promote sustainable development is still being worked up and may be submitted as a 'late entry'. The Committee is disappointed and concerned that such a bid in relation to strategic development of sustainable development, with its highly cross-cutting and potentially innovative nature, has not been developed and put forward as a strong bid. Sustainable Development remains a key policy theme within the Draft Programme for Government, ensuring that our social and environmental objectives are integrated with the development of our economy. The Committee would therefore strongly endorse a late bid with specific projects or studies to promote the sustainable development strategy currently being developed by the Department.
6. Finally, the Committee wishes to take this opportunity to highlight its strong objection to the proposal within the Draft Budget 2002-03 to cut Local Government Resources Grant by £2million and that this will apply only to the 16 'weakest rates based' Councils. The Committee has already questioned this proposal (in my letter of 4 October 2001 to Ms Lesley Rooney) on how this stands against the key policy themes in the Draft Programme for Government of New TSN and promotion of equality of opportunity. The Committee would now add how such a proposal sits with the objectives of the Executive Programme Service Modernisation and New Directions, which are being asked of Local Government on a number of fronts.
JOHN SIMMONS
Clerk to the Committee of the Environment
committee for finance and personnel
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE PROGRAMME FUNDS
(second tranche)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
COMMITTEE FOR HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY
11 October 2001
The HSSPS Committee initially considered the EPF bids from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety at its meeting on 10 October 2001. The papers arrived on 1 October 2001, to late for consideration at the meeting of the Committee on 3 October 2001.
The Committee was not content with the way the bids have been handled despite assurances last time that it would be fully involved in the process. At the request of the Committee I have written today to the Department to ask:
- Why was the Committee not consulted before the bids were submitted?
- How were the bids selected?
- What bids were not included? What criteria were used to decide?
- Why were bids not submitted for other Funds eg Children's Fund?
Departmental officials will attend the Committee Meeting on 17 October 2001 to discuss the matter.
I regret that the Committee is unable to meet the deadline for a more substantive response.
GEORGE MARTIN
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE PROGRAMME FUNDS
(second tranche)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
(Letter from Committee for Regional Development
to Department For Regional Development)
The Regional Development Committee has asked me to write to you regarding the Department for Regional Development's second tranche bids in respect of the Executive's Programme Funds.
The Committee wishes to strongly support the Department's bids in respect of the three funds: Social Inclusion, Service Modernisation and New Directions. Although these programme areas may not appear strongly relevant to DRD, nevertheless, there are many elements of the Department's work which is cross cutting and positively contributes to government initiatives such as New TSN.
Within the Social Inclusion Fund the Committee believe that additional funding should be earmarked for rural transport. There is a high proportion of rural households without access to a car. This situation is further compounded by the fact that Translink have warned that unprofitable rural routes may have to be cut if private operators continue to target the more profitable bus service routes. The lack of affordable and efficient rural bus service hinders the most deprived within rural communities from accessing education and employment opportunities.
As an initial step the Committee believe that there may be merit in extending the proposed pilot scheme planned for the Newcastle to Belfast bus route to other areas, such as the Londonderry travel to work area. Indeed, the scheme could even be extended to include other groups such as the unemployed.
Within the Service Modernisation Fund the Committee welcomes the request for additional funding to provide a modern rail passenger information system. This would be a positive step in encouraging people to use public transport, but this initiative in itself, will not attract people to use the rail system. Additional funding should be sought for modernising and upgrading facilities at train stations. Train travel may become a more attractive mode of travel if passengers have comfortable waiting areas and access to café facilities. It will not be possible to create a cultural shift to public transport without providing the facilities that is expected in today's society.
It is for similar reasons that the Committee strongly supports the Departments bid within the New Directions Fund, for funding for Buses for Quality Bus Corridors. Congestion and gridlock will continue to be a problem within the Belfast Metropolitan Area unless commuters are provided with an attractive alternative to the car. This has implications for other areas such as the environment, health and the economy. Undoubtedly, road improvements will help address congestion, but in many ways it is simply storing up a problem, leading in the long term to increased car usage and ultimately leading to even worse congestion, with all its associated problems.
Although the Infrastructure Fund is not being considered at this stage, the Committee is heartened by the acting First Minister's comment to the Assembly on 24 September that an additional £40 million would be made available for the A8 road to Larne, the Newry to Dundalk road and the Westlink. The Committee believe that this funding should be drawn from the Infrastructure Fund and should not be a drain on the Department's DEL.
I am forwarding a copy of this letter to the Finance and Personnel Committee.
LIAM BARR
CLERK TO THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
committee for finance and personnel
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE PROGRAMME FUNDS
(second tranche)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
4 October 2001
Following its meeting today, the Social Development Committee has asked me to draw the following points to your attention in relation to Executive Programme Fund Bids.
The bids made by the DSB were received in Social Development Committee's offices on 1 October. The Committee understands that the closing date for bids to be lodged, with DFP, was 24 September.
You will see from the covering letter, enclosed, that the Committee was being advised of the bids which had been lodged. The Committee trusts you will agree that this falls short of consultation. Members of the Committee are aware that there are instances where other Departments have consulted, usefully, with the relevant Committee and are concerned that there appears to be an inconsistent approach.
