(AQW 4237/01)

Dr Farren: The table below provides this information where it is readily available. It should be noted that for both Programmes different selection procedures and criteria operate and therefore comparisons of these data at Priority level are inappropriate. Most of the Measures under the BSP Programme are delivered through existing Government Programmes and as such are not open to applications from the public. In these cases applications are not scored but rather assessed against set criterion and either accepted or rejected. This is why scores are not shown for Priorities 1, 3 (where no decisions have been taken on Measures that make public calls for projects) and 5 of BSP. In the case of the PEACE II Programme no decisions have been taken under Priorities 3 and 4.

The following data has been collated from a representative sample of over 50 Implementing Bodies.

(AQW 4238/01)

Dr Farren: The table below sets out selection criteria recorded on the EU Structural Funds Applications and Monitoring Database for both Programmes and the numbers of applicants that failed to meet them.

(AQW 4240/01)

Dr Farren: The requested information is presented in the three tables below. Birth statistics are not recorded by county, but by Local Government District. Statistics for the most recent year, 2001, are currently being finalised.

(AQW 4254/01)

Dr Farren: The reconciliation aspect of the PEACE II Programme will be monitored and evaluated against the relevant indicators and targets as set out in the Operational Programme and Programme Complement documents. The PEACE II Monitoring Committee which is chaired by the Chief Executive of the Special EU Programmes Body will be responsible for this in the first instance. The extent to which the relevant targets are being met will also be addressed as part of the Mid-term Evaluation of the PEACE II Programme which is expected to be completed by June 2003.

(AQW 4255/01)

Dr Farren: Given the Community Relations Council’s role as an Intermediary Funding Body under the Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation (PEACE I), it was involved from the outset in a widespread and inclusive consultation process on the Community Support Framework for Northern Ireland and the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation (PEACE II), launched by DFP in August 1998.

The CRC was also a member of the Interim Community Support Framework Monitoring Committee which was established as a mechanism for ongoing consultation during the negotiation of the Community Support Framework. This extensive consultation process culminated in a Colloquy in January 2001 to discuss the new delivery arrangements under PEACE II and the way forward generally to which the CRC was invited. The CRC was also invited to a series of consultation seminars organised by the Special EU Programmes Body on the development of the PEACE II Programme Complement.

The CRC is now an Intermediary Funding Body for PEACE II and directly responsible for the development and implementation of measure 2.1. OFMDFM is the Accountable Department for this Measure.

As an IFB, the CRC is a formal partner in the delivery of PEACE II and is responsible for providing advice on the development and implementation of these measures on an ongoing basis.

(AQW 4256/01)

Dr Farren: The projected Technical Assistance costs under Priority Six of the PEACE II Programme as detailed in the Operational Programme are 25 meuro (3.5% of the Programme Budget). However, at the time the Programme was agreed, it was also envisaged that an unspecified proportion of the resources for other Measures would be required for costs associated with implementation and development, as was the case under PEACE I. In line with a new Commission requirement these other costs have now been quantified and the total projected development and other costs to be met from the Technical Assistance budget now amounts to £43m (9.4% of the Programme Budget). The Technical Assistance allocation under PEACE I was £17.0m (3.5% of the Programme Budget). Other development costs were needed but not specified for PEACE I in the same way as is now required for PEACE II.

(AQW 4296/01)

Dr Farren: Although there is no current refurbishment work taking place at Dundonald House any future contract will include the necessary measures to ensure that there is full disability access.

(AQW 4357/01)

Dr Farren: Expenditure on community relations has been interpreted in its widest sense to include all expenditure by DFP on the EU PEACE Programmes. Expenditure by DFP over the period from devolution is as follows:

The expenditure for the period 1 December 1999 to 31 March 2000 excludes expenditure on the DFP votes by OFMDFM on community relations as a result of the accounting treatment introduced to cover the period immediately following devolution. The expenditure appears on the OFMDFM answer to the same question. The effectiveness of this expenditure will be addressed as part of the mid-term evaluation of the PEACE II Programme which will be conducted alongside the ex-post evaluation of the PEACE I Programme. This joint evaluation is expected to be completed by June 2003.

(AQW 4429/01)

Dr Farren: The Review shows that in the General Service Grades, except at Grade 7 level and above where Roman Catholics are under-represented, there is fair participation by both sections of the community. The Review also identifies a disproportionately low application rate from the Protestant section of the community in recruitment for the entry-level grades of Administrative Assistant and Administrative Officer. Formal affirmative action has been taken by including in advertisements for such posts a statement particularly welcoming applications from the Protestant section of the community. This will be kept under review.