COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Neighbourhood Renewal
18 September 2008
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr David Simpson (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Jonathan Craig
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Alban Maginness
Mr Fra McCann
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín
Witnesses:
Mr David Ferguson )
Ms Denise Ferguson ) Department for Social Development
Mr Mark O’Donnell )
The Chairperson (Mr Simpson):
Our next briefing on neighbourhood renewal is from Department officials. I ask members to be concise. I know that there are issues around this subject, but as we do not want a repeat of what happened in the Chamber the other day, we should try and keep to the point.
Mr David Ferguson (Department for Social Development):
Good afternoon, Chairman.
The Chairperson:
It is good to see you again, David. Is your move to Social Development promotion or demotion?
Mr David Ferguson:
It is a sideways, Chairman, from the frying pan to the fire.
The Chairperson:
I did not notice any of you wearing body armour today; I thought that you might have been. You are very welcome. David Ferguson is the Urban Regeneration and Community Development Group’s deputy secretary, and with him are Denise Ferguson — no relation I assume? —and Mark O’Donnell. Please go straight into your presentation, folks, as our time is limited and we have quite a bit on the agenda. We are not trying to curtail debate; it is just unfortunate that we have a great deal on today. David, in your usual form, spin it. [Laughter.]
Mr David Ferguson:
That was my previous job, Chairman.
I had not anticipated doing a formal presentation; my understanding is that the Committee has some concerns about the responses that were provided a couple of months ago by the Department, following the evidence sessions in the Stormont Hotel.
The Department subsequently provided written responses to the questions, and I understand that the Committee is concerned about some of those responses, particularly the last one that relates to the future of neighbourhood renewal and the prospect of its transfer to the new local authorities under the review of local government. I did not anticipate making a presentation; I am happy to go straight into questions.
The Chairperson:
I was giving you an opportunity to say something at the beginning of the meeting. The Committee did not expect a briefing; I apologise if I misled you. I was giving you an opportunity to get the Committee in a reasonable mood, which would be hard to do.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
We have many questions, because the Committee is concerned with more than the last two questions.
From what the Minister says, it is clear that she intends to transfer neighbourhood renewal to local councils — and the sooner the better. I, and many other people, particularly in the community and voluntary sector, am keen to find out what commitments Departments have given in their contribution to neighbourhood renewal. What meetings, contracts and protocols have the Minister and the Department for Social Development established in achieving contracts, particularly in March 2009? People have been given a grade 2 on the basis that another Department will pick up the tab. However, the Minister has not brought the matter to the Executive nor has she issued guidelines. Some Departments have yet to express an interest, let alone accept partial responsibility. First, how will those posts be protected? Secondly, what is the position as regards the posts of those people on protective notice? In parts of Belfast the figure is well over 100.
Will the whole budget for neighbourhood renewal be transferred to councils? People old enough to remember the transfer of leisure services — Fra McCann, Alban Maginness and I— will remember that it ended up with a 9% transfer of services as opposed to 100%. That is a fact that can be checked.
Mr David Ferguson:
Ms Ní Chuilín has raised several issues and I am not sure how to bundle the answers. She asked about contracts between the Minister and Departments. Departments have committed themselves to neighborhood renewal and its delivery. The Department included an annex with the responses that it sent some months ago. Three or four big Departments are involved — the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department of Education, the Department for Employment and Learning and, to a lesser extent, Invest NI, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the NIO.
Annex 3 of the paper submitted to the Committee attempts, in summary form, to explain how, through their own mainstream funding and a range of programmes and policies, Departments have committed to neighbourhood renewal. However, such commitment, although necessary, is not in itself sufficient for success. In November 2007, the Minister announced a set of targets or performance indicators — things that Departments were committing to, which have also been included with the material — in support of the neighbourhood renewal effort across Government. We have not begun to measure performance on those targets as they were announced only last November, and we are in the process of putting in place a proper monitoring and evaluation framework. However, we expect to do so by the end of this financial year.