However, you may be interested to know that the Committee took the opportunity, earlier today, to raise the matter of consultation with the Minister when he appeared before us in relation to the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget Proposals for 2002/2003. The Committee had, to hand, and drew to the Minister's attention, a reply to a written question in which OFMDFM gave me a clear commitment to improve arrangements for consulting with Committees "at an early stage" (copy enclosed). Officials from the Department indicated that the timing of their letter advising the Committee of the bids was in keeping with advice from colleagues in DFP.
The Minister's assurance that there would be better consultation in future, whilst welcome, was cold comfort in relation to the second tranche of bids, presently under consideration.
The Committee is strongly of the view that the arrangements for consulting it on the second tranche bids have proved to be inadequate and I hope you will raise the matter with the Finance Minister when you meet with him next week since it appears that officials in DSD were acting under direction from colleagues in DFP.
In the circumstances, the Committee considers that it has little alternative but to support the bids lodged by the Department. However, the Committee asked me to point out that, had there been real and meaningful consultation, it would have been pressing the Department to develop and made bids for funds which would be used directly to combat the growing problems of Homelessness and to tackle Fuel Poverty more urgently.
I have copied this letter to the Minister for Social Development.
FRED COBAIN
Chairman
letter from department for social development
to the committee for social development
on executive programme funds
27 September 2001
1. Following the first round of Executive Programme Fund allocations in March 2001 it was decided that further allocations would be made in October to facilitate additional bids that had not been fully developed at that time. DFP have now requested bids from Departments for second tranche allocations from the New Directions, Service Modernisation and Social Inclusion/Community Regeneration Funds. The amounts for allocation now total £37.9m across the three Funds.
2. The Minister has asked me to write to members of the Committee to advise them of the bids for Executive Programme Funds submitted by the Department (details attached at Annex A);
- Bid No 1: Alleviation of Fuel Poverty
- Bid No 2: Supporting People
- Bid No 3: Getting Home, Staying Home (Use of Assistive Technology)
- Bid No 4: Community Cohesion in West Portadown
- Bid No 5: Omagh Riverside Comprehensive Development
- Bid No 6: The Outreach Programme
- Bid No 7: Outer North Integrated Development Operation
- Bid No 8: Strabane 2000 Community Arts and Cultural Programme
- Bid No 9: Improvements in Post Offices in Deprived Areas
3. In addition, the Department has expressed its support for the following bids put forward by other Departments;
- Ministerial Group on Public Health - Investing for Health;
- PRO - e-government; data capture of on-line catalogues.
4. The Executive Committee intends to make initial allocations for 2001/02 in October 2001. Further allocations will be made across all the Funds in March 2002.
5. I will keep the Committee informed of any further developments in this area.
W B J DAVIS
Director of Corporate Services
WRITTEN QUESTION BY FRED COBAIN AND RESPONSE BY OFMDFM REGARDING CONSULTATION WITH DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES ON EXECUTIVE PROGRAMME FUNDS
30 April 2001
Mr Cobain asked:
To ask the Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister to give an assessment on consultation by the Executive Committee with the Departmental Committees on the Executive Programme Funds and to make a statement.
ANSWER:
The Executive agreed that the Departmental Committees should be consulted on departmental proposals for the Executive Programme Funds. Departments forwarded their Executive Programme Fund proposals to their respective Committees for consideration and views received were taken into account. Unfortunately, only a limited amount of time was available to Committees to consider the detail.
The experience with the first tranche of Fund allocations will be used to improve the procedures for future rounds with the aim of ensuring that proposals made available to the Departmental Committees at an earlier stage.
THE RT HON DAVID TRIMBLE MP MLA SÉAMUS MALLON MP MLA
First Minister Deputy First Minister
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Tuesday 9 October 2001
Members present:
Mr Molloy (Chairperson)
Mr Leslie (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Attwood
Mr Close
Mr Hussey
Ms Lewsley
Mr Weir
Witnesses:
Mr M Daly )
Mr E Jardine ) Department of
Dr G Mulligan ) Finance and Personnel
Mr R Beatty )
1.
The Chairperson: Good afternoon, Gentlemen. Welcome to the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which meets today to consider the Executive programme funds and the second tranche of allocations from the new directions, service modernisation and social inclusion funds.
2.
The Committee will take evidence under three headings, dealing in turn with the Department of Finance and Personnel bids, general process issues and concluding with the remaining departmental bids.
3.
The Committee will also wish to consider the lack of time for consultation - on the Department of Finance and Personnel bids and generally.
4.
Mr Daly: I apologise for not being able to give the Committee more time to consider the bids, but it was not possible for us to provide the material earlier than 24 September. One of the bids will already be familiar to the Committee from the earlier round, and we have tried to alert the Committee to possible bids on previous occasions.
5.
Mr Jardine: My colleagues are Dr Gerry Mulligan, who chairs our research and information group, which is specifically working on equality and TSN issues, and Mr Robert Beatty, who manages the project on neighbourhood statistics.
6.
We consider the bids to be complementary and highly relevant to the 'Growing as a Community' theme in the Programme for Government. We have called it 'People and Places in Focus'; the equality bid, which Dr Mulligan will be heading up, is the "people", and the geography of social need, which Mr Beatty will deal with, is the "places".
7.
The statistical compendia project is a joint proposal between the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and us. However, the outcome will be relevant to all Departments and, indeed, all public sector bodies required to produce equality schemes. It is designed to fill gaps in knowledge about the circumstances of groups referred to in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It will come in at under £1 million over the period, and the outputs will contribute to the equality impact assessments with which Departments and public bodies are struggling.
8.
