Preparation for the Next Phase of the Rural Development Programme(2001-2006)

FIRST TERM OF REFERENCE -
FULL PARTICIPATION BY UNDER-REPRESENTED GROUPS

4.         Context

4.1. Recommendation 4.5 of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Report looked to both the Department and the Rural Development Council to:

 "ensure, as far as possible, that under-represented groups such as the farming community, women, young persons and the long-term unemployed fully participate in the programme in future".

4.2.      DARD's response to this recommendation outlined its intention to encourage participation of these groups, mentioning sectoral initiatives and the LEADER+ Programme as specific opportunities for their involvement.

4.3.      The Committee noted, from the draft RDP Strategy, that the previous programme's mid-term evaluations also highlighted the need to broaden participation.

4.4.      The Department was at pains to point out [1] that groups such as the farming community and women had already participated in the Rural Development Programme to date. The Committee acknowledged the evidence provided by DARD in this regard but concluded that, where both audit and evaluation reports have identified this as an area for improvement, then increased participation must be an objective for the programme's next phase.

4.5.      The Committee also noted that the PAC had expressed concerns that the RDC had included performance targets for improving the balance of community group membership but that the Audit Office could not find information on performance against those targets. The Committee would endorse the PAC view that setting performance targets without the necessary performance data seemed to be "window dressing". The Committee believes that this applies equally to the stated intention to improve participation. This must be measurable, and measured, to be meaningful.

5.           Definition and Committee Expectations

5.1.      In order to measure participation, it is essential that one first defines it. The Department told [2] the Committee that it:

"views participation.in its widest sense, including membership of partnership groups, administering programmes, involvement in projects as well as benefiting from the impacts of the programme".

5.2. Similarly, the RDC took a wide view, saying that it was not just about submitting proposals and receiving grant aid, but was about information, consultation and deciding together [3] .

5.3.      Mr Payne, a farmer who had previously engaged in the rural development process, agreed that people must be fully involved, given opportunities and be made fully aware of these [4] .

5.4.      The Committee's view was that full participation is a fundamental requirement in a programme such as this. The Committee was quite content to accept a wide definition of participation in the Rural Development Programme, but concluded that accurate measurement of all aspects of participation under this definition was essential.

5.5.      Given the context described above, the Committee's expectations, from those charged with implementing the next phase of the RDP, were that there would be:

n     the clearest statements of intent (regarding participation) by DARD and its agents; backed up by

n     concerted and co-ordinated actions to address the problems with, and barriers to, participation, including

-       awareness and information provision;

-       eligibility, readiness and ability to apply for funding;

-       a straightforward application process; and

-       appropriate programmes with accountable delivery; together with

n     target-setting for participation and robust procedures for monitoring and measuring participation of target groups.

5.6.      In all these areas, the Committee maintained a clear interest in the inclusion and involvement of farmers and their families. The Committee was fully aware that the Rural Development Programme is aimed at the whole rural community. However, members believed that, as a group, farmers and their families require, and are worthy of, special attention, given the crises that have befallen farming in recent years, and their low level of participation in rural development programmes to date.

5.7.      The Committee would endorse the Ulster Farmers' Union's assertion, in their submission [5] , that:

"Despite being the most important economic engine in rural areas (farmers) have not been encouraged to participate in and benefit from the rural development programmes that have been in place".

5.8.      The Committee would not wish to apportion blame for this lack of encouragement. It is more interested in ensuring that active encouragement and assistance is available this time around. There are obvious roles to be played by the Department, its agents and the farmers' representative groups in making this happen.

5.9.      In his submission [6] , Professor Simon Miller, Director of the Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment, reminded the Committee that farm households faced demoralisation and that there was an aversion to risk-taking and a low tolerance of ambiguity and the unknown. He went on to say that the farming community's traditional links with government had left:

"farmers indisposed to connecting with anything to do with 'rural development' - and indeed, to co-operating with people from beyond their immediate circle in farming" and he concluded that:

"It is important to appreciate the scale of the problem of bringing the farming community into the loop of rural development".

5.10.    The RDC demonstrated some understanding of the scale of the problem when the Chief Executive said [7] , in evidence:

"there is no point in misleading farmers by saying that we can sort out their farm problems. We cannot". "We must be realistic. A farmer who faces a reduction of 75% in his income will not be interested in forming a community group that will not show profits for the next 5 to ten years".

5.11.    The Committee was clear that it would be no easy task to engage farmers but nevertheless believed that it was a crucial factor in ensuring the success of the rural development programme in terms of inclusion and acceptance by the whole rural community.

6.        Statements of Intent

6.1.      The Committee acknowledged, and endorsed, the fact that the programme's intention (to improve participation) was very clearly stated in the draft (now published) strategy, in the published 'signpost document,' in papers calling for bids to become LEADER+ Local Action Groups and in DARD's written and oral evidence.

6.2. Examples expressing this intention are:

"In rural areas, local people, including farmers and their families must be encouraged to become involved and participate fully in rural development" [8] .

"It is the Minister's intention to actively promote and monitor the engagement of women, young people, long-term unemployed and farmers participating in the programme" [9] .

6.3.      The Committee also welcomed the evidence from both the Rural Development Council [10] (RDC) and the Rural Community Network [11] (RCN) that they have similar objectives and that their desire is to ensure that participation is consistent across the programme.

6.4.      The Committee particularly welcomed DARD's stated recognition of the difficulties facing farmers and the description of the programme's potential to offer opportunities to farmers to add value to the farm as an economic unit [12] .

6.5.      The Committee was, therefore, content that it was the stated intention of DARD and its main delivery agents to ensure participation of under-represented groups, including farmers and farm families.

7.           Concerted and Co-ordinated Actions - Awareness and Information Provision

7.1.      The Minister, in evidence [13] , acknowledged the perception, about previous Rural Development Programmes, that some people were not aware of what was available, or did not fully understand the projects. It was for this reason that DARD engaged a firm of PR consultants to assist in the preparation of easily understood documents and a publicity campaign aimed at bringing the new RDP to the attention of all rural dwellers.

7.2.      The Committee had no difficulty with this approach. Indeed, any attempt to simplify a complicated message is to be welcomed. It is also a fact that Civil Servants are not, as a rule, trained in areas such as PR that require particular expertise. The Committee was, however, concerned that PR style should not outweigh substance in the programme.

7.3.      The Committee was provided with copies of the so-called 'sign-post' document and of the video used by DARD during the Programme's launch in November 2001 and in later public events. Compared to the published Strategy Document, Committee members agreed that the 'sign-post' document is a clear, jargon-free read. Having covered the aims, objectives and answered some frequently asked questions, it distils the Programme into five elements and provides actual examples, from earlier programmes, appropriate to each element. Importantly, it also identifies the relevant contact point for each element.

7.4.      The video is very professionally produced, and the Committee was content that it should meet its purpose, assumed by the Committee to be one of providing background and context for the programme, illustrating what can be achieved and providing a stimulus, even inspiration, for participation. It was important, the Committee felt, that the video should be widely seen by the rural population.

7.5.      DARD had also anticipated that it would run a series of information seminars. Within the papers accompanying the Programme's launch was a schedule detailing 17 of these seminars, which were to be held throughout Northern Ireland's rural areas. DARD subsequently reported [14] on the actual outcome of these, confirming that all 17 had taken place and that over 2000 people had attended in total. These meetings, according to DARD, generated over 600 'expressions of interest' proformae and were considered to be a success.

7.6.      The Committee welcomed the seminar approach to providing information and particularly endorsed the fact that all the main organisations involved in the programme's delivery attended each event and that there was particular provision for the farming community, through attendance by the Department's Rural Enterprise Division.

7.7.      The Committee asked about how these events were advertised and DARD confirmed that they trailed one week in advance in "provincial and some local" newspapers. That seemed to be a reasonable approach, although the Committee would, on a point of detail, have expected advertising in the farming press, given that farmers were to be a target group.

7.8.      The targeting of the specific venues appears to have been mainly geographical, rather than on a sectoral basis. However, the Committee was pleased to learn that a further series of 30 meetings had been held with groups of, or representative of, farmers and that, through these, DARD had met with around five hundred farmers. The Committee also welcomed the DARD assertion that the process was not yet complete, and its undertaking to hold yet further information events.

7.9.      In the information provided by the RDC [15] , that organisation confirmed its participation in these 'road-shows' and added that they had been supplemented by a number of follow-up and targeted events. The RDC gave a very comprehensive account of these targeted workshops and events. They included women's and farming groups, as the RDC had promised to the Committee, and the further list supplied to members (of bodies to whom the RDC issued applications packs) was both extensive and inclusive.

7.10.    The Committee must therefore conclude that both DARD and the RDC have fully met commitments made to the Committee with regard to the provision of information about the Rural Development Programme.

7.11.    The Committee's only recommendations in this regard are that the Department and the RDC maintain their thorough approach to promoting the programme, particularly targeting those under-represented groups, and that promotional material is updated at the first opportunity to reflect successes in the current, rather than previous, programmes.

8.           Concerted and Co-ordinated Actions - Eligibility, Readiness and Ability to Apply for Funding

8.1.      The Committee established that there had been many positive actions taken, and improvements made, in these areas by DARD and its agents, and the Committee was content to endorse these. Unfortunately, there remained a number of aspects that detracted from these improvements and that will remain as obstacles to full participation. Where possible, the Committee has made recommendations to the Department in an attempt to overcome, or at least reduce, the effect of these obstacles.

8.2.      Firstly, the Committee warmly welcomed the changes made, from previous programmes, that now allow profit-taking collectives and co-operatives to be eligible for funding, and for the LEADER+ Programme to allow funding for individual aspects of farm businesses [16] .

8.3. Members were also pleased about DARD's explicit acknowledgement that farm relief and farm management services may be supported under the RDP [17] . The Committee also noted the Department's written commitment [18] that:

"Rural Enterprise Division, in co-operation with Rural Development Division, will encourage farmers to consider the opportunities in the programme and assist farmers to develop plans to access the programme".

8.4.      In considering the evidence before it, however, the Committee identified what it saw as a possible 'gap' in provision of capacity building and early project planning support to farmers and farmer groups who were new to the RDP area. The Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) view [19] was that where farmers were interested in the RDP, they must be aided through the process. The Committee agreed entirely with this view.

8.5.      New and emerging community groups clearly have access to such services from the Rural Community Network, whose focus is on 'pure' community development issues. The UFU thought it likely that the RCN would provide such support to farmers (together with on-going mentoring) but the RCN said that while it may analyse the needs of farmers, funding would have to come from DARD's sectoral programmes.

8.6.      In fairness to the RCN, they are very clear on where their priorities lie. Central to the RCN's involvement in 'capacity building' is its:

"further support for the infrastructure of sub-regional Rural Support Networks which will further develop the capacity of community groups in rural areas, encourage the inclusion of marginalised groups as those mentioned - farming community, women, young people and long-term unemployed - and in addition many other groupings not mentioned such as those with disability and other groupings under the Equality Legislation".

8.7.      The RCN went on to say that it would be wrong to overstate their role or ability to engage all marginalised groups.

8.8.      The RDC suggested that additional help, from Rural Enterprise Division (R.E.D), for example, might increase the number of (non-profit-taking) collective proposals coming forward to the RDC for grant assistance [20] . Farmers are indeed 'sign-posted,' in DARD's publication, to the Rural Enterprise Advisors (REAs) but when the Committee asked whether or not the Advisers were resourced to provide such support, the Department's answer was somewhat ambiguous [21] .

8.9.      The REAs were reportedly working with around 50 existing groups, some of whom had advanced to specific project proposals. However they were not resourced to provide support beyond this programme, leaving new or emerging groups without support. DARD went on to advise that the REAs are currently investigating the provision of a 'Group start-up' course, for farmers' groups, starting in March or April 2002. This training would include information on how to constitute a group, an issue highlighted earlier to the Committee as being important to farmers.

8.10.    While it welcomed the future provision of such a course, the Committee was disappointed that it would come much too late for the first call for projects, both from non-profit taking groups (closed on 1 February 2002) and from profit-taking groups (set to close a few weeks after the final evidence session, on 8 February 2002).

8.11.    This evidence led the Committee to the conclusion that there was indeed, and still remains, a serious gap in provision of start-up and early project assistance and guidance for farm-based groups. The Committee believes that the Department, if it genuinely wished to encourage farmer participation, should have anticipated this need and made provision to satisfy it long before a grant scheme was opened.

8.12.    The Committee recommends that the two DARD Divisions (Rural Development and Rural Enterprise) co-operate closely and immediately to design and deliver early development services to farmers' groups that are on a par with those available to community groups through the Rural Community Network, in order that such groups are given the ability to secure grant assistance through the Rural Development Programme and the skills to use it effectively.

8.13.    The Committee's conclusions about the readiness of farmers' groups to participate meaningfully in the programme were confirmed when DARD officials provided an update [22] on the position of two schemes that had opened shortly after the RDP's launch in November 2001. The first, the RDC's scheme for non-profit-taking groups, closed as expected on 1 February 2002. The second, DARD's scheme for profit-taking groups, (including farmers' groups) had not closed as those:

"who were engaging in this for the first time said that it was insufficient time".

8.14.    The officials went on to estimate that there had been over two hundred applications received to date, perhaps three hundred in round terms, and of these more than twenty were from applicants with farming interests. However, when the Committee considered additional information on applications, as supplied by the RDC, members found that the RDC scheme had 216 applications, of which, judging purely by the applicant name, at least 12 were farm-based.