Concerning individual projects, the other major change over the past twelve months is a refocusing of the neighbourhood renewal effort, not only by DSD using the extra money that it received, but also by individual Departments, based on the priorities set out in the neighbourhood renewal action plans. That means focusing on the services that are required to meet those priorities, and not funding individual projects that, hitherto, have been funded. It is about ensuring that the money spent in neighbourhood renewal areas, whether by DSD or through Departments’ mainstream budgets, is properly targeted. Inevitably, it involves realigning and shifting resources in order to provide the services that are identified as a priority in the action plans. The refocus of efforts also means stopping funding in some areas and attempting to ensure that funding that could come from statutory agencies is secured. Above all, in circumstances in which services are not otherwise provided by statutory agencies, it means stepping in with the Department for Social Development’s money in order to provide some security over the next few years for the required services.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
With respect, I could listen to the witnesses and leave at 1.30 pm. This is waffle. I have asked questions, and concerns have been noted. I will leave it to colleagues to come in. As far as I am concerned, this is nonsense.
The Chairperson:
I raised this matter in the Chamber and, despite all the talk, the concern is that the buck is being passed to councils to deliver on neighbourhood renewal. Although some people may be in favour of that and others may not, the difficulty with delegating responsibility to councils is that if we cannot get departmental buy-in at this level, how can we ensure delivery at council level?
There is great concern about consistency — even among councils. What guarantees can the Department give that there will be consistency in delivery? Some councils have encountered problems, although I must say that one council area in my constituency, Craigavon Borough Council, has benefited. That council has a good economic-development team that fights its corner. Other councils’ experiences have been totally different, and I have raised that concern, which is shared by other members, with the Minister. Is it the case that we cannot deal with delivery problems at this stage, so the Department is passing the buck to councils? The Department’s attitude seems to be that it cannot work it, so let councils get on with it.
Mr David Ferguson:
It is not a case of passing the buck, although you might respond that you would expect me to say that. The Department for Social Development does not accept that other Departments are not committed to the programme, either at policy or at local operational level. I accept that it has taken longer than we anticipated, and public representatives would have wanted, to get to this point in neighbourhood renewal delivery. There are several reasons for that, although I do not wish to go over the history in detail. Nevertheless, it took longer than envisaged to get neighbourhood partnership boards in place; it took longer than anticipated to initiate action plans, which are the key to spending neighbourhood renewal money; and it has taken longer to implement the appropriate performance indicators. However, we are getting there.
Looking ahead, community planning responsibilities will prove to be a powerful weapon in the new local councils’ armouries. Specific powers will give the councils a clear leadership role and bind in the statutory agencies to a range of activities for which the council will be responsible, including neighbourhood renewal.
The Chairperson:
The ministerial group that was set up met once in the past 12 months. I agree with those who say that we are getting nowhere. I expected the Department to have answers, especially after the debate in the Chamber last Tuesday. It was fairly robust, and we were given all sorts of assurances from the Minister. I expected the departmental representatives to come here today with specific answers — not only to the questions that were asked on the Floor of the House, because the Minister will have noted those, but also to the Committee’s questions.
Considering that the group met only once in the past 12 months, what detrimental effect did that have on the delivery of neighbourhood renewal on the ground?
Mr David Ferguson:
There has been a great deal of activity beyond the ministerial group meetings. There were to be two ministerial group meetings during the past 12 months. Denise will keep me right on that because it preceded my coming into the Department some five months ago. Two meetings were put in place but they were postponed —
The Chairperson:
They were 12 months apart.
Mr David Ferguson:
Within the past 12 months, two meetings were scheduled but did not take place, but there was a meeting a couple of months ago. The ministerial group — and the binding in of Departments through it — is not the only way in which we have worked to deliver neighbourhood renewal through Departments.
Regular meetings have taken place between two main groups: the north-west programme group and the Belfast strategy group, which bring together the statutory agencies that are involved in delivering neighbourhood renewal. There has been a great deal of activity between DSD and other Departments that the Committee will not be aware of.
The Chairperson:
Are you saying that there has been no detrimental impact on neighbourhood renewal because that group met only once — although you said twice — in 11 months? I want you to answer that question specifically.