The neighbourhood statistics project recognises the growing need for small area statistics. The needs of the Assembly have considerably increased the demand for small area statistics. We launched a pilot project on neighbourhood statistics on 5 July, which has provided web-based access to information drawn from all Departments, right down to local area level. We must develop that work, and that is the basis for that bid. There is similar work going on in England, Wales and Scotland, and that work is generously resourced. This is a cost- effective bid. If we do not do it, we will be left behind in an important and growing area of work.
9.
The two bids fall under the following headings: cost, outputs, outcomes and management. We are happy to take questions on those. Both projects are interdepartmental in conception and execution. The neighbourhood statistics pilot project has been funded jointly by Departments for two years, and they recognise that the outputs will be highly relevant to them. It would be managed by an interdepartmental group.
10.
Dr Mulligan chairs the interdepartmental group on which all Departments are represented. They are committed to the work, and we know that they feel that it will be valuable. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) is well placed to act as a co-ordinator and facilitator. However, we stress - the Minister stressed it last week - that responsibility for the use of the information and for the equality schemes will continue to rest with Departments. They will be accountable for the management of their equality programme and New TSN.
11.
Ms Lewsley: I have had problems with NISRA in the past. When I tried to get statistics, there were none available, so I welcome the two initiatives. How long has the interdepartmental pilot for neighbourhood statistics been in place?
12.
Mr Jardine: It is now into its second year.
13.
Ms Lewsley: Huge funding has been made available for research in Northern Ireland, although statistics and data are already sitting on shelves gathering dust. Research that has already been done is duplicated. There is a group in my constituency that gathers neighbourhood statistics. Have you tapped into the information held by such groups rather than duplicating what they have already done?
14.
Mr Jardine: I would like to know which statistics were unavailable; we want to make sure that what we have is available. If you have any difficulty obtaining statistics that you need, let me know.
15.
One of the lessons learned during Mike Noble's work on small neighbourhood studies was that it is important to have consistent data collection throughout Northern Ireland, or whatever area is being dealt with. In its work on deprivation, NISRA came across some good local work, but, unfortunately, it was not available universally, and there was no consistency. It was therefore difficult to compare one area with another.
16.
Ms Lewsley: Is NISRA tapping into statistics that already exist?
17.
Mr Beatty: NISRA will not replicate work that has already been done. We will take data from the Departments and make it easily accessible at a central location. Data on health matters is available somewhere in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and education information is available in the Department of Education. NISRA will bring together into one place the data from all Departments and make it accessible to everybody. In addition, the system will take on board local data sources such as community audits, making the information available to everybody at one simple, single source.
18.
Mr Leslie: What is the relationship between the neighbourhood statistics project and the Noble index?
19.
Mr Beatty: The Noble index took information available on all of Northern Ireland and translated it into measures of deprivation. That data is on the neighbourhood statistics web site. There is other information available that does not fit into Noble's deprivation measures; NISRA can put that onto the system. NISRA can also put onto the system community audits that could not be used in Noble because they were not available throughout Northern Ireland.
20.
One of the key indicators in Noble was information from the Social Security Agency on the number of recipients of various benefits. Noble was fixed in time in mid-1999. The neighbourhood statistics project will enable us to take those indicators, track them over time and keep them up to date. Eventually, NISRA will use neighbourhood statistics as a vehicle to give people information from the 2001 census when that becomes available. Neighbourhood statistics is much wider than Noble.
21.
Mr Leslie: What is the cost of neighbourhood statistics compared with the cost of Noble?
22.
Mr Beatty: The cost of the pilot was comparable to the cost of the Noble research.
23.
Mr Leslie: Can you remember how much that was?
24.
Mr Beatty: It was £80,000.
25.
Mr Leslie: This project is ten times more expensive.
26.
Mr Beatty: The pilot was the same price as the Noble research. Noble worked at ward level, and it was a one-off piece of research. The neighbourhood statistics project covers more topics and a greater area than Noble and will go down to the level of smaller areas. Noble used electoral wards -areas of about 3,000 people - and pockets of deprivation may have been masked. For example, Taughmonagh in Belfast and parts of Beragh, in Omagh, are in non-deprived wards, but both those smaller areas are deprived. The enhanced system will supply information about many such areas and make it readily available to people. That is why it will cost more.
27.
Mr Leslie: Yes, it will cost 10 times more. Neither Noble nor Robson have been able to identify such pockets of deprivation, so I would be delighted if we could do that. If the bid is successful, the information provided by the project will, presumably, supersede anything that is in Noble.
28.
Mr Beatty: Noble provides a conceptual framework of deprivation; this project will provide much more of the kind of information that will allow communities, politicians and policy makers to decide what is most appropriate. It is up-to-date, divided into small areas and clearly laid out.
29.
Mr Leslie: You said that the information in Noble covered one moment in time. This project will cost just under £800,000; will it be a rolling programme?
30.
Mr Beatty: That budget is for five years. For example, it will be possible to track the number of recipients of income support in particular small areas of Northern Ireland each quarter. Therefore, it will be possible to see how successful a policy aimed at reducing the number of recipients has been.
31.
Mr Jardine: The Government of Scotland intend to spend £7 million on such work over a similar period, and the Office for National Statistics will spend more than £50 million. Although the project appears to be more expensive than Noble's work, it is a cost-effective way of producing useful data.
32.
Mr Weir: What size are the enumeration districts?
33.