8.15.    The only conclusion that the Committee could make from this was that DARD had had very little response to its scheme in terms of applications, and virtually no response from farmers' groups. It seems that profit-taking groups were not prepared, or able, to access a scheme which was open to them for the first time. This serves only to re-enforce the Committee's recommendation above, if this important new element of the programme is to become a success. DARD clearly has work to do.

8.16.    The evidence of slow early uptake provoked another concern to the Committee. Members had been advised by the RDC [23] that there will be intense competition for limited funds among a range of groups such as farmers, women, young people, disabled and so on. The Committee's fear would be that those groups who are inexperienced, and are not yet able to access funds, will lose out to the 'usual suspects' who are experienced and proficient at applying for funds and managing projects.

8.17.    The RDC originally told the Committee [24] that there would be at least two calls for proposals and that if any group was under-represented in the first call, particular emphasis could be given to targeting that group in subsequent grant rounds. When the Committee had sight of the RDC's "How to Apply" leaflet, members noted that there will "be a number of calls for applications over the first three years of the programme period (2001-2003)" to ensure "accessibility to groups at all stages of development". The Committee was pleased to note that the RDC had met its commitments to the Committee, and members endorsed the principle of multiple calls for projects.

8.18.    The Committee therefore recommends that DARD commits to a series of calls for projects under schemes it administers, over at least a four-year period, and ensures that funds are 'ring-fenced' for these calls. This will ensure that 'early stage' profit-taking groups are given appropriate opportunities as they mature.

9.           Straightforward Application Process

9.1.      The UFU stated [25] that farmers can be discouraged from participating because of the complexity in accessing funding. It could be argued that this is one of the greatest barriers to participation by any group or individual who is unfamiliar with grant schemes.

9.2.      The Committee had welcomed and endorsed the recognition, by the Rural Development Council [26] , of the need for a simplified application form, given that many people in rural communities would find that a complicated form might be an "alienating experience". The Committee particularly welcomed the RDC's stated intention to send out a simple application form to establish eligibility, in order not to waste people's time in filling out a detailed form. The RDC also forecast a two-stage process, wherein development assistance could be offered to further advance the project and the capacity of the group. This seemed, to the Committee, to be a perfectly reasonable approach. The RDC further acknowledged that people needed hands-on technical support to submit applications, and that it was insufficient simply to advertise.

9.3.      The Committee was therefore disappointed to discover that, when the RDC's first call for applications was actually made, the process involved two full application forms, both of which were to be completed, and the first of which was computer-based, requiring access to the DFP web-site. Within the applications pack, an example of which was provided by the RDC, the Committee noted that all six of the RDC's schemes allowed for development assistance "for the implementation of projects". There was, however, no sign of a 'simple' form. Indeed, although they are clearly laid out, the first of the two forms had 19 sections to complete over 26 pages, while the second had another 42 sections in 27 pages. This could not be described as simple.

9.4.      It would appear that the RDC has not met its commitments to the Committee in this regard, although, in mitigation, the Committee acknowledged that the applications process was mandatory, and common across all measures of the NI Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity and the PEACE II Programme.

9.5.      On a more positive note, the Committee was content that the RDC appeared to be responsive to its clients' needs in terms of the application process. When the RDC became aware that clients were having difficulty with the DFP web-based process, they produced a detailed applications pack, including paper copies of both forms [27] .

9.6.      There was much to be commended in this pack. Each of the six schemes had its own 'measure leaflet' and there was a very helpful "How to Apply" leaflet. The measure leaflets provide helpful information on that measure's aims and objectives and describe potential projects. The 'How to Apply' leaflet explicitly offered help in filling either application form and advice on any part of the application. That was in line with the commitment made to the Committee, as described above.

9.7.      Indeed, the Committee was impressed to note that the RDC's approach had been commended by the independent Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) in whose newsletter (issue 73) the RDC's pack was described as "one of the best guides and Grant Application packs that we have seen yet".

9.8.      It was clear to the Committee, therefore, the RDC had the structures in place to respond to clients' needs and provide the assistance necessary to help the maximum access to funding. That would appear to be borne out by the 216 applications received by the RDC in its first round, although the Committee has no way of knowing how many of these were from new applicants.

9.9.      The Committee had not explored the Department's approach to applications prior to the launch of the first schemes and adoption of the DFP 'common approach.' When the Committee sought the Department's views in January 2002, the response [28] acknowledged that the application form was complicated and potentially off-putting. DARD went on to explain that the scale of information was required by "Managing Authorities to meet Structural Funds management and control obligations".

9.10.    DARD went on to say that while part of the process is internet based, it had made a paper-based version available, and stressed that its Rural Area Co-ordination staff would give advice on form completion if approached. In those aspects, the Department's approach could be said to mirror that of the RDC. However, in the 'sign-post document,' prospective applicants are referred to the three Area Co-ordination offices, with more information available on a dedicated web-site.

9.11.    These Co-ordination offices, when approached, would issue a pack to prospective applicants. One such pack, obtained by the Committee, contained a leaflet on the "Local Regeneration Projects" scheme under the NI Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity. The leaflet listed the eight measures under which proposals could be considered and referred to detailed measure sheets being appended to the pack. Unfortunately, they were not appended to the pack supplied to the Committee, nor was there any explicit offer of help, to prospective applicants, regarding completion of the form. There was, however, an offer of assistance if applicants did not have access to the internet.

9.12.    The Committee therefore concluded that the information provided by the RDC regarding application forms and measures under which to apply, was better than that provided by DARD.

9.13.    The Committee was interested to learn, from DARD's final oral evidence [29] that a group, led by the Agri-food Development Service, had been set up to prepare explanatory material, and was hoping to provide:

"a flow-chart, booklet or decision tree to simplify the programmes so that farmers will interpret the system more easily".

9.14.    The officials also acknowledged that there is a:

"steep learning curve for new organisations, groups and individuals as people become accustomed to different methods of operation and gaining entrance to the schemes"

while explaining that the UFU had approached the Department to discuss what help can be given particularly:

"to get new groups in".

9.15.    The Committee, as in the case of new 'start-up' assistance, was of the view that DARD should have had explanatory material, such as flowcharts or decision trees, prepared before the programme was launched and specific schemes opened. Indeed, the Committee would argue that when the Department engaged PR consultants, who helped produce the video and booklet, this was the opportunity to produce simplified material that was specifically targeted at previously under-represented groups, including farmers.

9.16.    It is also a matter of concern to the Committee that the UFU had to approach DARD to discuss the provision of help to farmers, rather than an approach being made in the other direction, and much earlier on in the process. Farmers were to be a targeted group. Surely, DARD should have explored all aspects of participation with farmers' representatives before schemes were opened?

9.17.    The Committee must, therefore, conclude that the Department did not, in the case of farmers, fully meet its own objectives in the use of PR consultants, as outlined by the Minister [30]

"the remit of the PR consultants is to work out a clear and simple way of allowing people to access those schemes".

9.18.    The Committee recommends that DARD must immediately put in place whatever resources are necessary to ensure that prospective applicants to DARD-administered schemes (particularly those in the four target groupings) are provided with simple, clear information to enable easy interpretation of the schemes.

9.19.    Another conclusion must be that the complicated application process constitutes a major obstacle to participation, particularly by new and inexperienced groupings. It does not make sense to the Committee that such an extensive process should be necessary where applicants seek only a small amount of funding. The Committee concludes that, in the interests of encouraging participation and reducing 'red tape' DARD must act to address and overcome this obstacle.

9.20.    During Committee deliberations, one member advised that he was aware of a meeting of the Causeway Coast Lamb Group on 28 February 2002. DARD officials spoke at that meeting and their message, according to the member's information, was that even if they were permitted to make applications on behalf of farmers' groups for Rural Development Programme funds, they believed that they were not competent for such a task. The officials added that it would require the skills of a specialist consultant to enable groups to apply for funding.

9.21.    Such a message, delivered by Department officials, is at best unhelpful, and at worst will discourage involvement of the very people DARD wanted to include. It may not be the case that a consultant is needed. It is probable that consultants did not complete most of the 216 applications to the RDC. However, if DARD staff, who are familiar to, and trusted by, farmers, believe they cannot provide the necessary assistance, then it is clear that a pro-active approach is needed in order to ensure that somebody can. It is unthinkable that people should have to engage consultants in order to secure what may be quite small amounts of money.

9.22.    The Committee therefore recommends that DARD develops, and widely publicises, dedicated 'form-completion' assistance for farmers, and that this assistance is based in locations familiar to farmers. If DARD has insufficient personnel to provide this service, then consideration should be given to sub-contracting the work to others.

9.23.    The Committee also recommends that the Department and its agents lobby the Department of Finance and Personnel in order that some easement in the burden of application is secured. It should not be beyond the abilities of officials within the "Managing Authorities" to negotiate with the European Commission and establish a 'threshold' of grant sought, under which a much simpler application form would be acceptable.

10.           Appropriate Programmes with Accountable Delivery

10.1.    Two less obvious, but important, potential obstacles to participation are the type of scheme being promoted and the 'devolved' delivery of certain programmes by partnership groups.

10.2.    An example of the potential pitfalls in programme type must be the proposed "Sectoral Programmes". The Department attempted to 'sell' these programmes to the Committee as one of the main opportunities to improve participation by under-represented groups. [31] DARD used its (then) current work with rural women's groups as an example of what could happen. Interestingly, DARD said that proposals would come forward from interested parties and would be identified by its own staff in the field.

10.3.    The Committee was concerned that there may be a danger that if there are no proposals submitted by the under-represented groups 'on the ground', there will end up being no sectoral programme to meet their needs.

10.4.    As an example of this danger, the Committee noted the Rural Community Network's hope, expressed in its original written submission [32] , that it would deliver a programme targeting farm families. In its later evidence [33] , the RCN stated that it had expected its Tackling Social Exclusion programme to include support to women's groups and networks, young people and farmers (three of the four participation target groups). However the RCN went on to say that these would now be dealt with under 'Sectoral Programmes' stating that:

"We understand that farm families may become a Sectoral Programme within the Rural Development Programme. RCN will therefore not be operating a grant programme for farm families".

10.5.    If farm families themselves do not develop a sectoral programme themselves, will this mean that they will not have access to a suitable programme at all, despite being identified by the RCN as requiring help?

10.6.    The Committee accepts that there will be interested parties that have good ideas for sectoral programmes and members agree that these should be encouraged. However, it cannot be said with any certainty that good ideas will emerge, particularly from those under-represented groups. The Committee believes that in such a scenario the Department must be pro-active and develop schemes to ensure inclusion of these groups.

10.7. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that DARD should adopt a 'top-down' approach, in tandem with its usual one of 'bottom-up', to ensure that meaningful and inclusive programmes are available to, and accessible by, each of the four target groupings.

10.8.    Finally, in this 'section', the delivery of significant elements of the RDP by partnership groupings holds its own dangers in terms of participation. Using farmers, once more, as an example, the UFU made a point that struck a chord with Committee members. They argued [34] that without the involvement of the farming community, partnerships (such as those established under the LEADER+ programme) are not able to fully represent the entire local community, nor will they benefit from farmers' expertise. The UFU went on to say that new partnerships must have at least two farmer members of their boards, who are there to put forward farming interests.

10.9.    The Committee does not necessarily agree with board 'quotas' for such wide-ranging partnerships, nor that farmer- members' contribution should be exclusively about farming interests, but members agreed whole-heartedly with the basic premise about representing the entire rural community. Programmes operating in specific geographical rural areas will all have a significant farming 'constituency'.

10.10.  The Committee therefore felt it important to examine the issue of board representation, not only of farmers, but also of other target groups. After all, DARD's own definition of participation included "membership of partnership groups". The Committee, when updating its Inquiry, was able to test this area as the partnership selection process had been completed in two areas: LEADER+ and the Natural Resource Rural Tourism (NRRT) Initiative. DARD had provided information to the Committee on these programmes as part of the normal scrutiny process.

10.11.  DARD's response [35] to the Committee's additional questions provided the Committee with assurances on farming representations:

"The five successful NRRT partnerships and the twelve successful LEADER+ groups all have some farming representatives on the Boards. In some cases these may be farming union representatives, in others they are individual farmers".

10.12.  The Committee was therefore satisfied that the basic requirement regarding representation had been met, and was confident that each of the Boards would benefit from the farming expertise. Members would further anticipate that, as long as the farmer-members are equal partners in these groups, then the business plans currently being developed should incorporate measures appropriate to, and accessible by, farmers and their families.

10.13.  The Committee believes that this is particularly important in the LEADER+ Programme where, as officials stated [36] :

"farms are classified as microbusinesses and farmers can apply under LEADER+".

10.14.  The Department's response did not, however, read so well in terms of representation of the other three groupings. Firstly, it acknowledged that gender balance was a problem and explained that DARD had asked some partnerships to address this deficiency. DARD did, however, recognise that "there was a real difficulty for groups in getting women involved". This would be a concern to the Committee. As in farming, partnerships cannot represent their whole rural constituencies without a suitable mechanism to articulate the views of half the population. Women have many skills and a high level of experience that would certainly be relevant and useful to such partnership groups.

10.15.  The Committee recommends that DARD pursues this matter fully with each of the partnerships, and that it should explore, with them, innovative ways in which greater female involvement can be achieved.