Mr David Ferguson:
No; not that I am aware of.
The Chairperson:
If that is the case, what is the point of having the ministerial group?
Mr David Ferguson:
To make sure that —
The Chairperson:
We have to ask why it exists and how effective it is. It has met only once, although you say twice. If its failure to meet regularly has had no detrimental effect, what is the point of it?
Mr David Ferguson:
Progress has been made even though there has been only one meeting of the ministerial group. We have continued to make progress with neighbourhood renewal.
Mr F McCann:
Councils have no control over education or Departments, so how could they persuade them to follow through with resources? That must affect our idea of neighbourhood renewal; many members in this room attended meetings at which the Department convinced people to buy into it.
One of the big buy-ins was that there would be ministerial control over the route that neighbourhood renewal would take. A guarantee that other Departments would buy into it would be the fact that the Minister would chair those meetings and guarantee that Departments would buy into it.
I spoke to Department representatives who could not wait to get away from neighbourhood renewal because they did not believe that they had any real input into it. They believed that they were forced into saying that part of their funding suddenly became neighbourhood-renewal funding rather than funding that they put in themselves.
I am a member of Belfast City Council’s Strategic Policy and Resources Committee, which has had numerous debates about where neighbourhood renewal fits in. Senior staff told us that no discussions had taken place about Belfast, although I cannot speak for other councils.
Most of the councillors at those meetings had not been advised by council officials that the transfer of neighbourhood renewal was a possibility, and had, in fact, argued against the transfer because of the revenue trail that neighbourhood renewal might bring.
Mr David Ferguson:
You are saying that little was known about the transfer of neighbourhood renewal to new local councils from 2011, which is not true — the transfer has been known about for some time.
Mr F McCann:
Who were the discussions with?
Mr David Ferguson:
The Minister wrote to the former Chairperson of the Committee in April 2008, saying:
“Significant consultation has been held on the transfer of Urban Regeneration, including Neighbourhood Renewal, functions. Indeed, the transfer was identified as part of the local government RPA proposals, of the Direct Rule Administration, which were the subject of a detailed public consultation process.”
The consultation process dates from November 2005 and before. The Minister then documents the establishment of a subcommittee by the Executive, which was led by the then Minister with responsibility for local government, Arlene Foster. From early autumn of last year, proposals were in the public domain for the transfer of urban regeneration, including neighbourhood renewal, to the new local authorities. Therefore, I am surprised that anyone has not seen the transfer coming.
Mr F McCann:
There is a difference between seeing the transfer coming and the Minister not discussing it with councils. We have been told by council officials that there have been no conversations, meetings or directions about neighbourhood renewal returning to the councils on which we sit.
Mr David Ferguson:
That is a fair point, because we have not worked out the detail of how the policy will operate. There is much work to be done, not only on urban regeneration and neighbourhood renewal but across the piece on the main functions that are being transferred. Detailed legislative work, staffing work and policy work has to be done. A range of issues must be addressed, and the structures to do that have been established by the Minister responsible for local government. My staff ask me the same questions: what is happening to my job? Where am I going? Where will I be located? Who will I work for? Who will my boss be? What terms and conditions will apply when I transfer to the new local authorities? Those legitimate questions cannot be answered because we are still in the foothills of working out the detail.
Mr Brady:
You said that there were two ministerial group meetings in the past 12 months; you also mentioned meetings that were held in Belfast and Derry, which was a north-west partnership of some description. What about other areas? People do not drop off the edge of the earth when they go outside Belfast or Derry — some of us live in other areas.
I am not aware of any consultation with Newry and Mourne District Council about the proposed changes. To echo one of my colleagues the other day — I am bewildered by the situation.
Mr David Ferguson:
There are two separate issues: what is in prospect, and what is being done at present. In prospect, there are 36 neighbourhood renewal areas: 15 in the Derry area, 15 in Belfast and six spread across the rest of the region. As there are so many clustered in Belfast and Derry, it was felt that they would be easier to manage if there was a co-ordinating group that worked with the neighbourhood renewal partnerships on their priorities and their delivery of services.