Mr Beatty: The maps show a small example. The second map shows typical enumeration districts of approximately 150 households each.
34.
Mr Weir: Are they reasonably uniform?
35.
Mr Beatty: They are a uniform size. The map shows that Omagh, which is an urban area, has small districts.
36.
Mr Weir: So, the enumeration districts for a project covering all of Northern Ireland would all be approximately 150 households, is that right? We must compare like with like.
37.
Mr Beatty: Yes, that is the unit size for all of Northern Ireland.
38.
Mr Weir: You said that the pilot scheme would be a five-year programme. When will the information be available? I presume that there will be an initial period of information-gathering and that, thereafter, it will be a matter of keeping the information up to date.
39.
Mr Beatty: The pilot is up. The top graph is taken from it. We hope to be able to provide information at enumeration district level within the year. Early in 2003, the 2001 census results will become available, and that will be the next tranche of information. After that, it will be a matter of maintenance.
40.
Mr Weir: How much of the proposed budget is set-up cost and how much is the maintenance cost?
41.
Mr Beatty: The separate costs are identified in the bid. A large sum is needed in the first and second years for major research to get the project set up. The costs for years three, four and five are fairly stable; they are maintenance costs.
42.
Mr Weir: Is the intention to let policy makers use the neighbourhood statistics as well? It is folly to base decisions on ward-level information. There is a contrasting picture in many wards because of housing patterns in Northern Ireland. Within a ward, there are great contrasts between areas of relatively low deprivation and areas of high deprivation. The rest get ignored because they are brought in with other areas.
43.
Mr Jardine: To supplement what Mr Beatty said, the pilot has been up and running. It is on the web site, and it has been favourably received by those who have accessed it. If any members have an interest in seeing it in operation, we would be happy to arrange a demonstration. We are quite proud of it.
44.
Mr Weir: It may be the fault of the computers in the Assembly - I know that Ms Lewsley has also expressed concerns - but when I have tried to access the NISRA statistics, a blank screen comes up. However, that may be more to do with the Assembly than with NISRA.
45.
Mr Hussey: Essentially you are saying that this is purely a fact gathering exercise. In other words, it is at the first stage of statistics, and it does not go to the next two stages that are often quoted.
46.
Mr Beatty: I agree with you. I emphasise that we are not looking for surveys to go out and gather new information. It is a matter of taking information that already exists in administrative sources and collating it.
47.
Mr Hussey: So when somebody wants to utilise that information, they are determining the question, and you are simply providing the facts. The weighting of that information is entirely up to somebody else. For example, if they want to do indices of deprivation or whatever, the weighting, et cetera, would be carried out as requested. Am I right in saying that you are simply supplying the facts?
48.
Mr Jardine: We might have a view on the kind of weighting that they would use. In theory people can use it in a very flexible way.
49.
Mr Hussey: It is also providing figures at a more localised level.
50.
Mr Jardine: That is so.
51.
The Chairperson: On the longitudinal study on page 18 of Committee members' papers, it has been proposed that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety should do a similar type of survey in relation to gathering such information. Have you any idea of how your project would compare?
52.
Mr Jardine: In England and Wales, over a number of years, there has been a longitudinal survey linked to the census of population. A number of people - for example everyone born in a particular week - are identified and followed through from one census to another. The purpose is to look at factors like the impact of occupational class or social class on death rates, and so on. A range of demographic data and analyses are possible from that. That has not happened with the census either in Scotland or here in Northern Ireland. It has been found to be a very productive source of information in England and Wales, and the bid from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Services is to replicate that work in the Northern Ireland census. Obviously we would be very closely involved in that because the Department would want to draw, not only on census data but also on the General Register Office data - to record deaths and so on. We would expect to co-operate with the Department of Health on that, and its bid has certainly got our support.
53.
The Chairperson: Is this not a cross-cutting theme? Instead of each Department putting in a similar bid to do a similar type of survey, should there not be a co-ordination role?
54.
Mr Jardine: I think that is right. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will be in the lead on this issue. However, that work, like these two pieces of work, will be highly relevant across all Departments.
55.
The Chairperson: How do all of these surveys fit in? What benefits will there be in relation to targeting social need?
56.
Mr Jardine: The work on neighbourhood statistics is of direct and immediate relevance, both for identifying areas of need and for tracking the impact of policies and looking for change over time. It is also relevant for looking at whether there is a reduction in the differences between the worst and the best areas. As has been said before, the fact that this can be updated through administrative data sources means that it is a particularly important tool.
57.
The longitudinal survey and the work that is the subject of the section 75 bid focus more on people. The longitudinal study tracks the experience of people through time to examine the impact of different family circumstances, different employment or unemployment circumstances, experience of the labour market and education, et cetera. There is, therefore, complementarity between them, and the longitudinal data also opens up the possibility of looking at cause and effect. It identifies people at a particular time, tracks them through time and looks at the impact of early experiences on their life chances.
58.
The Chairperson: I want to go back to the cross-cutting issue. Is it not possible for one Department to put together a programme that would deal with all of those matters at the one time?
59.
Mr Jardine: It would be possible to do that. We decided to focus on these two bids. The longitudinal study could, in theory, have come from the Department of Finance and Personnel. We took the view that these two bids would have priority within the DFP, and we have therefore worked them up. The longitudinal survey submitted by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety could equally have come from us. We initiated a feasibility study on that longitudinal study about a year or 18 months ago, so we are very closely involved with it.