10.16.  The Committee was disappointed in DARD's response regarding the other two groups. They said:

"We have not at this stage gathered information on the representation of other groups such as young people and the long-term unemployed and would anticipate their involvement being more likely at project and subsidiary programme level as the work rolls out over the next 2 years".

10.17.  This is not acceptable to the Committee, given the Department's desire for a wide definition of participation. It is immaterial that DARD expects the main involvement to be at other levels. In fact, this might suggest that DARD does not consider that young people, or the unemployed, could make a useful contribution to the partnerships.

10.18. Participation must be measured and monitored at all levels. It should not have been difficult to establish the ages of the members of each of the successful partnerships, in order to gauge the representation of young people. Similarly, if the Department has established that there is farmer-representation in each partnership, then it must have records of each member's occupation, and the representation of the long-term unemployed would have been easily demonstrated.

10.19.  The Committee therefore recommends that the Department should maintain a formal record of the levels of participation, of each of the four target groups, in these partnerships, and that DARD should work closely with each partnership to address any serious deficiencies in participation.

10.20.  This brought another point into focus. While devolved decision-making has many merits, and indeed is a mandatory EU requirement in the LEADER+ Programme, it in some ways denies control of the overall programmes to the Department. There must be a clear mechanism whereby the Department can ensure that partnerships pay more than 'lip service' to the issues of participation. This would involve starting out 'on the right foot' and continued monitoring. In this regard, the Committee looked carefully at how the LEADER+ and NRRT programmes were implemented by DARD.

10.21.  In the LEADER+ Programme, documentation issued by DARD, when calling for applications to become Local Action Groups, made it clear that the target groups were to be a priority:

".the strategies drawn up by Local Action Groups should include a focus on the following target groups." (listing all four). The documentation shows that women and young people were an EU required priority while the other two were added by DARD. So far, so good.

10.22.  This demand was backed up by the selection criteria. DARD included, as its first scoring criterion, an assessment of the extent to which the strategy will enhance the job opportunities of each of the four groupings. Indeed, this is given the second-highest 'weighting' of the fourteen criteria. The Committee welcomed this pro-active approach.

10.23.  The Committee also endorsed the fact that the level of resources allocated to a partnership was partly dependent on the score against these criteria. Criteria relevant to participation accounted for 15% of the possible score. The Committee is therefore content that the Department built in appropriate incentives for partnerships to target the under-represented groups.

10.24.  These incentives would have been most effective in a fully competitive situation where, for example, twenty or thirty applicants were seeking the twelve available partnership 'slots'. However, in reality, there were only thirteen applications. It would, therefore, have been quite possible for a prospective partnership to have ignored the need to focus on the four target groups and still to have been successful with its application.

10.25.  The Committee's conclusion, with the benefit of hindsight, is that targeting of the priority groups would have been better included as an eligibility, rather than a selection, criterion.

10.26.  The participation requirement was not apparent in the NRRT programme, although, to be fair, this aspect of the overall RDP was not highlighted by DARD as one which will play any significant role in increasing participation by under-represented groups. However, it could be argued that, as an integral part of the RDP, some attempt should have been made to encourage participation by the four target groups.

10.27. Certainly, it is quite possible that applicants from within the target groups might apply successfully to these partnerships. The documentation only specified, however, that partnerships must monitor uptake, of support they offer, by men and women and take action to address any imbalances where they appear. Of itself, the Committee would welcome this approach, but would contend that it should have applied equally to the other three groups.

10.28.  The Committee believed that the requirement for partnerships to take action to address imbalances is a useful precedent, and one that should be read across to other parts of the programme.

10.29. Although monitoring will be explored more fully in the next section, the Committee recommends that DARD must require full monitoring and reporting, by the partnerships in both NRRT and LEADER+ Programmes, of grant uptake by all four target groups. These programmes have not yet reached project application stage, and this requirement should need little amendment to the other conditions that DARD will apply.

11.       Target Setting for Participation

11.1.    Given the Department's clearly stated intention to improve participation among the four target groups, the Committee could have reasonably expected that targets would be set for each of the groups' participation and, perhaps, that funding would be ring-fenced for these groups. The RDC told the Committee that Government's target was that 75% of the money spent must be targeted at socially excluded areas, defined areas of disadvantage and socially excluded groups. Where such arbitrary targets are made by government, there must be room for lower-level expenditure targets for groups within these definitions.

11.2.    The very least that the Committee would have expected would have been for some weighting of project selection criteria in favour of those from the under-represented groups.

11.3. However, when this was put to the Department, the surprising responses [37] were that the Department did not:

"intend to establish targets as participation in the programme depends largely on the proposals that are made to the Department" nor was it the intention to:

"weight selection criteria in favour of such groups".

11.4.    The Committee acknowledged the Department's desire to maintain its 'bottom-up' approach, allowing rural communities to bring forward their solutions to local needs. However, where such a process has been shown to have failed to ensure full participation then it is folly to stick rigidly with that process. It cannot be enough to make changes in eligibility for schemes to allow new types of applicants to engage, but then simply to sit back and wait for them to make their proposals.

11.5.    The DARD response contrasted with that given by the RDC [38] . They said that:

"Selection criteria have been identified in broad terms, but detailed criteria have not yet been developed. As with previous programmes there will be significant weighting towards socially excluded groups".

11.6.    While such a commitment refers to the wider issue of social exclusion, at least there is weighting to assist with active targeting. In following up this issue with the RDC, the Committee established that there were pre-determined selection criteria in place (and accessible on the RDC web-site or on request). These criteria showed a possible score of up to 5 out of a possible total of 45 for social exclusion and equality issues. The RDC's commitment to having significant weighting has therefore been fully met.

11.7.    Despite the DARD stated intention not to weight selection criteria, it was, as has been mentioned earlier in this report, a factor in the LEADER+ selection process. This, together with the RDC approach, creates an inconsistency throughout the programme.

11.8.    The Committee therefore recommends that DARD should introduce weighting of its project selection criteria (in all future calls for projects) in favour of the four target groups and that there should be 'ring-fencing' of a percentage of funding for each of the four target groupings (farmers, young people, women and long-term unemployed) within each of its schemes.

12.       Robust Procedures for Monitoring and Measuring Participation of Target Groups

12.1.    Some mention has already been made of monitoring issues. It follows that, if DARD and its agents intend to improve participation of certain groups, not only must they overcome the barriers to participation, but they must monitor it and be able to measure participation of those groups against that of others.

12.2.    The Committee acknowledged and welcomed the Department's stated intention [39] to monitor participation of under-represented groups. Likewise, members welcomed the RDC's attempts to explain how they would monitor participation and the RDC's commitment [40] to report publicly and regularly on it.

12.3.    As long ago as May 2001, the Committee was mildly concerned that the monitoring arrangements for the programme had not yet been developed. However, there was some time to go before programmes got underway and the Committee was assured by DARD [41] that new procedures would be in place before programme delivery commenced.

12.4.    When reviewing and updating its evidence, the Committee asked whether or not these monitoring systems were in place, some two months after the programme's formal launch. DARD's response [42] was that:

"Rural Development Division is currently setting up a central database to meet its detailed monitoring requirements, and this will record and monitor participation by priority groups, such as women and young people".

12.5.    DARD went on to explain that European Commission agreement was still awaited on some of the indicators that would be included, and that additional indicators may be generated. That may be so, but the Committee must conclude that the Department has not met the commitments it made to the Committee regarding monitoring procedures. There is a further concern about the specific mention of women and young people in the response, or rather about the exclusion of farmers and long-term unemployed. The Department has highlighted four priority groups and it must therefore ensure that the participation of all four groups is fully monitored.

12.6.    The Rural Development Council is in a similar position. In its response to the Committee's request for evidence of having monitoring procedures in place, the RDC stated that [43] :

"the monitoring of the participation of socially excluded groups will be on-going over the lifetime of the programme. RDC is preparing to put in place a computerised Management Information Service".

12.7.    The Committee must, therefore, also conclude that the RDC has not met the commitments it made to the Committee regarding monitoring procedures. However, the RDC's earlier submission [44] stated that application forms would ask applicants to identify which (if any) socially excluded groups are involved in a project. This expectation was met in the standard application form (Part A) and in the RDC specific form (Part B).

12.8.    An important point to realise is that the standard, general form concentrates on the so-called 'Section 75' groups, which include women and young people. Of the Department's four target groups, this leaves out farmers and the long-term unemployed. It seems clear to the Committee that while the Department and the RDC are meeting the mandatory requirements regarding monitoring of participation of Section 75 groups, neither has provided evidence that they are actively monitoring participation of two of the groups said to be targeted by the new phase of the RDP.

12.9.    The Committee's conclusions must be that while some of the information that is vital to monitoring is being collected through the applications process, neither the Department nor the RDC had its monitoring systems in place and operational by the time the programme was launched and the first calls for projects made. This must be regarded as a failing on both their parts, particularly in light of the criticism made by the PAC (in section 4.19 of its report) about the Department's slowness in putting in place a comprehensive management information system during earlier rounds of the programme. The monitoring systems must form part of management information and this mistake must not be repeated.

12.10.  It will be vitally important for the Department to demonstrate the outputs of its programmes. An example of what the Committee would like to see avoided was the answer to a member's question regarding how many of the places on the 390 training courses completed so far under the RDP had been filled by people from the farming industry. The official stated [45] that he could not:

"answer that question specifically. It would take some detailed work - we may not even have the figures".

12.11.  The Committee acknowledges that not every single detail can be monitored or reported against, but when the Department has pledged to improve participation of four target groups, then it must be able to measure and report on every aspect of those groups' involvement.

12.12.  The Committee recommends that both the Department and the RDC waste no time in implementing their monitoring systems and that, in common with the action recommended for delivery partnerships, they must both introduce active monitoring of participation for all four target groups.

SECOND TERM OF REFERENCE -
FULL AND PROPER APPRAISAL OF ALL PROJECTS

13.       Context

13.1.    The Committee fully acknowledged that the Department, and its agents, must take risks in implementing a regeneration programme of this nature. In promoting social and economic advance, with a particular focus on addressing disadvantage, the programme aims to address the failure of the private sector to take such risks. Members did, however, set great store in the Department's, and the Minister's personal, assurances regarding the management of those risks through full and proper appraisal of all projects brought forward under the RDP.

13.2.    The Committee considered this to be one of the areas of greatest concern highlighted by the PAC report. It was covered in Recommendations 4.6 to 4.12 and sections 15 to 27 of that report. Both DARD and DFP generally accepted that there were shortcomings. They also, by and large, accepted the PAC's recommendations and outlined improvements that had, or would be made.

13.3.    It is worthwhile reviewing some of the PAC's concerns:

n     failure to adhere to, or even a disregard for, good appraisal practices that were firmly rooted in the public sector;

n     this failure contributing to difficulties experienced by community groups and their projects;

n     lack of an operating manual until seven years after commencement of the programme;

n     the lack of appropriate appraisal training for staff;

n     the failure of business plans to address marketing issues or to ensure the preparation of marketing plans for all economic projects;

n     the poor standard of business plans, prepared by consultants, for major projects; and

n     the failure to properly address project management needs at appraisal stage.

13.4.    These, the Committee, felt, were fairly fundamental issues and absolutely essential for the Department to 'get right' in the next round. The protection of public investment was the Committee's main consideration, but members felt that protection of the interests of project promoters, and indeed of DARD staff, was also important.

14.           Committee's Expectations

14.1.    In view of the Department's (and DFP's) responses to these criticisms, the Committee's expectations were that:

n     DARD will ensure that absolutely all projects brought forward in the new phase of the programme will be appraised to the standards required by the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP), regardless of the mechanism of project delivery but commensurate with the projects' size;

n     DARD can demonstrate that an operation manual is in place prior to the commencement of the new programme, and that this manual clearly covers staff's responsibilities regarding appraisal;

n     DARD will take all necessary action to ensure that it reviews the performance of consultants, and others, when they produce economic appraisals and business plans. Such reviews would be carried out by those with appropriate expertise, and appraisals either found to have been completed to the required standard, or remedial action taken.

n     DARD will ensure that all staff involved in appraisal have appropriate and on-going training in appraisal; and

n     DARD will ensure that both project management and marketing needs are fully addressed at appraisal stage.

14.2.    While many of these factors are inter-related, the Committee has attempted to separate them for the purpose of making recommendations and reaching conclusions.

15.           Appraisal of all Projects

15.1.    In response to the PAC Report, the Department stated that, since 1996, it had required economic appraisals consistent with the Department of Finance and Personnel's procedures to be prepared for all rural development projects. In DARD's written submission to the Inquiry [46] this was further clarified to mean that all projects that receive funding in excess of £1000 must be subjected to an economic appraisal.

15.2.    The Committee accepted that the level of appraisal should be commensurate with the levels of funding and risk. Many of the projects that will be supported under the Rural Development Programme are likely to be small in scale and the Committee agreed with the Minister's view that it would not be viable to undertake full scale appraisal in every case. The Committee therefore had no difficulty with the concept of a pro-forma approach to appraisal, as outlined by the Minister particularly in view of her assurances [47] that:

"DFP guidance provides for a pro-forma approach to be taken for small projects defined as those with up to £50,000 non-promoter funding. The pro-forma addresses all the main issues set out by the Treasury and DFP guidance, and the Department's economists oversee the whole appraisal process. Our regime is as robust as that in other Departments".