Areas outside Belfast are more easily managed because there are fewer partnerships.
Mr Brady:
Presumably that is the theory.
Mr David Ferguson:
It is the practice too.
Ms Denise Ferguson (Department for Social Development):
Six, rather than 15, areas have been targeted in Derry, 15 in Belfast, and 15 in towns and cities across Northern Ireland. The city structures in Belfast and Derry probably made it easier to draw together the major players to look strategically at those areas. It was easier to draw up plans that would make sense across Belfast or Derry rather than simply in each individual area, although we took into account any neighbourhood action plans too.
However, that is not to say that similar work outside those two main areas is not going on in towns and cities across Northern Ireland, but more localised negotiations are required there, and it is more difficult to draw together one overarching strategic body.
Mr Brady:
Perhaps we are not aware of anything happening in our respective areas.
Ms Denise Ferguson:
I assure you that it is all going on in the background.
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín:
The explanation is that it is all going on in the background.
The Chairperson:
I detect some cynicism in that comment.
Mr F McCann:
I hate to prolong the discussion, but I want to return to what Carál said earlier. Some questions were raised about how different elements of the funding have been categorised as a, b or c. One level incorporates groups whose remit fell outside neighbourhood renewal and into the remit of other Departments.
What discussions, if any, have there been in the Department for Social Development and other Departments to ensure the continuity of funding for those groups? Many of the groups provide the local youth club, crèche or unemployment centre or deal with social deprivation, yet by this time next year many of their staff may be out of work.
Mr David Ferguson:
That is a difficult question to answer. I will ask Mark to give some examples from his experience of regeneration in Belfast. Members should bear in mind that, since the Minister’s announcement in March 2008, the Department has been considering projects that fall into three categories.
The first category consists of projects that are neighbourhood renewal priorities and that we now know provide services that are not otherwise available from statutory authorities. The crucial issue is that the Minister is providing greater certainty of funding for those services through three-year rather than short-term contracts.
The third category incorporates projects that, although important, did not provide services that were identified as priorities for neighbourhood renewal. The Minister decided that their funding should be withdrawn from August 2008.
The group that lies between those two consists of projects that provide an important service, but the evidence indicates that the service is either being provided, or could be funded, by a local statutory agency. Mark might give the Committee some examples. The Department is working with the relevant statutory agencies to put in place arrangements to decide whether the statutory agency will take over the service because it can afford to fund and deliver it or whether it will employ the organisation that currently provides the service. We must complete that task by the end of March 2009.
Mr Mark O'Donnell (Department for Social Development):
The main forum for discussion with other Departments, at least in Belfast, where, as you know, I work, is through the Belfast strategy group. It has taken a thematic approach, and workshops have taken place to link the strategy group with the neighbourhood partnerships to facilitate a direct discussion about how the services are to be sustained in those areas. One workshop on education and skills and two on health have taken place; there will be one on community safety in October and there will be one on transport in November.
Much of the funding that we have put into voluntary and community organisations across Belfast is granted alongside funding from other relevant statutory organisation. For example, in my area, the Shankill, the Forum for Action on Substance Abuse (FASA) deals with drug and alcohol issues. Other bodies across west Belfast, such as the Falls Community Council, do much the same work. The Department’s money supports certain activities and the health trust’s money supports other activity. There is, therefore, a reasonably good starting point for the discussions that we pursue with the trust.
Similarly, Belfast members are probably aware that my counterparts — other deputy directors — in the Belfast Regeneration Office have a thematic responsibility for negotiations with statutory bodies for education. They are making progress as we speak. The Department cannot, at present, give any conclusions about how many posts will be picked up by those other statutory bodies and how many will not. However, the Minister envisages that process happening between now and the end of March 2009. It is well under way.
The Chairperson:
I thank the Department officials for their presentation, which reminds me a bit of the presentation that we had on gambling. Those officials found it hard to put their case. The less said about that —
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Can we get answers to our questions? As far as I am concerned, the meeting has not been satisfactory.
The Chairperson:
We have taken note of that. Thank you very much.