60.
The Chairperson: I understood that the criteria for receiving this type of funding involved the project having a cross-departmental aspect to it. Several Departments would join up to carry out one project, instead of each having its own individual project. The primary criterion to be met should be that the project is cross- departmental.
61.
Mr Jardine: The two projects being fielded by the Department of Finance and Personnel are cross- departmental. For example, the pilot work for the neighbourhood statistics survey has been funded by a number of Departments, and we will need other Departments to feed into that. Various Departments will use the output.
62.
The section 75 bid will be managed interdepartmentally. OFMDFM is sponsoring it with us, although we will lead it. All Departments will have a role in it. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is taking the lead on the longitudinal project, with NISRA as a co-sponsor. NISRA's involvement will be absolutely critical to that project, because of the census data and the General Register Office of Northern Ireland.
63.
Ms Lewsley: I would like some clarification. I am assuming that this data will be people-based rather than geographically based, and I suppose that is the difference? I had a problem with one question that was asked in the census with regard to disability, because I do not think that you are going to get a true reflection of the number of people who have a disability. We had hoped that, at some stage further down the line, we could piggyback on the statistics that came from that.
64.
When this database is set up, would I be able to find out the number of people in Northern Ireland who are disabled, and break the figure down into categories?
65.
Mr Jardine: The census questions will not reflect the kind of criteria that is in the Disability Discrimination Act. To do that, we would have needed to carry more questions on disability than the census could have reasonably taken. That view was formally accepted by the Equality Commission. The census will have questions similar to the questions used in 1991. Those have been considered as a very good proxy for the incidence of disability.
66.
Dr Mulligan: The focus in the section 75 work is on people and the groups of people specified in the legislation. The equality impact assessment work carried out by Departments in consultation exposed significant gaps in our information about disabled people. The last major survey of disability in Northern Ireland was carried out 10 years ago. Within this bid there is an explicit provision to carry out another detailed survey of disabled people in Northern Ireland, and that will answer a lot of the questions raised.
67.
The Chairperson: I refer Members to the issues contained in pages 3 to 5.
68.
I see that members are content with the bids going forward from the Department of Finance and Personnel, and that we are agreed on them.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Tuesday 9 October 2001
Members present:
Mr Molloy (Chairperson)
Mr Leslie (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Close
Mr Hussey
Ms Lewsley
Mr Maskey
Mr Weir
Witnesses:
Mr D Sterling ) Department ofMr N Taylor ) Finance and Personnel
69.
The Chairperson: You are welcome.
70.
Mr Sterling: Thank you. I shall summarise the process that we have gone through, and how we see it moving forward.
71.
We are now addressing the second tranche of Executive programme fund allocations. The first tranche, which consisted of 62 bids totalling £146 million, was announced by the Minister of Finance and Personnel in early April 2001.
72.
On 19 July, guidance for this round was issued to principal finance officers. The guidance set out the criteria against which they should submit bids against three funds: new directions, service modernisation, and social inclusion. The Executive had already agreed that there would be no further allocations from the infrastructure fund this year because of the need to invest early in capital projects. It had also been decided not to allocate further on the children's fund this year, because of the need to consult with the voluntary/community sector on how resources from that fund should be allocated.
73.
We sought returns from Departments by 24 September and have received almost 100 bids totalling £145 million across the three funds. Each Committee should have received a list of bids by that date, according to the guidance issued, to enable them to provide responses to their Departments by 5 October. I appreciate that that is an issue that the Committee will want to discuss with us.
74.
The Department of Finance and Personnel is working closely with its colleagues in the Economic Policy Unit (EPU) and in the Equality Unit of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to analyse the bids against the criteria. We have set up three multilateral teams that have commenced work on the bids. They will be using a scorecard approach in order to make a preliminary judgement on the applicability of each bid against each fund, as measured against the criteria. We shall also take account of the feedback that we get from the Committee for Finance and Personnel and from other Committees, and we shall be having multilateral discussions with Departments on their bids.
75.
On the basis of that analysis and our discussions with the EPU, we shall then be putting advice to our Minister, on the basis of which he will make recommendations to the Executive. Some uncertainty currently exists about Executive meetings, but our intention is that announcements on allocations should be made in early to mid November.
76.
The Chairperson: We shall open on the issue of the bidding process and the follow on from previous years regarding how that was developed. Had Committees been notified that you had requested bids back from Departments by 24 September? Were Committees given any direction that they should be involved in the bidding process at the early stages? Or were Departments simply told to table bids and that Committees would be informed afterwards?
77.
Mr Sterling: The Committee has been given a copy of the guidance that was issued to Departments. Paragraph 16 of that guidance sets out the criterion that Departments should consult their respective Committees.
78.
On the basis of that guidance, we expected Departments to have shared their bids with their Committees by 24 September. We are surprised and disappointed that that has not happened in all cases.
79.
The Chairperson: Are you surprised that that did not happen in the case of the Department of Finance and Personnel?
80.
Mr Sterling: The guidance was reasonably clear- cut from our perspective. However, if that has not happened we shall have to look at the guidance when we come to future bidding rounds to ensure that the requirements of this Committee and other Committees are properly met and that there is no confusion on anyone's part.
81.
The Chairperson: It was discussed with only one Committee, not this one. So a major gap certainly exists. Our early involvement in the process has simply been thrown back in our faces, and it has failed to deliver. The end result is a build-up to the Budget, without people having been involved in that angle of it.