15.3. Independent research carried out on the Committee's behalf provided further assurances to the Committee regarding the wording contained in the Northern Ireland Preface to the Green Book. [48] In this, public expenditures of less than £50,000 are referred to (Appendix 1) as is the issue of commensurate effort. In the section dealing with 'Documentation' paragraph 14 specifically states that the use of standard pro-forma documentation can be helpful for appraising small expenditure proposals. The role of departmental economists in developing pro-forma documentation, and in providing general advice, is also referred to in the 'expert advice' section.

15.4.    The Committee therefore concluded that DARD has acted properly in developing a pro-forma approach for smaller projects.

15.5.    DARD was also clear about its responsibilities for appraising larger projects. In its written submission [49] a "more comprehensive appraisal" was described, for which consultants would normally be appointed. In addition, DARD advised the Committee that all projects costing more than £1m would also be submitted to DFP for final approval. These seemed to the Committee to be reasonable and proper procedures.

15.6.    The Committee was also interested in the positions adopted by the RDC and RCN as agents of the Department in delivering the programme. Where there are other delivery partnerships, the Committee was concerned to ensure that these too would be fully informed as to the need for full and proper appraisal.

15.7.    The RDC committed itself [50] to operating within government guidelines and recorded the likelihood, given the likely size of project to be targeted under the new programmes, that fewer externally commissioned reports would be required. The RDC also committed itself to an open and transparent appraisal process and stated the importance of appraisal procedures being rigorous, while not deterring socially excluded groups from applying for funding. The Committee endorsed this viewpoint as being consistent with its own concerns regarding the applications process.

15.8.    The Committee's updating of evidence early in 2002 allowed it to check on whether the RDC had in fact met its commitments. Documents obtained by the Committee (referred to later in this report) clearly state the RDC's policies on economic appraisal and include the pro-forma for use with projects having non-promoter funding of less than £50,000. Also highlighted is the requirement for full economic appraisal of all projects over £50,000, as is the need to submit each of these appraisals to the Department's economists for scrutiny.

15.9.    The Committee must conclude that the RDC has the appropriate procedures in place to ensure proper appraisal of all projects brought forward under its programmes.

15.10.  Given the nature of the work in which the RCN is to be involved within the programme, their involvement in economic appraisal could be considered less important than that of others. However, the Committee was content with the RCN's commitment, to the 'management committee' of each 'Rural Support Network', that they would take each one:

"through a process which will raise issues relating to the objectives of projects and the requirements that the appraisal procedures will place on these projects".

15.11.  The Committee noted that DARD intended to apply a grant 'ceiling' to LEADER+ groups and NRRT partnerships that would have the effect of ensuring that pro-forma appraisals were undertaken, rather than full-scale appraisals requiring the employment of consultants. This was entirely consistent with other parts of the programme and caused the Committee no difficulty whatsoever.

15.12.  The Committee did, however, question the comment made in the Department's submission [51] that:

"it is the responsibility of project officers, whether in DARD, the RDC or partnership groups to ensure that economic appraisals are completed in accord with programme policy".

15.13.  However true this may be in a practical context, with project officers ensuring correct completion of appraisal documentation, the Committee concluded that it is ultimately DARD's responsibility to ensure that its agents (including RDC, RCN, LEADER+ groups and NRRT partnerships) carry out appraisal to the required standard. DARD must also verify that any use, by these agents, of the pro-forma approach is as thorough as DFP requires.

15.14.  Updates sought in January 2002 again allowed a deeper Committee insight into the Department's approach to delivery partnerships than might otherwise have been the case. The Committee was able to study the papers issued by DARD when calling for applications from prospective delivery partnerships in both the LEADER+ and NRRT programmes.

15.15.  In the case of LEADER+, the Committee found that the Department's papers had not been specific about the requirement for all projects to be subject to an economic appraisal. In fact, applicants were asked to provide, as part of their application, details of the procedures that they proposed "for the appraisal and selection of projects and the criteria to be used". In the case of the NRRTi, the Committee found that the paperwork clearly stated that "all projects will be subject to an economic appraisal before a final decision will be given".

15.16.  There was clearly an inconsistency there. In response, [52] DARD simply stated that the documents were general in nature and not intended to detail the full requirements of each programme. DARD assured the Committee that full operating guidance, providing instruction on economic appraisal, will be given to partnerships, in both programmes, before individual projects are being assessed.

15.17.  The Committee accepted the Department's point that calls for applications would not contain the very detailed guidance necessary for partnerships to deliver the programmes. However, the subject of appraisal is of such fundamental importance that the Committee would have expected reference to it in the documentation. The fact that it was contained in the paperwork for one programme suggests that it should have been contained in the paperwork for the other programme.

15.18.  In the context of the PAC's major conclusion regarding poor project appraisal, the Committee recommends that DARD must incorporate the most detailed requirements, regarding appraisal, within its forthcoming guidance to delivery partnerships. DARD must also ensure that appropriate checks are in place to ensure compliance with these requirements, and keep a full record of these checks.

15.19.  The Committee also noted that the anticipated 'ceiling' on project costs of £50,000 was not mentioned in the calls for applications under either programme. On further investigation, DARD advised that the 'ceiling' will apply in the LEADER+ Programme and for community projects under the NRRTi. However, there was now to be a £150,000 ceiling for non-community projects under NRRTi.

15.20.  The Department did not provide an explanation for this departure from its earlier evidence. Indeed, the Committee could see the benefits of a higher spending limit for tourism projects which might involve significant capital investment. The only real consequence in terms of appraisal was the fact that projects over £50,000 would require full (consultant's) appraisal and this new ceiling would seem to increase the likelihood of consultant's appraisals being required.

15.21. However, another departure in policy emerged from the Committee's updating of its evidence. When the Committee obtained a copy of the DARD Procedures Manual (dealt with in more detail later on) it was clear that there was to be pro-forma appraisal of projects up to £150,000, and not the £50,000 as previously defined. In response to a query on this the Department stated that DFP had issued revised guidance, to the effect that full economic appraisals should be completed for all projects over £250,000. However, the Department had taken a policy decision to complete full appraisals for projects over £150,000, with pro-forma appraisals for projects from £1000 up to and including £150,000.

15.22.  This has significant implications for project appraisal under the Rural Development Programme and these are explored further in a later section.

15.23.  On a related issue, the Department of Finance and Personnel had, in its response to PAC conclusion 4.7, forecast that the NI Preface to the Green Book would be replaced in 2001 by a new expanded and updated guide. It would contain more practical guidance tailored to the need of NI Departments. The PAC "attached considerable weight" to DFP's undertaking to provide this guidance.

15.24. However, when the Committee checked this point at the end of January 2002, DFP had stated, within its revised new TSN (Targeting Social Need) Action Plan, that the timetable for issuing guidance had slipped and would be delayed until well into 2002. The apparent change in requirement for full appraisal (from £50,000 to £250,000) may be related to this new guidance. In any event, the Committee would urge DFP to expedite the new guidance.

15.25.  The Committee also recommends that DARD should review and revise its procedures manuals as soon as new guidance becomes available, in order that staff comply fully, and quickly, with any new, or changed, requirements.

16. Procedures Manuals to be in place Incorporating Appraisal Guidance

16.1.    The PAC was adamant that the Department should have had an operating manual, for its earlier programmes, in place much sooner than it did. In response, accepting the PAC recommendation, the Department stated that a manual would be in place before the start of the 2001 to 2006 programme.

16.2.    This commitment was repeated to the Committee in the Department's evidence [53] . The Minister said:

"The procedures for the new RDP that is currently being drafted will set out the requirements for economic appraisals. Those will refer to the appropriate Treasury and DFP guidance" and "the procedures manuals are being drafted and they will be available to staff in advance of the new programmes being launched".

16.3.    The RDC also committed to having operations manuals in place, and for the appraisal system to be fully documented within those manuals.

16.4.    The Committee welcomed those assurances at the time. The updating of evidence, in January 2002, allowed the assurances to be tested, given that the Rural Development Programme had been formally launched in November 2001 and initial calls for projects had been made.

16.5.    The RDC replied [54] twelve days after the issue of the Committee's letter seeking further evidence and the reply included electronic copies of the RDC's "Operations" and "Programmes" Operations Manuals. The latter clearly states the RDC policy on economic appraisals and includes the actual pro-forma to be used for all projects with non-promoter funding of less than £50,000. It also requires full economic appraisals for projects of £50,000 and over.

16.6.    The Committee therefore concluded that the RDC had met its commitments with regard to the provision of manuals and the inclusion of economic appraisal requirements in them.

16.7.    The Department's response, dated 14 February 2002, was less comprehensive. It was to the effect that a general (EU) Structural Funds Manual was published on the DFP web-site and that this included a section on economic appraisal. The Department went on to say that internal procedures were in place for the element of the programme that had called for projects (under the NI Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity). DARD's response concluded by saying that the procedures would be forwarded to the Committee "shortly" and that they included instructions and guidance on economic appraisal.

16.8.    It was almost two weeks later (26 February 2002) that the Committee received the electronic version of a 217-page manual. This does, as promised, contain instructions and guidance on economic appraisal and incorporates the actual pro-forma to be used for smaller projects.

16.9. However, while the pro-forma stated that it was to be used for projects between £1000 and £150,000, (as outlined in the previous section) a checklist contained in the manual referred to projects from £5000 to £50,000. When this was drawn to DARD's attention, the response was an undertaking to correct the discrepancy and a statement that the procedures are a "working document" that would be revised and updated regularly.

16.10.  Finally, DARD advised that 'Operating Guidance' (with instruction on economic appraisal) was currently being drafted and would be in place to guide LEADER+ and NRRTi partnerships before actual projects get underway. Calls for individual projects, DARD said, would not be made "for some months".

16.11.  In reaching conclusions on DARD's preparedness, the Committee must compare the RDC's ability to produce electronic manuals immediately, with DARD's inability to do so until almost 2 weeks after its written response. There is certainly an inference to be drawn that the procedures were not in fact ready when the Committee made its initial request. The fact that a checklist for appraisal, within the manual that was eventually forwarded, contained a discrepancy in figures from the appraisal pro-forma itself, did not instil members' confidence in the manual. It could also be said to add weight to the Committee's suspicions about the manual's state of readiness.

16.12.  The Committee did not accept the existence of a DFP manual on its web-site as any sort of adequate substitute for an internal procedures manual, properly developed and issued to staff involved in implementing a programme. This is particularly important since staff were potentially receiving applications since November last year.

16.13.  The Committee acknowledged that project calls in the NRRTi and LEADER+ programmes may indeed still be some time away. However, given that the new programmes have been in development since as long ago as 1999, the Committee would have expected the Department to have been in a position of having guidance ready for the partnerships by now. The further assurances made by DARD regarding operational guidance now take on extreme importance and the Committee stresses the need for commitments to be met before any calls for projects.

16.14.  The Committee must conclude that DARD has not met the commitments made to the Committee in respect of procedures manuals for all of its component programmes.

16.15.  The Committee therefore recommends that DARD should seek an audit assessment of its current procedures manual for the NI Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity without delay. Such an assessment would necessarily include an assessment of whether the procedures are currently being followed on the ground.

16.16.  The Committee further recommends that DARD should complete its operational guidance for the NRRTi and LEADER+ Programmes before it begins assessment of the business plans currently being developed by each of these partnerships.

17.           Appropriate Review of Appraisal Standards and Training of Staff

17.1.    In the early part of its Inquiry, the Committee welcomed the involvement of DARD economists in the appraisal process, specifically in relation to the quality of work related to appraisals, and the involvement of DFP in projects over £1m [55] . The Committee felt that both would be relatively independent from the project's promoters and from staff who may be inclined to act as 'champion' for a project, having perhaps been involved in it, or with the promoters, for some time.

17.2.    The Committee also welcomed the stated availability of accountancy support from within DARD, where the economists, or project staff, determined it to be necessary on any aspect of an appraisal or business plan. Where expertise exists, within the Department, it should be fully utilised to ensure best practice in appraisal, and the Committee saw merit in accountancy advice being considered by project assessment panels.

17.3.    The Committee also gave a broad welcome to the move by DARD and RDC to 'take over' the commissioning and appointment of consultants when they are required to complete economic appraisals. Members endorsed the Department's belief [56] that this will result in more independent appraisal and better monitoring and control of consultants. The Committee was, however, concerned that appointment of consultants must be fully in accordance with Government guidelines.

17.4.    The Committee further endorsed the RDC point about their approach having the positive effect of leaving communities to focus on project delivery rather than managing consultants. However, the Committee noted a possible inconsistency in the RCN's approach, with that organisation saying that it will help groups draw up Terms of Reference for consultants. Their argument [57] was that a group, in making the decision about which consultant to use, would develop skills which facilitate local decision-making and accountability. The Committee saw merits in this argument. However, where appraisal is concerned, the Committee felt that consistency of approach was more important.

17.5.    The Committee therefore recommends that the RCN adopts the same approach as the other two main delivery organisations in managing consultants involved in economic appraisal.

17.6.    When the PAC was critical of business plans that had been produced by consultants for early RDP projects, it advised that quality review procedures should be in place in a programme that has substantial consultancy inputs. DARD's approach, originally, was to have the Department's economists consider a sample of pro-forma project appraisals, for grants up to £50,000, and to consider appraisals for all projects involving grants of more than £50,000. The RDC stated [58] its intention to introduce quality review procedures for consultants preparing economic appraisals, business plans and mentoring services to community clients.

