|
RES/03
Committee for Employment and Learning
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) |
0.102 |
0.842 |
0.745 |
|
(technical assistance)
|
0.05 |
0.5 |
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." (i.e. 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
12 October 2001
Minutes of 11th Ocober 2001
|