82.
Mr Weir: Have you received any joint bids from two or more Departments? Is there any evidence that such bids address issues that will cut across various Departments rather than simply supplementing what Departments have already, so that they can implement certain pet projects via this route?
83.
Mr Sterling: You will appreciate that, as we have not evaluated all the bids in detail, I cannot give a definitive response to that at this time.
84.
Mr Weir: Can you give me a general response?
85.
Mr Sterling: One hundred bids have been made on the three funds. Three teams are evaluating them as we speak. There is preliminary evidence that some bids have been submitted jointly by several Departments. Other bids have the support of more than one Department, with one Department taking the lead. However, until we have been through them all in detail I can not be too categorical about the extent to which they are cross- cutting.
86.
Mr Leslie: You seem to have let loose a bureaucratic elephant in this regard. A huge amount of processing is involved. Staff in each Department are bound to have burned up much time in preparing those bids. In addition they have had to do it at the same time of year as the preparations for the Budget. I appreciate that we are in the early stages of working with the Executive programme funds (EPFs), but might it be more sensible to have one bidding round? Is the second round in January?
87.
Mr Sterling: We have not set a firm timetable for further allocations.
88.
Mr Leslie: It should be carried out at a different time of year from the Budget. Should thought be given to streamlining the process? Has there been a murmuring of discontent about the scale of the process involved?
89.
Mr Sterling: There are always murmurings of discontent.
90.
Mr Leslie: I dare say that there are.
91.
Mr Sterling: That is a fair point. Departments have been asked to submit their bids at the same time as addressing the Budget, September monitoring and other issues concerning the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting. Demands exist across the service. Having said that, in dealing with the programme funds, we are striving to fulfil the Executive's desire to make a difference and to focus resources on priorities contained in the Programme for Government. That is one way in which we are seeking to carry that out.
92.
We must strike a balance between having sufficient numbers of allocations to ensure that we meet priorities at appropriate times and unleashing "a herd of bureaucratic elephants", as it was described. At the end of this bidding round we will want to reflect on whether we have achieved that balance.
93.
Mr Leslie: On a different subject, the process is being refereed by DFP in much the same way as the Budget, and yet it is dealing with Executive programme funds. What role does the EPU have in the vetting of bids or refereeing of those resources? Perhaps it stimulates the bids?
94.
Mr Sterling: I should have made it clear that it is a joint process. The guidance was issued jointly by Dr Andrew McCormick and Will Haire. The evaluation of the bids is being conducted jointly by the EPU and ourselves, with assistance by the Equality Unit in OFMDFM. We have a joint and concerted approach. The three evaluation teams are being co-chaired by representatives from EPU and DFP, so there is sufficient co-operation on that score.
95.
Ms Lewsley: Is there evidence that Departments are bidding for programmes for which they had been refused funding under the normal Budget rounds? Are some of these bids, which have been unsuccessful in the first tranche, now trying for the second tranche? What is the situation with those bids?
96.
Mr Sterling: Without being too definitive, because we have not completed the detailed evaluation, we have noticed bids that we saw in Budget rounds, monitoring rounds and the first round of the EPFs, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It was made clear at the conclusion of the previous EPF round that a number of bids contained good ideas, but needed further work. Departments were asked to do further work on them. We identified issues in some bids that Departments could tackle more effectively on a cross-departmental basis. We asked Departments to look at them, and are hopeful that the returned bids will be better.
97.
Mr Hussey: In the overall budgetary process the Department will work to its departmental expenditure limit (DEL). You may distribute EPFs over and above what they have applied for in the budgetary process for things that are desirable and necessary, but which did not fit the overall budgetary process - for example heating. How is the departmental expenditure limit (DEL) affected when the budget is effectively skewed by that allocation of EPF?
98.
Mr Sterling: The moneys set aside for allocation from the EPF have been provided from within the Northern Ireland DEL. If a Department is successful in a bid and is allocated money from a particular fund, it will be added to that Department's departmental expenditure limit. It will not affect the overall Northern Ireland DEL, but simply lead to a skewing between Departments.
99.
Mr Hussey: To create the Executive programme fund, the individual DELs will make up the total. Will that be cut back slightly from the initial funding allocation?
100.
Mr Sterling: In setting up the programme funds in the Budget, which the Assembly agreed in early December 2000, the Executive set aside part of the allocation from the Northern Ireland DEL. At that stage, we were dealing with the allocation from the Chancellor's spending review of 2000, which had not then been allocated to departmental baselines.
101.
The Chairperson: If, after a three-year programme, the proposed scheme is seen as viable, does that become part of the overall DEL, or does it simply go back into funds?
102.
Mr Sterling: We are currently making allocations for the three years covered by the funds. In paragraph 8, the guidance clearly states that all allocations from the funds will be ring-fenced and separately identified within the public expenditure system. Departments cannot expect to receive funding beyond that three-year period.
103.
The Chairperson: The end of paragraph 8 states that the funds will be separately monitored. If it comes to light during the monitoring round that a particular Department is underspending, will that be taken into account, and how will it be monitored in relation to Executive programme funds that have also been drawn down?
104.
Mr Sterling: We will be trying to ensure that the two monitoring processes are interlinked, but the guidance has nonetheless made it clear that any underspends from Executive programme funds will be re-allocated to those funds and not to the normal processes.
105.