17.7.    This Report has already mentioned that the RDC's procedures require all project appraisals for grants over £50,0000 to be forwarded to the Department's economists. In addition to this, the RDC procedures include a quality review of consultants' work after they have undertaken two assignments under the programme. This review would take account of the views of both DARD economists and the client group. The Committee was content that these actions represent an improvement in previous practice and a sensible approach.

17.8.    The Department's approach does not seem to have such a built-in quality review of consultants' work. Certainly the economists, to whom all appraisals for projects over £150,000 are sent for scrutiny, have an opportunity to comment on the standards being reached. DARD's manual suggests that economists may seek additional information from the applicant, and that this must be provided within six weeks. However, this does not equate to a quality review, by the economists, of the standards of appraisal of a particular consultant. The Committee believes that it is important for consultants to provide value for money spent on their services.

17.9.    DFP, in its response to the PAC Report, provided assurances that comprehensive guidance regarding the monitoring of consultancy assignments already exists and is accessible by Departments. This guidance includes a 'Model System for the Use and Control of Consultants.' The Committee's expectation would be for DARD to comply fully with this guidance. However, the guidance will be of a general nature and there may be expectations of consultants that are unique to the Rural Development Programme.

17.10.  The Committee therefore recommends that DARD should incorporate a formal review of a consultant's performance, following consideration of two full economic appraisals from that consultant. Any shortcomings should be discussed immediately with the relevant consultant and remedial action agreed before further appraisals are accepted from that source. This action would be in addition to compliance with existing DFP guidance.

17.11.  DARD has, it seems, built in both a training requirement and a quality review for the completion of pro-forma economic appraisals by 'Project Officers'.

17.12.  The Department's manual insists that these appraisals may only be carried out by officers who have received appropriate training, and that they must receive refresher training at not more than 18 month intervals. The Committee would endorse these requirements but caution that appropriate procedures are put in place to ensure that they are adhered to as the programme develops.

17.13.  The review comes into effect if a Project Officer submits "more than three" economic appraisals which are considered by the Rural Area Co-ordinator or the economists to be unacceptable. At that point the officer will receive refresher training before being permitted to undertake any further appraisal.

17.14.  On the face of it, this might seem to be a reasonable requirement. However, when put in the context of the proposed 5% sampling by economists of all pro-forma appraisals and the newly increased amount of project funding for which pro-forma appraisal is permitted, the Committee considers this not to be an appropriate level of quality review.

17.15.  Firstly, the Committee endorses the Department's decision not to move to pro-forma appraisal for all projects of less than £250,000, as appears to be permitted by new DFP guidance. By any standards, a quarter of a million pounds is a significant amount of project funding and a full appraisal of a project at this level of funding should be a requirement.

17.16. However, the move from £50,000 to £150,000 for pro-forma appraisal has its own risks, not least the possibility that inexperienced staff might not complete these to the required standard. There must be a risk that an officer could put through a great deal of sub-standard project appraisals, each potentially involving funding of up to £150,000, before this was discovered and remedial action taken.

17.17.  DARD was clear, in two of its written submissions, [59] about the need to ensure staff are trained:

"Specific training will be made available to all Department staff, and to staff of agents delivering the programme on the Department's behalf, who are involved in the appraisal process" and "It will be a requirement that all staff involved in the appraisal process receive appropriate training".

17.18.  The RDC was slightly more specific, when acknowledging the need to ensure staff are well trained [60] . It recognised the need for business acumen, and to be able to look at a business project and make an economic and investment appraisal. In its response [61] to 'update' questions, the RDC confirmed that staff members have undergone training on financial and economic appraisal techniques.

17.19.  The Committee would have some concern about the reference to RDC staff having had "some initial DARD training on economic appraisals" and the RDC's intention to augment this with "focused training". This might be construed as an inference that the DARD training was basic and therefore insufficient to ensure competence in appraisal.

17.20.  The fact that much more 'expensive' projects are now to be covered by pro-forma appraisal makes it all the more important for DARD to ensure that the training is appropriate to the performance required of staff. Indeed, it is vital to ensure from the outset that the necessary appraisal standards are being met. For these reasons, the Committee believes that additional review procedures will be required.

17.21.  The Committee therefore recommends that economists scrutinise a higher percentage than the proposed 5% of pro-forma appraisals, and suggests scrutiny of at least 20% of projects from £50k to £100k and at least 50% of those from £100k to £150k. If resources allow, a 50% check of all project appraisals in the early stages of each programme would provide reassurance for the Department.

17.22.  The Committee also recommends that DARD reviews its training policy as soon as possible, and suggests this could be appropriate as soon as the economists' scrutiny has been in operation for three months.

17.23.  The Committee also noted that it was DARD's stated intention, according to the procedures manual, for the Rural Area Co-ordinator to arrange for the 5% of pro-forma appraisals carried out by his or her staff to be forwarded to the economists for quality assurance. Such a system lacks sufficient independence and Co-ordinators could be accused of 'cherry-picking' their best appraisals. In order to protect themselves, a more transparent system would be preferable.

17.24.  The Committee therefore recommends that the economists should choose the required number of project appraisals from a list of all projects provided by the Co-ordinator. In so doing, the economists should ensure that they obtain at least one appraisal from each active project officer. This would quickly satisfy the Department that all its project officers were performing appraisal to the required standard and allow early remedial action should problems be identified.

17.25.  The Committee further recommends that a similar procedure is developed for appraisals carried out by staff from the RDC and the partnerships delivering the LEADER+ and NRRTi programmes.

18.           Consideration of Management and Marketing within appraisal

18.1.    PAC's conclusions (4.10 and 4.15) referred to audit criticism of the Department's failure to ensure that marketing issues and management needs, within projects, were addressed at appraisal stage. In both cases, the Department had provided assurances to the PAC that proper procedures were now in place.

18.2.    Further assurance was provided to the Committee in the Department's written submission, [62] which said that all full appraisals would consider the management, structure and responsibilities of the group and, where appropriate, a marketing assessment. The Committee had a slight concern that these issues may not be fully considered in the pro-forma appraisal approach. However, this was allayed when the Committee received a copy of the pro-forma to be used. It clearly contains sections for completion on management and marketing issues, and on 'risk assessment'.

18.3.    The Committee therefore concluded that the Department has met its own commitments in these areas. The Committee would strongly urge DARD to ensure that management and marketing issues are also addressed within appraisals conducted by the LEADER+ and NRRTi partnership groups.

18.4.    The RDC also provided assurances [63] that their operation manuals will ensure that appraisal and business plans effectively address marketing issues in economic projects. However, it is not clear from their appraisal pro-forma (included in the operations manual) that this is the case. While "marketing" is included as a possible cost within a project, the need for marketing is not assessed in this part of the appraisal. Other papers provided by the RDC suggest that a group's ability to manage a project will be assessed, particularly during an assessment visit by RDC staff.

18.5.    In view of the PAC's findings, the Committee believes that it is important for the appraisal documentation to contain this information.

18.6.    The Committee therefore recommends that the RDC amends its procedures to incorporate assessment of marketing and management needs within the appraisal pro-forma.

THIRD TERM OF REFERENCE-
RATIONALISATION OF PROGRAMME STRUCTURES

19.       Context

19.1. Paragraph 46 of the PAC Report referred to a survey of a number of bodies involved in rural regeneration. Those responding to this survey had commented upon the duplication of roles and responsibilities between different providers in the Programme.

19.2.    The PAC's conclusion 4.23 welcomed the DARD Accounting Officer's comments that the Department was seeking to rationalise the programme's structures. It was the PAC's view that this would help reduce confusion, waste and overlap, as well as leading to savings in administration costs.

20.           Committee's Expectations

20.1.    The Committee's expectations in this regard were straightforward:

n     That the Department would have acted in such a way as to rationalise structures;

n     That the Department would make every effort to clarify fully the roles and responsibilities of the providers of various aspects of the Rural Development Programme; and

n     That DARD would ensure cross-departmental and cross-agency co-ordination was in place.

21.           Department's Actions to Rationalise Structures

21.1.    Firstly, the Committee acknowledged the complexities of the Rural Development Programme, caused by the different EU funding lines for component parts of the programme, and the EU requirements associated with each funding opportunity.

21.2.    Few, if any, would suggest that funds available from Europe should not be accessed for the benefit of Northern Ireland, particularly funds earmarked for hard-pressed rural areas. Indeed, the Committee would criticise the Department if it did not do all in its power to maximise this funding.

21.3. However, the Committee's belief was that the RDP customer should not need to understand the complexity of European funding, or to suffer because of it. It is the Department's (and its agents') role to ensure that this is avoided, and that the customer is informed of, and fully understands, his or her responsibilities.

21.4.    The Committee noted DARD's assertion [64] that it had simplified the programme as much as possible, for example by condensing the complex EU Rural Development Regulation (8 'indents' in Article 33 of this Regulation) into three broad themes: capacity building, local regeneration projects and programmes, and sectoral regeneration projects and programmes. However, this is precisely what the Committee would expect from any Department. The themes themselves then need to be fully understood.

21.5.    The Committee noted the Department's recognition of the need for structural rationalisation and welcomed the reduction in numbers of delivery groups and partnerships from 33 in the last 'round' (24 LEADER II Groups and 9 Area Based Strategy Groups) to 17 in the new 'round' (12 LEADER+ groups and 5 Natural Resource Rural Tourism Initiative partnerships).

21.6.    The Committee also thought it entirely sensible that DARD would not attempt to set up its own 'area-based strategy groups' in this programme, choosing instead to deliver its 'area regeneration' aspects:

"in accord with the District Council/PEACE II partnership Strategy Groups currently coming on stream" [65] .

21.7.    The Committee further acknowledged that it was a mandatory European requirement that the LEADER+ Programme must be delivered by Local Action Groups and that further rationalisation would have been hard to achieve in terms of group numbers, assuming a LEADER+ Programme was to be put in place in Northern Ireland.

21.8.    The Committee believed that this reduction in delivery partnership numbers will almost certainly ensure that more of the available funding is actually delivered to final beneficiaries, rather than on administration costs. Members therefore welcomed this move.

21.9.    One concern for Committee members centred on the Department's clarification [66] that applicants may not apply for funding for a project under more than one element of the RDP, or under any other EU-funded programme. In principle, the Committee welcomed this as a move towards greater clarity for project promoters, and rationalisation of delivery structures. The Committee also welcomed the commitment to the provision of advice (by RDD or RDC) when a project may appear to be eligible for more than one programme. The Committee noted, however, that this appeared to rule out the joint funding of projects by DARD and District Council PEACE II Partnerships. Despite the intention to deliver part of the RDP "in accord" with these partnerships, the Committee was concerned that this may still result in 'competition' for projects between DARD and the partnerships themselves, thus losing the clarity that might otherwise have been achieved.

21.10.  The Committee noted the RDC's stated intention [67] to ensure its actions complement those at local district council level. The RDC was also involved in meetings with local district and sectoral partnerships to ensure complementarity and clarity over the programme period. Members also noted and endorsed the Department's intention [68] that its three area co-ordinators would:

"form liaison groups of delivery agents at local level and seek to develop a uniform 'one stop shop' response to help applicants".

21.11.  The Committee therefore recommends that DARD should instigate and maintain the closest possible links with other delivery bodies at local level, and through these links ensure that RDP programmes are not in competition with others for the same projects.

21.12.  Another aspect of the complexity of the Rural Development Programme, as the RDC pointed out, [69] is the real complexity of issues facing rural areas. The Committee therefore welcomed the RDC's assertion that the range of structures developed for this programme:

"promotes a high level of involvement in programme management from a wide range of stakeholders" and that they "assist in reaching the highest possible number of socially excluded groups".

21.13.  The RDC reported that it had gone through a "major change process" to prepare for the new programme and had spent 18 months refocusing its efforts to address the concerns highlighted in the NIAO and PAC reports.

21.14.  Other comments, believed by the Committee to be important, were those made by the Rural Community Network [70] . That organisation, which articulates the voice of rural communities, endorsed:

"the integrated approach now envisaged within the Rural Development Programme across social, cultural, economic and environmental initiatives". The RCN also said that new co-ordination arrangements "will facilitate rural development to move in the direction of being a process rather than a series of individual projects. This is the concept which RCN strongly supports in the light of structural changes required to address the crisis in rural areas". The RCN concludes that: "there is no doubt that considerable time has been spent during the planning stages of the new programme to get a good strategic fit between the different components which make up the new RDP".

21.15.  The Committee must conclude that there is evidence that DARD, and the RDC, have acted to rationalise the programme's structures and that these actions will contribute to a more efficient and effective delivery of the programme.

22.           Clarification of Roles and Responsibilities

22.1.    Earlier in this report, the Committee commented on the 'signpost document' produced with help of PR consultants. This is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, albeit that it may not have overcome problems regarding participation of certain groups. The Committee has also commented positively on the 'road-shows' held throughout Northern Ireland. Similarly, the video adds to the professional publicity campaign, aimed at bringing the programme to the attention of all rural dwellers.

22.2.    The Committee concluded that these were all positive actions in terms of clarification of roles and responsibilities.

22.3.    The Committee also welcomed the concept of a single point of contact (rural area co-ordinators) for those with ideas who would be channelled in a suitable direction and given the required advice. [71] Information and contact details for these co-ordinators was clearly contained in the 'signpost document' and should also be available from other DARD sources. The Committee believed that it is vital for these co-ordinators to play a positive, encouraging rôle.

