The Committee for Employment and Learning welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation into Urban Regeneration in Northern Ireland.

Members have due regard for much of the role which the community sector has played during the years of community conflict and believe that the sector has a key role to play in any future development in respect of Urban Regeneration.

This response outlines a number of issues to improve links between education and training, in respect of the community and economic development. A healthy economy is the engine of change, which will promote urban regeneration.

The Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) has an important delivery and facilitative role in Urban Regeneration. Our response is in the context of our Department's overarching aim, which is to "promote a culture of Lifelong Learning, and to equip people for work in a modern economy." In order to help it achieve this it has set two broad objectives:

• to work with others to achieve the highest quality of education and training and seek the highest standards of learning, research, training and scholarship; and

• to promote economic growth, improved living standards and an increased number of accessible employment opportunities.

We must seek to clarify the extent of community needs in terms of training and education. We must ensure that we have the most up-to-date information to quantify the problems. The outcome of the consultation may wish to focus on a range of approaches rather than seeking a single community development approach. The particular needs of each community may require individual approaches and solutions, as they will have developed at different levels. A 'one fit for all approach' will not work.

DEL must ensure that the initiatives offered through mainstream provision are sufficiently flexible to address the variety of needs within a community.

If greater flexibility of provision is to become a reality there has to be even greater emphasis on co-operation and partnership between the Department and the providers of training and education on the ground.

Education and training initiatives need to support activity, which at first sight may not have an explicitly economic focus (e.g. community arts training and festivals). Departments must learn to work with people in their current situation and recognise that a graduated level of development is preferable to a high-level action plan imposed from the top down.

Given the need for a range of community development approaches and the importance of drawing on examples of best practice, the Inquiry may wish to examine the provision of training and whether it should be delivered within mainstream provision or by established providers with strong community roots such as the Workers' Educational Association or the Ulster People's College.

The Committee, during the course of its Inquiry into Education and Training for Industry, has become very aware of the scale of the literacy and numeracy problem in Northern Ireland, with almost a quarter of the adult population below acceptable standards. Members are convinced that very specific action is needed on a wide scale to develop and support community based initiatives to address both these and other basic skill needs. The expertise already exists on the ground in the form of the Educational Guidance Service for Adults, who specialise in reaching out to adults who benefited least from formal education.

Our Further Education Colleges (FECs) also have a major role to play in any future strategy, as they already have key links into deprived communities. Members want to see FECs at the forefront of any basic skill needs strategy, and working closely with the community and local employers to deliver courses in line with needs, and at outreach locations that are easily accessible. Employers should be encouraged to support local training initiatives.

Consideration should be given to the provision of financial assistance to FECs to develop research and development and technology transfer expertise and assistance for the benefit of local industry.

The Committee welcomes financial initiatives such as the Collaboration Fund, an allocation of £600k over three years in an effort to drive up demand for learning locally and to provide the infrastructure necessary to meet the demand; the Access Initiative, an allocation of £1.5m since 1999 to encourage FECs to take forward innovative approaches to engage with disadvantaged individuals and groups previously marginalised from educational opportunities; and the Disabled Access Fund, financial support to help with the costs of technical or carer support.

However members see this approach as piecemeal and they would wish to see a more strategic approach to this issue of how best to target scarce resources on those groups who are currently socially excluded. There is a valid argument that this funding should be brought under the mainstream provision of the Department's budget because of the underlying potential of skill shortages to undermine economic development.

The Committee welcomes the Springfield Educational Village initiative, which breaks with the tradition of separate vocational, community and university provision. The University of Ulster and Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education (BIFHE) have worked in tandem with the local community to bring together further education courses, community education, university degree courses and post graduate research, on a single site. This project needs careful monitoring and evaluation to ensure it meets its objectives.

The universities have undertaken a number of initiatives to widen access amongst under-represented groups in NI, examples of these include the appointment of an Access Promotion Officer and the establishment of Outreach Centres. These are welcome developments, which need to be replicated on a larger scale and on a more co-ordinated basis between all three universities and the 17 FECs.

The Committee believes that valuable lessons have been learnt from the European Union's Urban 1 Initiative (which was started in 1994). The Urban 1 initiative adopted a broad approach to urban policy with a tendency for risk taking. Members consider that it is vital that limited resources are used more effectively and that local confidence can be demonstrated in the management of European programmes especially in the next phase, the Urban 2 Programme, which covers 2000-2006. Members welcome the recognition, in the priorities set for the Urban 2 Programme, of the need for a more integrated approach to tackle the physical, labour market and community capacities and review the potential of ICT to help restructure the local economy. This will give an important innovative dimension to the new Programme. Members would support the view that the Urban 2 Programme needs to be distinctive from, but complementary to, the NI Transitional Objective 1 Programme 2000-2005 and the Peace 2 Programme for Northern Ireland and the Border Counties 2000-2004.

Northern Ireland's close links with the USA should also be exploited to acquire best practice. Following my recent visit to the Bidwell Training Center in Pittsburgh, a number of issues for adoption in the NI context should be considered.

• Training sometimes needs to be located precisely in the areas of social difficulties.

• Premises used for training should be high quality and attractive to boost the self-esteem of the participants.

• The importance of mobilising corporate sponsorship.

• The Bidwell Centre refused to train people to only a minimum wage standard. They placed more emphasis on back office jobs i.e. inputting medical records into computers which paid up to £20,000 after three years.

• The end user involvement in setting the curriculum.

• Increased emphasis on training for leaders.

• Master in Business Administration (MBA) equivalent qualifications for personnel in non-profit making organisations who have responsibility for public funds. This has been a successful development in the USA.

The consultation undertaken by the Department for Social Development should clearly establish the principle that further development in Urban Regeneration should be in co-operation with the Community. A partnership approach is needed in addressing the needs of communities. Government and all the public bodies should be facilitators and supporters engaging with the community at all levels. Members raised their concerns that community development in the past was based on EU funding, and that, in order to ensure sustainability, consideration should be given to what would replace it once it is withdrawn. Whatever the source of funding, effective mechanisms should be in place to ensure that paid personnel are delivering on the ground and the projects undertaken are properly evaluated in respect of value for money.

Our response seeks to assist in 'closing the circle' to ensure that education, training and the community sector work in a co-ordinated way that underpins economic development and urban regeneration. If this link is not made then urban regeneration will simply remain as an aspiration on paper.

26 September 2001