The Chairperson: In light of that, what additional weight is given to a cross-cutting bid? You said that a number of bids came forward in the first round that were not delivered in relation to the Department fund. How is that weighted, and how do you give preference to a cross-cutting bid?
106.
Mr Sterling: It can never be an exact science. With each bid, we try to weight and score the extent to which each criterion is met. As far as cross-cutting is concerned, we must judge the extent to which the cross- cutting aspect is necessary to deliver the objectives that are sought by the particular bid. We are not saying that a cross-cutting bid would get, for example, five extra marks.
107.
The Chairperson: Is no weighting attached to cross-cutting?
108.
Mr Sterling: When we have weighted and scored specific criteria, we then make a general judgement on several non-specific criteria, of which the cross-cutting dimension is one. The score will be adjusted to take account of that.
109.
The Chairperson: It is unfair to Departments to some extent. They have given up departmental budgets into Executive programme funds that are for new schemes, initiatives and cross-cutting initiatives, yet are finding that they must bid a second time for exactly the same money. If it has not cut across a departmental role, I do not see why the money should be allocated at all. If the criteria are to be adhered to; if a bid does not have that cross-cutting dimension or is not a new initiative, then the money should be held in the Executive programme funds until a new initiative comes forward.
110.
Mr Hussey: Is there a danger that the Executive programme funds, because of the shortfall that actually led to their creation, could become a type of firefighting budget? Alternatively, Departments will have a five-year or 10-year plan. What potential is there for Departments to bring something forward from year 5 or year 10 and create some leeway in their budgetary processing?
111.
Mr Sterling: First, the Executive made a collective decision to set up the funds and allocate moneys from the Northern Ireland DEL for that purpose. Secondly, the guidance makes it clear that a good idea should not necessarily suffer as a consequence of not having a particular cross-cutting dimension. Apart from new innovative ideas there are still a lot of bread-and-butter issues that need to be addressed. So nothing would be excluded simply because it does not have a cross- cutting dimension.
112.
Mr Hussey: My first point related to the danger of the budget becoming a firefighting budget, or Departments working on a long-term strategy endeavouring to ease pressures by bringing forward items that are further down the line.
113.
Mr Sterling: One of the things the funds can do is to provide money for Departments to develop new ideas. One approach we would be keen to see is "invest to save"; where a Department needs an allocation in order to develop a new idea which might in the longer term lead to more efficient ways of delivering a service.
114.
Mr Hussey: Would an example be if office accommodation could be bought cheaper now?
115.
Mr Sterling: That is one issue that could be examined and measured against the criteria. The infrastructure fund would be one clear example in that it exists to support investment in strategic network projects including roads, rail, energy and telecommunications.
116.
The Chairperson: I am concerned that some departmental moneys have gone into the Executive programme funds; for example, the money that is going to the 16 district councils. They get a grant that is going to be reduced thus increasing their local rates. Two million pounds could be sitting unused in the Executive programme funds and finishes up going back into a monitoring round. However, the district councils are seen as being under-privileged and under- funded during that time and need that money to supplement their rates. The money is being taken out of Departments because it is not being used for any new initiatives and is simply going back into the same budget.
117.
Mr Sterling: The Executive made a deliberate decision to set up these funds and to allocate money to them to address specific Programme for Government priorities. It would not be right to consider this money as not achieving anything. There is an on-going process of allocating that money - a small amount this year and the remainder over the next two years. We are obviously in a process of ensuring that the money is put to good use. This year's early monitoring does not suggest that money allocated to the first tranche is not being used, or that there is any under spend in that area. We will be keeping a check on that.
118.
The Chairperson: The draft budget is based on the monitoring round producing something like £48 million. If that were not delivered then would we rifle the other funds to get it?
119.
Mr Sterling: Broadly speaking, that is correct. We will have to make a judgement on that, on the basis of the ongoing September monitoring round and again in December.
120.
The Chairperson: Are the Departments going to be bidding twice for the same amount of money?
121.
Mr Sterling: I am sorry - I am not sure whether I understand the question.
122.
The Chairperson: A Department's money could be lost in the initial rounds of the bid. The Department bids again for the same amount of money in the three categories of the Executive programme funds. If those initiatives are not new, that means that the Department is bidding for the same programmes in the same funds for the second time. Some Departments could have lost a lot of money in that process.
123.
Mr Sterling: I am sorry to labour the point, but it was the Executive Ministers who agreed to put money into the funds in the first place, money that had not at that time been allocated to Departments. However, I acknowledge your point.
124.
The Chairperson: The Executive do not always get it right. Do we need to deal with any other questions? The next time that the bidding process begins, and when the Department of Finance and Personnel asks the other Departments for bids, departmental Committees must also be informed that the bidding process has begun. We have tried that two years in a row and it has not happened, but perhaps it will. That process could perhaps be short-circuited if each Committee were informed that the bidding process had begun, instead of depending on its respective Department to notify it.
125.
Mr Sterling: We had a useful discussion with your Clerk, and that idea could improve the process, so we will take it back for consideration.
126.
The Chairperson: We want to look at the three bids. Will you give us your commentary on the other bids, excluding those of the Department of Finance and Personnel?
127.
Mr Sterling: Yes. Again, we have not gone through those in detail, but we are happy to address any of the points of principle or points of detail if we can.
128.
The Chairperson: Will you look at page 12 of the Members' notes? Perhaps you do not have those notes.
129.
Mr Sterling: Our notes do not have a page 12.