22.4.    The Committee recommends that the rural area co-ordinators must be prepared to engage with, and assist, all-comers, especially those new to the rural development 'field.'

22.5.    One aspect of role clarification is to ensure that the delivery agents are all fully informed about their own and each other's roles. This may appear to be a fundamental requirement but one which is not always easy to achieve.

22.6.    The Committee was content that DARD, RDC and RCN all demonstrated in their submissions that they are clear on their respective roles. This was, at least in part, due to rationalisation. For example the RDC stated [72] that, previously, it had:

"straddled all parts of the programme. Now, we are focused on the community and the collective sector". The RDC also "believes it is the only organisation involved in managing not-for-profit community projects under the RDP".

22.7.    The RCN was clear [73] that it:

"through the Rural Support Networks, will undertake capacity building programmes for individual community groups and will build on the community 'networking' infrastructure".

22.8.    The Committee also acknowledged the independent view of the East Down Community Network [74] that, for the first time, the Programme clearly defines the roles of all the key rural development agencies and that local people can grasp the concepts more easily than before, and not left to "flounder in the maze that was the last round of EU funding".

22.9.    The Committee concluded that these were positive demonstrations of greater overall clarity within the programme, and a good foundation to provide clarity to the programme's target 'customer base'.

22.10.  One of the criticisms, or at least uncertainties, about earlier phases of the RDP was the definition of a 'group'. The Committee asked DARD to elaborate on this during evidence taking [75] and an official said:

"The Department does not state what size a group must be, whether it should be a formal co-operative group or one that has been created to bid. It is the idea that is critical..We are not saying that a group should consist of five people or 10 people. It will need to be formally constituted, and it will need to display the skills to deliver the project. However, we are not being prescriptive as to size and scale".

22.11.  The Committee welcomed this attempt to provide a flexible definition, but saw it as further evidence that the Department must have in place the resources necessary to enable new groups to feel able to come together and to receive assistance on formal constitution and the development of the skills sought by the Department.

22.12.  The Committee noted, from documents obtained when it was updating its evidence [76] , that the Department had, in fact, decided on a lower size limit of 8 individuals, needed to constitute a group. This appeared to the Committee to be an arbitrary figure, for which no evidence had been presented, but members considered that it was better to have this defined rather than not.

22.13.  Another Committee concern regarding rationalisation was about diversification projects for farmers. Within DARD's documentation, when calling for applications from prospective LEADER+ groups, there is a clear indication that support can be given to farm diversification projects, but not to projects of a type that may be supported by a separate programme that was being implemented by the Agri-food Development Service.

22.14.  This appeared, to the Committee, to leave prospective beneficiaries uncertain as to the more appropriate funding route. This was precisely the sort of dilemma that rationalisation was supposed to avoid. In response to a question on this, DARD stated [77] that it was aware of these complications, and that a group had been set up to prepare explanatory material. The Committee has already commented on this apparent lack of readiness regarding the participation of farmers. While members would welcome the maximum amount of opportunities being made available, they believed that the Department should have foreseen such a complication regarding diversification. It cannot be helpful to have more than one funding route for what farmers would understand to be a single 'diversification' sector.

22.15.  The Committee recommends that farmers are given the greatest assistance in accessing diversification funding from the most appropriate source and that, in any future programme, DARD should ensure that there is only one scheme for each sector.

22.16.  The Committee also discovered an interesting issue regarding clarity and rationalisation. Discussions arose, during evidence, about the correlation between the RDP and mainstream agricultural support, including the 'Accompanying Measures' under the 'Rural Development Plan.' There is real potential for confusion around the terminology used.

22.17.  Officials were clear, in giving evidence [78] , that no so-called 'modulation' monies had been put into the Rural Development Programme nor was there any intention to do so. They advised that such funding would be transferred into environmental-type approaches and would thus be channelled back to farmers. DARD had earlier stated [79] that its rural development programme work would be complementary to agricultural support and to farm family support measures which were to be proposed under the PEACE II programme.

22.18.  Farmers often hear that 'rural development' is the 'second pillar' of the Common Agricultural Policy. They know that modulation monies are being redirected to measures in the 'rural development plan' and yet the officials say that the rural development programme is a separate matter.

22.19.  So, if the Committee's understanding is correct, the Rural Development Plan contains programmes that are only accessible by farmers (such as the Less Favoured Areas, Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Countryside Management Schemes). The Rural Development Programme is, as officials put it, directed at broader rural communities, with farmers a particular target grouping amongst those communities.

22.20.  The Committee believed that the difference between the two can be explained and that this explanation should have been included in the signpost document, in order to provide clarification to the farming community and others. The Department might also have considered using different terminology for at least one of its 'Rural Development' aspects. For example, the "Rural Development Plan for Farms", or the "Rural Development and Regeneration Programme" might have at least helped avoid confusion.

22.21.  The Committee recommends that DARD should consider amending its terminology to highlight the differences between the Rural Development Plan and Rural Development Programme.

22.22.  The Committee recommends that DARD should improve public understanding by regularly publishing a breakdown of expenditure under each of the rural development schemes.

23.       Cross-Departmental Co-ordination

23.1.    During evidence-taking [80] the Committee asked officials about the potential for the RDP to be duplicating something that should be done by other Statutory bodies. Their answer was very clear, assuring members that DARD would not be allowed to duplicate activity.

23.2.    Mr Payne, the farmer who made a submission to the Committee, felt that consideration should be given to a 'cross-agency think-tank' that could discuss ways in which duplication might be avoided. However, the Department, in giving evidence about the Natural Resource Rural Tourism Initiative (NRRTi), [81] gave a clear indication that such a forum already existed.

23.3.    This is the inter-departmental committee on rural development (known as the Rural Development Steering Group (RDSG)) which is chaired by the DARD Deputy Secretary responsible for the RDP. The Committee welcomed the existence of the RDSG as a cross-departmental co-ordination device and members would urge DARD to ensure that it is proactive in ensuring avoidance of duplication or agencies working at cross-purposes.

23.4.    The Committee did not explore, in any depth, the role of RDSG, or its operation in practice. However, the NRRTi example is a useful one on which the Committee can base its judgement. The RDSG manages this initiative, the implementation of which directly involves three separate agencies, through a sub-group. The close co-operation at this level, and between the DARD co-ordination offices and NRRTi partnership groups on the ground, is intended to ensure that the involvement of a number of agencies does not impact adversely on the public.

23.5.    In its response to the Inquiry [82] , the NI Tourist Board confirmed its close working relationships with the other agencies including DARD. The NI Tourist Board viewed the NRRTi as a model for joined-up policy, and one which would avoid duplication of roles and responsibilities.

23.6.    The Committee believed that this was an entirely proper objective for DARD and the other agencies, and welcomed the principle demonstrated by the 'holistic approach' of joint responsibility and maximum clarity. Members will be interested to see if the approach adopted for NRRTi is successful in practice. If so, the Committee believes that there is great potential for similar actions across the rural development area, given the various agencies' responsibilities within the rural economy.

23.7.    Finally, in this section, the thorny issue of the difficulty in obtaining planning permission for projects in rural areas was raised in evidence. [83] The officials' response was that they must recognise the authority of the Planning Service and the district councils, but that they hoped that through partnership, together with the inter-departmental RDSG and new planning proposals, these issues might be "managed".

23.8.    The Committee also recognises the authority of the Planning Service, but is not content that this Service takes regeneration issues fully into account when applying its planning policy. This is a problem that the Committee believed must be tackled. The Committee considered that, when dealing with planning issues, the Department must ensure that its own criteria are appropriate and up-to-date.

23.9.    The Committee therefore recommends that the Rural Development Steering Group should adopt a specific role, perhaps through a bilateral sub-group, dealing purely with cases where important regeneration objectives appear to be at odds with the strict application of planning regulations.

FOURTH TERM OF REFERENCE -
RESOURCES TO BE ASSIGNED FOR PROGRAMME DELIVERY

24.       Context

24.1.    The Committee decided to include this aspect in the Terms of Reference in order to make a judgement on the potential for DARD's (and others') commitments, made as a result of audit and PAC criticism, to be compromised through lack of resources.

24.2.    The Committee also wanted to establish whether or not the Department had reviewed the way it delivered the programme to take account of any of the criticisms made against it.

24.3.    Finally, the Committee felt it important to establish the context of the Rural Development Programme within the Department's priorities, in terms of the specific RDP budget relative to the overall DARD budget allocation.

25.           Committee's Expectations

25.1.    The Committee expected that the Department would, in a corporate sense, ensure that the resources necessary to ensure the proper delivery of this programme, including compliance with all the relevant guidance, would be identified and provided to the Division responsible for the RDP. It also expected that DARD would ensure appropriate resourcing of its main delivery agents.

25.2. Furthermore, the Committee would have expected that Division to have taken a very close look at itself, in terms of its own structures and delivery arrangements, in order to ensure that they remained the most appropriate to the current circumstances surrounding the RDP.

25.3.    Finally, the Committee had no real expectations regarding the RDP budget, except that members understood that Rural Development was becoming more important in the European context and could well account for a bigger 'slice' of the DARD overall budget than before.

26.       Reviews and Identification of Resource Requirements

26.1.    Firstly, the Committee believed that staffing of DARD's own Rural Development Division was an important factor to get right. The Committee therefore welcomed the Minister's evidence [84] that:

"An internal review which was carried out by the Rural Development Division identified the need for 21 additional staff to ensure the orderly closure of the last RDP and the implementation of the new one. This is in addition to the 48 staff working in the division in the 2000-01 financial year with a running cost of £1.4 million. Approval has been given to fill the 21 new posts".

26.2.    It could be argued that an internal review may have been less objective than an independent one. However, the Committee made the assumption that a reasonable and persuasive case must have been made for the additional staffing, given that corporate approval for an increase of almost 50% in the division's staffing levels had been secured.

26.3.    When the Committee updated its evidence early this year, it asked the Department to give the current position regarding these 21 new posts. DARD's response [85] was very positive:

".we indicated that we would be seeking an additional 21 staff to give us a total of 69 staff. As at 8 February 2002 we had 70 staff. An external review of the RDD staffing position has been commissioned and is expected to start this month".

26.4.    The Committee therefore concluded that the Department had corporately 'risen to the challenge' and had provided the human resources that the division believed were necessary. It is a consequential conclusion that the Committee would not expect "under-staffing" to be raised by DARD as an issue or as an excuse for any shortcomings that may be identified in future audits. That position may, of course, change depending on the outcome of the further staffing review mentioned by DARD.

26.5.    The Committee did, however, question the timeliness of this further review. Although the first review was internal, and the proposed review external, DARD had told the Committee that all of the component parts of the programme were not yet fully operational. It may therefore be questionable as to whether any review could, at this stage, assess the Division's requirements any more accurately than the one which recommended 21 additional posts.

26.6.    The Committee recommends, however, that any further recommendations regarding staffing, from the external review, should be implemented without delay. It is also essential that all new staff must be properly trained to do the job.

26.7.    The Committee was also interested in the comments of the Rural Development Council and Rural Community Network in terms of resources they would need to ensure implementation of the new programme.

26.8.    The Committee welcomed the RDC's assurance [86] that it had carried out a "full review of staff" and that it had "restructured accordingly". The RDC went on to say that budgets had been prepared for the full programme period and that they awaited DARD approval. Importantly, the RDC stated that it was content it would be able to deliver the expected programme outputs if the budgets were approved.

26.9.    During the updating of evidence, DARD advised the Committee that it had approved the budget for the RDC to deliver the Local Regeneration Programme (non-profit-taking) subject to detailed annual consideration. This was confirmed by the RDC as having occurred on 15 November 2001 and a copy of the approval letter was supplied by the RDC.

26.10.  The Committee would anticipate, in the same way as it did with the Department, that the RDC should now be able to deliver as promised. There was one slight concern that the 'annualised' approach where DARD considers RDC budgets might cause limitations on the RDC's ability to deliver its objectives. However, the RDC did not raise this as a particular issue with the Committee and it may prove perfectly workable.

26.11.  The Committee would, however, recommend that DARD should approve the RDC's annual budgets as early as possible in advance of the relevant year, in order that the RDC may plan its activities most effectively.

26.12.  The Committee noted also the view of the Rural Community Network, which was that the resources available to the programme are "reasonable within the current remit of the programme". The RCN said that it would require a "small number of extra staff" to deliver its programmes. Members assumed, in the absence of any RCN concerns to the contrary, that sufficient resources would be provided to that organisation to allow for the additional staffing.

26.13.  The RCN raised an important point in its final response to the Committee [87] which was to the effect that DARD should hold funding in reserve to meet any shortfalls which might emerge through further "needs assessment". This is consistent with the Committee's earlier recommendation regarding the availability of funds throughout the programme period.

26.14.  The Committee would expect DARD to approach this sensibly and objectively, and to be flexible enough to reallocate funding to areas where significant benefits were being accrued, from those areas that were proving to be unsuccessful.

26.15.  The RDC was quite certain that it had the systems in place and the capacity to deliver additional programmes should more funding be made available to it during the programme period. The Committee agreed with the RDC's assessment that the £10m it expected for its Local Regeneration Programme was "not a lot of money" when the numbers of projects over six years was considered.

26.16.  The Committee agreed that this should be a factor for DARD to consider, during its mid-term reviews, particularly if the RDC programmes were proving more beneficial than others.

DARD Structures and Delivery Arrangements

26.17.  One factor, which was less clear to the Committee, was whether or not there had been any review of the Department's own delivery structures. During oral evidence [88] , therefore, the Committee asked whether the evaluations of previous phases of the programme, and consultation regarding the new phase, had given a 'clean bill of health' on the division's staffing structure. The Minister's response was that there were no comments to suggest that the present structures were not working.

26.18.  The Minister went on to explain that there were central policy and financial management units to deal with policy and co-ordinate the implementation of the programme, and three regional co-ordination offices (in Ballymena, Newry and Omagh) that will interface directly with project promoters and co-ordinate local delivery.

26.19.  The Committee acknowledged the principle that DARD seems to espouse, that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' However, the Committee wished to stress the importance of DARD allocating its resources to ensure that lessons learned from the past are applied in the new round. Of particular importance, therefore, will be the central unit's role in ensuring that policy is applied consistently and correctly throughout the three co-ordination areas. The Department should also be prepared to consider alternative delivery arrangements, rather than to assume it is already operating 'best practice'.

26.20.  The Committee also believed that it may make sense for DARD to consider further internal rationalisation, to bring together the business areas that are currently separate, but which have linked objectives. These would include Rural Development Division, Rural Enterprise Division and those Divisions responsible for implementing the Rural Development Regulation Plan. This may allow for economies of scale and for policy efficiency, and the Committee would strongly urge the Department to take a corporate look at this possibility.

27.       Rural Development Programme within the overall Department Budget

27.1.    In evidence [89] , albeit prior to its securing the additional staff mentioned earlier in this Report, the Department advised the Committee that:

"in terms of staff numbers, the RDP is relatively small and its administration costs amount to less than 2% of the Department's running costs budget".

27.2.    From figures supplied by the Department regarding its Service Delivery Agreement for the 2002/03 financial year, the Committee could also see that 'Rural Development' accounts for less than 7% of the Departmental Expenditure Limit within that year's budget.

27.3.    It is clear from these figures that the Rural Development Programme remains a relatively small 'cog' in the much bigger Departmental 'wheel.' This may have to change in line with the apparent move in EU policy towards rural development and away from traditional support for mainstream agriculture. Realistically, much more funding would be required.

27.4.    It seems to the Committee that the amounts of money involved, even £80 million of public spending over 6 years, are not likely to make a huge impact on the difficulties faced by rural areas, however welcome they might be.

27.5.    Finally, a real fear for the longer term, and one raised by the RDC, is how the Rural Development Programme will be funded beyond 2006 when it is widely expected that EU funding will 'run out' in Northern Ireland, certainly in terms of the 'Objective 1 status' hitherto enjoyed. This phase of rural development cannot be seen as the final element in a rural recovery programme. The Committee would argue that it is, in fact, still in its early stages and that there is much work to be done.

27.6.    It should prove possible to operate a rural support programme from within national funds only. However, this will require a policy decision within the Assembly and the ground must be well prepared for such a decision, particularly in the face of other pressures such as health, education and transport.

27.7.    The Committee therefore recommends that the Department, and others, must address future funding as a major concern well before 2006.

CONCLUSIONS

28.       Full Participation by Under-Represented Groups

28.1.    The Committee concluded that the Department, and the Rural Development Council, were sincere in their stated intentions regarding inclusion and participation, in the Rural Development Programme, of four target groups: the farming community, women, young people and the long-term unemployed. References to these groups within Programme documentation and the opening of programmes to new categories of applicant bore witness to this sincerity.

28.2.    The Committee also found that the commitments had been met regarding provision of information about the Programme. Members were content that the approach represented a significant improvement over previous phases of the Programme.

28.3.    The Committee also concluded, however, that barriers remain, particularly to farmers' participation, and that the scale of the problem regarding their inclusion may not have been fully appreciated by the Department.

28.4.    The Committee fully endorsed the Rural Community Network's comment about the necessity for a coherent approach to each of the targeted groups, in order to ensure that they all have access to the help they need. In this context, the initially slow response, by farmers' groups, to newly accessible programmes, provided a prime example of the need for dedicated assistance for farmers and other new applicants, particularly in navigating their way through a cumbersome applications process. The Committee's further conclusion was that the Department must ensure that sufficient resources are made available to its Rural Enterprise Division, given that this Division consists of people to whom farmers can specifically relate.

28.5.    Finally, the Committee's conclusion was that the lack of targets for participation of the four groups was a weakness in the programme, as were the absence of ring-fencing of funding and weighting of project selection criteria in favour of applications from, or affecting, those groups. These weaknesses, the Committee believed, resulted in passive, rather than active, targeting of these groups. That situation was not helped by the fact that neither DARD nor the RDC had put in place the anticipated monitoring systems prior to the launch of programmes, and the uncertainty as to whether the procedures would, in fact, actively measure participation of all four groups.

28.6.    Overall, therefore, the Committee acknowledged the work that the Department and others had done to encourage participation, but was disappointed about the difficulties and obstacles that remain.

29.       Full and Proper Appraisal of all Projects

29.1.    The Committee's positive conclusion was that the Department had acted to ensure that satisfactory and appropriate appraisal procedures are in place for all projects to be brought forward under programmes being managed directly by its own Rural Development Division and by the Rural Development Council.

29.2.    The Committee further concluded that, while it was the Department's obvious intention and desire that other delivery agents would follow suit, it must accept responsibility for ensuring that they did so. This would be achieved through the provision, by DARD of detailed appraisal requirements, together with stringent checks on compliance with these.

29.3.    It was also apparent to the Committee that DARD has acted to improve the procurement and management of consultants in the new round of the Rural Development Programme. It was the Committee's conclusion, however, that there was a need for DARD to re-assess its scrutiny and review procedures regarding appraisal standards. This was the case for both forms of appraisal: the pro-forma type, where project costs fell below a certain level, and full appraisal, carried out by consultants, for larger projects. The Committee's recommendations will, members believed, offer the best protection both for public investment, and for staff involved in appraisal work.

29.4.    The Committee remained unconvinced that DARD had lived up to its commitments on having a Procedures Manual in place and operational, but was content with the RDC's ability to demonstrate the availability of its manual. With the Department's manual now in place, the Committee concluded that there was a need for it to be assessed, in order to ensure it that it is of the necessary standard and is actually being used by the Department's staff.

29.5.    Finally, the Committee concluded that, given the important role played by staff in the appraisal process, DARD should regularly revisit its staff training in consultation with RDC. This would help ensure that any changes to the guidelines on appraisal result in updated training for all involved, and that any identified short-comings are resolved quickly through re-training.

30.           Rationalisation of Programme Structures

30.1.    In general, the Committee concluded that the Department had embraced the concept of rationalisation and had demonstrated this through the 'visible' rationalisation of reduced numbers of delivery bodies in this phase of the rural Development Programme.

30.2.    Another conclusion, based on positive assessments by local community representatives, was that DARD had acted to improve clarity regarding the delivery structures, both within the structures themselves and to the Programmes customers.

30.3. Furthermore, the Committee was content that DARD had accepted the need for consistency and complementarity with other programmes. The most striking examples of this acceptance were DARD's promotion of the concept within the Natural Resource Rural Tourism Initiative and its clear expectations of its agents to do likewise in the LEADER+ programme.

30.4.    The Committee did, however, sound a note of caution in this area, citing farm diversification as an example where rationalisation has not been apparent, but was desirable. The Committee also concluded that there was a need for close co-operation between DARD and the Planning Service to ensure that the Programme's regeneration objectives are not frustrated by over zealous application of planning regulations. Equally the Department must ensure that its own criteria, when dealing with planning issues, are appropriate and up-to-date. The Committee believed that an enhanced role for the cross-departmental Rural Development Steering Group might be in order, in an effort to overcome such difficulties and to ensure complementarity between agencies' actions.

30.5.    Finally, the Committee recognised the potential for confusion surrounding the terminology of 'rural development' and highlighted the need for DARD to clarify the distinction between the farm-based Rural Development Plan and the wider rural community-based Rural Development Programme.

31.           Resources to be Assigned for Programme Delivery

31.1.    The Committee's main conclusion in this area was that the Department, as a corporate entity, had demonstrated its willingness to provide the numbers of staff considered necessary to deliver the Rural Development Programme. The Department must also be prepared to consider and meet further recommendations flowing from an external review of staffing, and to ensure that its delivery agents are also appropriately resourced.

31.2.    The Committee also recognised that Rural Development remained a relatively small area of business in the context of the Department's overall budget. The Committee's conclusion was that the Department should consider internal rationalisation, in order to improve co-ordination, efficiency and effectiveness in areas involved in rural regeneration. This may also have the effect of raising the profile of rural development both within and outside the Department, and provide a sound baseline for the almost inevitable movement of agricultural policy towards rural development and away from traditional agricultural support.

31.3.    In terms of programme funds, the Committee concluded that a flexible approach was desirable to ensure that successful areas of the Programme could be bolstered with additional funding, during the programme period, which would be reallocated from areas that were less successful. The Committee also concluded that DARD must, in the short term, set in motion contingency planning for the delivery of rural programmes after 2006, when European structural funding will either be unavailable to Northern Ireland, or be at significantly reduced levels.

APPENDIX 1

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
RELATING TO THE REPORT

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

FRIDAY 18 JANUARY 2002
HELD IN ROOM 135 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP(Chairman)
Mr G Savage (Deputy Chairman)
Mr B Armstrong
Mr P J Bradley
Mr J Dallat
Mr B Douglas
Mr G Kane
Mr I Paisley Jnr

The Chairman declared the meeting to be in private session at 11.29am. The Chairman welcomed the Principal Clerk of Committees, Mr Joe Reynolds, to the meeting. The Clerk, having declared a possible interest in the next issue on the Agenda, withdrew from the meeting.

Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme.

The Chairman reported the Clerk's concern that, in view of his previous employment in DARD's Rural Development Division, there might be a perceived conflict of interest in his assistance to the Committee in producing its report into the Rural Development Programme. The Clerk had therefore requested an independent assessment of his work to provide assurances that his approach was entirely objective and based solely on the evidence before the Committee and members' deliberations.

The Principal Clerk explained the arrangements for clerking of committees including management, appraisal and guidance regarding the professional conduct of officers. In his role as line manager he offered to assist the Committee in addressing the Clerk's concern by acting as independent reviewer of the Clerk's work on the Committee's report.

Members were unanimous in expressing their confidence in the Clerk. Members deliberated.

Resolved: that the Clerk was to be commended for his approach to this issue and that the Principal Clerk should act as independent reviewer and report back to the Committee.

The Chairman thanked the Principal Clerk of Committees for his assistance. The Clerk rejoined the meeting and the Principal Clerk withdrew at 11.40am.

Members were issued with draft papers relating to evidence given to the Inquiry and outline findings emanating from that evidence. The papers included correspondence, minutes of evidence and written submissions to the Inquiry. Members deliberated.

Resolved: that members would examine the documents with a view to discussion of the outline findings at the Committee meeting on 25 January 2002.

Resolved: that in view of developments since evidence was heard, the Committee would write to DARD and to the Rural Development Council to seek updates on the implementation of the Rural Development Programme.

Resolved: that officials would be invited to the meeting on 1 February 2002 and asked to show the video used at the launch of the Strategy.

Resolved: that the Assembly's Research Services would be asked to confirm that the Department's position regarding pro-forma appraisal for projects under £50,000 was in line with current Department of Finance and Personnel guidance.

[EXTRACT]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

FRIDAY 25 JANUARY 2002
HELD IN ROOM 135 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP(Chairman)
Mr B Armstrong
Mr PJ Bradley
Mr J Dallat
Mr B Douglas
Mr D Ford
Mr G Kane
Mr G McHugh
Mr I Paisley Jnr

The Chairman declared the meeting to be in private session at 12.37pm.

Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme.

Members had considered draft significant evidence and outline findings and other papers issued on 18 January 2002.

Resolved: that members would advise the Clerk of any relevant views in relation to the findings.

Resolved: that the Clerk was instructed to proceed to a first draft report in line with the outline findings, taking into account any views submitted by members.

[EXTRACT]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

FRIDAY 8 FEBRUARY 2002
HELD IN ROOM 135 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP (Chairman)
Mr G Savage (Deputy Chairman)
Mr B Armstrong
Mr PJ Bradley
Mr B Douglas
Mr G Kane
Mr M Murphy
Mr G McHugh
Mr I Paisley Jnr

The Deputy Chairman declared the meeting to be in private session at 1.24pm.

Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme.

Members considered further papers and briefing prepared by the Committee Clerk including draft conclusions for incorporation in the Committee's report findings. Members deliberated.

Resolved: that the draft conclusions and proposals for inclusion in the Committee's report were agreed.

Members also considered a paper "The Rural Development Programme Strategy 2001 - 2006" that the Assembly Research Services wished to publish on the Assembly Intranet. Members deliberated.

Resolved: that the Committee had no objection to the publication of the Assembly Research Services document on the Assembly Intranet.

[EXTRACT]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

FRIDAY 22 FEBRUARY 2002
HELD IN ROOM 135 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP (Chairman)
Mr G Savage (Deputy Chairman)
Mr B Armstrong
Mr PJ Bradley
Mr J Dallat
Mr B Douglas
Mr D Ford
Mr G Kane
Mr M Murphy
Mr I Paisley Jnr

Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme.

Members considered proposals for the conclusion of this Inquiry.