130.
The Chairperson: Will you take us through the bids?
131.
The Committee Clerk: I have advised officials on the example bids, at which the Committee might want to look in detail. Mr Sterling, will you take the Committee through any general views on the criteria that you might have that apply to those bids or to a selection of those bids?
132.
Mr Sterling: I shall attempt to address those issues. Looking at the new directions fund, our attention was drawn to the point that there were four bids connected with information technology that appeared to be the same project. It was suggested to us that we should look carefully at that to ensure that Departments did not make multiple bids that were designed to achieve the same end, and that we should take proper account of that.
133.
Mr Taylor: Several bids came in from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that appear to be an aggregation of similar projects. Those bids used the same language, and we are cognisant of that fact. Groups that are currently looking at the bids will take that issue on board.
134.
Mr Sterling: You drew our attention to a bid titled "intensive community rehabilitation" that involves the funding of salaries for nurses and care staff for the period that extends beyond the end of the three years of the EPF. I am concerned about how that will be treated beyond those three years. We are allocating for three years only, and Departments will need to show how they plan to continue with projects from their existing planned resources because we cannot make commitments beyond that period.
135.
The Chairperson: Will part of the criteria look at how those will be sustained?
136.
Mr Sterling: Sustainability is something that we must look at against all of the bids, especially those that have a running cost dimension.
137.
Mr Taylor: It is important that Departments should be able to try something new, with the intention that it will generate a saving. If the pilot project works, they can continue with it based on the money that they are saving elsewhere. However, whether that money should come to the centre for reallocation would be a matter for judgement at that stage.
138.
I had a brief look at the "getting home/staying home" bid; it was not clear what was being proposed, how it would achieve the objectives and what, exactly, the technology was. Perhaps that was because the relevant information was not available to me.
139.
Ms Lewsley: Can Departments apply for funding for a bid from different directions? Could the Executive programme funds only be part of the funding? How would you monitor and evaluate that project properly if you are only a part-funder?
140.
Mr Sterling: We are encouraging Departments to provide evidence that they are using the Executive programme funds to lever in money from other sources. However, in such cases, that means that the job of monitoring outcomes, and deciding whether objectives are being delivered and we are getting value for money, is slightly more difficult. None the less, it is to be encouraged.
141.
A general point that applies to that bid is that you can see the difficulty and challenge that we face in dealing with 100 bids, each with some form of economic appraisal and supporting documentation. That is why we set up three multidisciplinary teams, including people from DFP Supply, the Economic Policy Unit and the Equality Unit in OFMDFM. We are also finding that, as the teams are going through the bids, they need to engage with Departments and others on specific issues, such as the service modernisation bids that are addressing the development of e-business strategies and information technology systems. We had to call in somebody with central expertise in that area to ensure that a co-ordinated approach is being taken and that we do not end up spraying money about on ad hoc projects. Those are issues that must be addressed as we go through the bids individually.
142.
Ms Lewsley: You are saying that, in some cases, you may turn a bid down because, when you look at the project, its lifespan might be longer than three years. You talked about resource-intensive bids that were looking at resourcing and staffing for five years and the fact that funding only lasts for three years. Would you turn a bid down on those criteria? Could the bidders not assume that they would get three years' funding that would give them the opportunity to lever further funding from another source? If the project had been up and running for three years, it would be much easier to prove its viability by that stage and, therefore, funding would be easier to access.
143.
Mr Sterling: We would not turn down a bid on those grounds. We provide advice that enables our Minister to make recommendations to the Executive. We do that having evaluated the bids against the criteria. If we came across a bid that we thought was good, but, clearly, was going to require funding beyond the three years, we would probably suggest, that if it were supported, it would be on the condition that there is some assurance that it will not just die at the end of the three-year period.
144.
The Chairperson: You said that there were 100 bids. Is there any mechanism for improving the bidding process and the information that is available? A lot of work goes into putting the bids together in various Departments. A lot of time and money is involved, and if the bid is unsuccessful that is all wasted. Do you, as a Department, have any plans to give out advice or information?
145.
Mr Sterling: When we have completed this round we will have to review the approach that we are taking, the guidance that we give and the paperwork that we require from Departments to support the bids. As the Committee has rightly recognised, we have generated a lot of paper and we want to ensure that we do not create an unnecessary bureaucratic burden.
146.
The Chairperson: To return to the cross- departmental issue, a quick look shows that many of the bids involve very little cross-departmental work. Each Department puts in its own bid, but some of them have interlinking interests. For example, you could say that due to the closure of hospitals, the Department for Regional Development's bids for roads could be cross- departmental, but it would not be accepted as such. Should we start to emphasise the need for Departments to come together in the bidding process, rather than throwing only their own bids in?
147.
Mr Sterling: Yes. When the Minister was making a statement to the Assembly about the first round of allocations, he suggested that there should be greater evidence of cross-cutting work in the next round. We will want to be able to make a judgement on whether there has been an improvement and whether we should be doing more to encourage that, along with the EPU. I said earlier that I did not want to make any definitive pronouncements at this stage, but after our initial look, there does not seem to have been the increase in cross- cutting work that we expected to see in this round.
148.
The Chairperson: Would it be correct to say that it is still the case that each Department is putting in its own bids, and that while there might be links, those might not be evident to some Departments?
149.
Mr Sterling: Yes, there is plenty of evidence to support that statement.
150.
The Chairperson: Thank you.