Resolved: that members would consider, at next week's meeting, DARD's response to the Committee's request for additional information and would agree outline findings and conclusions derived from this, with a view to considering a first draft report on Friday 8 March 2002.

[EXTRACT]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

FRIDAY 1 MARCH 2002
HELD IN ROOM 135 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP (Chairman)
Mr G Savage (Deputy Chairman)
Mr B Armstrong
Mr J Dallat
Mr B Douglas
Mr G Kane
Mr M Murphy
Mr G McHugh
Mr I Paisley Jnr

Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme.

Messrs Armstrong, Douglas and Kane declared an interest.

Mr McHugh returned to the meeting at 10.58am.

Members noted the positive report from the Clerk of Committees on his examination of the Clerk's work in relation to this Inquiry, and were content that the papers were entirely, and solely, based on evidence put before the Committee and on Committee deliberations.

Mr Dallat returned to the meeting at 11.03am.

Members had received additional papers setting out further possible findings and conclusions based on recent updates. They discussed a number of issues in relation to the rural development programme.

Resolved: that members would study the papers further for consideration at the meeting on Tuesday 5 March 2002.

[EXTRACT]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

TUESDAY 5 MARCH 2002
HELD IN ROOM 152 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP (Chairman)
Mr G Savage (Deputy Chairman)
Mr B Armstrong
Mr PJ Bradley
Mr B Douglas
Mr D Ford
Mr G Kane
Mr M Murphy
Mr G McHugh
Mr I Paisley Jnr

Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme.

The Chairman advised that no members had raised any amendments to the draft findings and conclusions prepared by the Clerk and included in papers for the meeting on Friday 1 March 2002. Members deliberated.

Resolved: that those draft findings and conclusions were approved and that the Clerk was instructed to prepare a first draft of the Committee's Inquiry report based on these, and previous, outline findings and conclusions approved by the Committee and on discussions, surrounding specific issues, that took place in Committee on 1 March 2002.

[EXTRACT]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

FRIDAY 19 APRIL 2002
HELD IN ROOM 135 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP(Chairman)
Mr G Savage (Deputy Chairman)
Mr B Armstrong
Mr P J Bradley
Mr J Dallat
Mr B Douglas
Mr D Ford
Mr G Kane
Mr G McHugh

Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme.

The draft report into preparation for the next phase of the Rural Development Programme (2001-2006) was brought up and read a second time, paragraph by paragraph:

Title page was read and agreed.

Committee remit and table of contents pages were read and agreed.

Introduction

Paragraph 1.1 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraph 1.2 was read and agreed.

Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.11 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4 were read and agreed.

First Term of Reference

Paragraphs 4.1 to 4.4 were read and agreed.

Paragraph 4.5 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 5.1 to 5.11 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 6.1 to 6.5 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 7.1 to 7.7 were read and agreed.

Paragraph 7.8 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 7.9 and 7.10 were read and agreed.

Paragraph 7.11 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 8.1 to 8.13 were read, amended and agreed.

Paragraph 8.14 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 8.15 to 8.18 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 9.1 to 9.9 were read and agreed.

Paragraph 9.10 to 9.12 were read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 9.13 to 9.19 were read and agreed.

Paragraph 9.20 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 9.21 to 9.23 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 10.1 to 10.25 were read and agreed.

Mr Armstrong left the meeting at 1.52pm. The Chairman returned to the meeting at 1.53pm and took the chair.

Paragraph 10.26 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 10.27 to 10.29 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 11.1 to 11.7 were read and agreed.

Mr Ford left the meeting at 2.05pm.

Paragraph 11.8 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 12.1 to 12.12 were read and agreed.

Rural Development Programme Inquiry Draft Report - continued.

The Committee continued consideration of the draft report into preparation for the next phase of the Rural Development Programme (2001-2006) as follows:

Second Term of Reference

Paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2 were read and agreed.

Paragraph 13.3 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraph 13.4 was read and agreed.

Paragraph 14.1 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 14.2 was read and agreed.

Paragraphs 15.1 to 15.3 were read and agreed.

Paragraph 15.4 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 15.5 to15.16 were read and agreed.

Paragraph 15.17 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 15.18 to 15.25 were read and agreed.

Mr Ford returned to the meeting at 2.36pm.

Paragraphs 16.1 to 16.16 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 17.1 and 17.2 were read and agreed

Paragraph 17.3 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 17.4 to 17.20 were read and agreed.

Mr Douglas left the meeting at 2.42pm

Paragraph 17.21 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 17.22 to 17.25 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 18.1 to 18.6 were read and agreed.

[EXTRACT]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

FRIDAY 26 APRIL 2002
HELD IN ROOM 135 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Dr IRK Paisley MP MEP(Chairman)
Mr G Savage (Deputy Chairman)
Mr B Armstrong
Mr P J Bradley
Mr B Douglas
Mr D Ford
Mr G Kane
Mr G McHugh
Mr M Murphy
Mr I Paisley Jnr

Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme.

The Committee continued its paragraph by paragraph consideration of the draft report into preparation for the next phase of the Rural Development Programme (2001-2006), begun at the previous meeting:

Third Term of Reference

Paragraphs 19.1 and 19.2 were read and agreed.

The meeting was adjourned due to emergency evacuation of the building at 10.33am and resumed at 11.02am. The Chairman, Messrs Bradley, Douglas, Ford, Kane, Murphy, McHugh and Paisley Jnr were present.

Members agreed a presentational amendment to the third bullet point of paragraph 14.1.

Paragraph 20.1 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 21.1 to 21.15 were read and agreed.

Mr Armstrong returned to the meeting at 11.11am.

Paragraphs 22.1 and 22.2 were read and agreed.

Paragraph 22.3 and 22.4 were read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 22.5 to 22.10 were read and agreed.

Paragraph 22.11 and 22.12 were read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 22.13 and 22.14 were read and agreed.

Mr Armstrong left the meeting at 11.25am.

Paragraph 22.15 was read, amended and agreed.

Mr Armstrong returned to the meeting at 11.28am.

Paragraphs 22.16 to 22.18 were read and agreed.

Mr Bradley left the meeting at 11.32am and Mr McHugh declared an interest as a participant in an ESA project.

Paragraph 22.19 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 22.20 and 22.21 were read and agreed.

New paragraph 22.2 was agreed and inserted.

Paragraph 23.1 was read and agreed.

Paragraph 23.2 was read, amended and agreed.

Messrs Ford and McHugh left the meeting at 11.47am.

Paragraphs 23.3 to 23.9 were read and agreed.

Fourth Term of Reference

Paragraphs 24.1 to 24.3 were read and agreed.

Mr Bradley returned to the meeting at 11.49am.

Paragraphs 25.1 to 25.3 were read and agreed.

Paragraph 26.1 was read and agreed.

Mr McHugh returned to the meeting and Mr Paisley Jnr left the meeting, at 11.56am.

Paragraphs 26.2 to 26.5 were read and agreed.

Paragraph 26.6 was read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 26.7 to 26.16 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 27.1 to 27.7 were read and agreed.

Conclusions

Paragraphs 28.1 to 28.6 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 29.1 to 29.5 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 30.1 to 30.3 were read and agreed.

Mr Savage returned to the meeting at 12.27pm.

Paragraph 30.4 was read, amended (including consequential amendment to paragraph 23.8) and agreed.

Paragraphs 30.5 was read and agreed.

Paragraphs 31.1 to 31.3 were read and agreed.

Members discussed further deliberations on, and handling of, the Inquiry report.

Resolved: that the Committee would consider the draft Executive Summary, a draft Motion for debate in the Assembly, and a draft Press Notice at the meeting on 3 May 2002, and that the agreed motion should be put forward for debate in the Assembly on 20 May 2002.

[EXTRACT]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

FRIDAY 3 MAY 2002
HELD IN ROOM 135 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present Mr G Savage (Deputy Chairman)
Mr B Armstrong
Mr P J Bradley
Mr B Douglas
Mr J Dallat
Mr G Kane
Mr G McHugh
Mr I Paisley Jnr

Committee Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme Inquiry.

The Committee continued its consideration of the draft report into preparation for the next phase of the Rural Development Programme (2001-2006).

Executive Summary.

Paragraphs 1-4 were read and agreed

Paragraphs 5-6 were read and agreed

Paragraphs 7-13 were read and agreed

Paragraphs 14-20 were read and agreed

Mr Paisley Jnr returned to the meeting at 12.49pm.

Paragraphs 21-26 were read and agreed

Paragraph 27 was read, amended and agreed

Paragraphs 28-32 were read and agreed

Paragraph 33 was read, amended and agreed

Paragraphs 34-37 were read and agreed

Paragraphs 38-49 were read and agreed

Recommendations.

Mr Armstrong left the meeting at 12.55pm.

Paragraphs 1-32 were read and agreed.

Resolved: That the Report be the Report of the Committee and that the Committee orders it to be printed.

Resolved: That the Rural Development Council request to add footnotes to the minutes of evidence of 25 May 2001 was agreed and that the footnotes should be inserted.

Resolved: That the minutes of evidence taken from witnesses on 30 March 2001, 25 May 2001 and 8 February 2002 should be printed with the report.

Resolved: That lists of published and unpublished memoranda are approved and memoranda are to be included in the report according to these lists.

Resolved: That extracts from the Committee's Meetings of Proceedings relating to the report should be reported.

Members agreed the draft motion for debate.

Resolved: That the Business Office will be advised that a 2-3 hour debate is anticipated

Members agreed a press notice for release, under embargo.

Resolved: That Committee staff should finalise the printing of the report.

[EXTRACT]

APPENDIX 2

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF WITNESSES WHO GAVE EVIDENCE TO THE COMMITTEE

EVIDENCE TAKEN ON FRIDAY 30 MARCH 2001

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Paragraphs 1 - 105

Mr G McWhinney - DARD official

Mr A Morton - DARD official

EVIDENCE TAKEN ON FRIDAY 25 MAY 2001

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Paragraphs 106 - 199

Ms B Rodgers - Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development

Mr G McWhinney - DARD official

Mr A Morton - DARD official

Rural Development Council for Northern Ireland Paragraphs 200 - 300

Mrs J McVey - Chairperson

Mr M McDonald - Chief Executive

Ms C Taggart - Director of Operations

Mr S Henry - Director of Programmes

EVIDENCE TAKEN ON FRIDAY 8 FEBRUARY 2002

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Paragraphs 301 - 397

Mr G McWhinney - DARD official

Mr A Morton - DARD official

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Friday 30 March 2001

Members present:
Rev Dr Ian Paisley (Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Dallat
Mr Douglas
Mr Ford
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr Molloy

Witnesses:
Mr G McWhinney ) Department of Agriculture and
Mr A Morton ) Rural Development

1.

The Chairperson: My first duty is to ask Members if they want to declare an interest.

2.

Mr Douglas: I declare an interest.

3.

Mr Kane: I declare an interest.

4.

Mr Dallat: I declare an interest.

5.

Mr McHugh: I declare an interest.

6.

Mr Bradley: I declare an interest.

7.

Mr Armstrong: I declare an interest.

8.

The Chairperson: Everybody has declared their interests, so we have abided by the law. Welcome Mr McWhinney and Mr Morton. We have a huge task before us and the Committee will be preparing a report on the issue. We will ask you a fairly extensive series of questions. They will be pretty intricate and if you feel that you are not in a position to answer them we would like you to provide written answers because they will guide us in our report.

9.

Do not worry too much about making a long introductory statement. After your statement, we will come to questions that we feel must be answered. We are in the beginning, as it were, and there is a lot of topsoil that must be lifted before we can get to the foundations.

10.

Mr McWhinney: It may be worthwhile if I make a brief introduction. The Committee has invited us to make a formal submission and we will endeavour to respond as fully as possible. Even if we respond only in part, it will be without prejudice to our formal submission because, as you say, there is a lot of detail involved.

11.

Over the past three years, the Department has been engaged in extensive consultation and discussion with rural interests about the next phase of the Rural Development Programme (RDP). Those negotiations and discussions started in late 1997, and there has been enthusiastic participation by those involved. The result of the output is the Minister's strategy, which was put to the Committee.

12.

The requirements of the European funding programmes to which we are submitting bids, and the departmental co-financing which we have sought to secure in the public expenditure round are combined with the output from those consultations and the demands from local and rural interests.

13.

The intention of the strategy is to provide a flexible framework in which the broad spectrum of rural interests - which include farmers and their families - can apply for assistance towards projects. We see that coming from the community or sectoral perspective, or from a business perspective, which would include agri-business and farm business activity.

14.

The first phase of rural development in the 1990s concentrated largely on rural community organisations in disadvantaged areas. While assistance for community groups and towards addressing disadvantaged areas will remain a key focus, the programme will be expanded to take on a broad raft of potential activities. They can be placed under five headings. The first is strengthening rural communities - continuing with that work of strengthening communities through the provision of advice and assistance to help them build the knowledge and skills to engage in economic and environmental, social or cultural activities; local projects and programmes.

15.

The second is local projects and programmes, which can be on a non-profit basis - that means that any profits would be ploughed back into the communities - or a for-profit basis, in this round. They can include community groups and collective or co-operative activity.

16.

The third heading is sectoral or area-based projects or programmes. Support can be provided for programmes or projects designed to tackle needs or opportunities - perhaps on a tourism front, or for rural women, or something like that - which can best be tackled on a regional or area-based approach, as opposed to a series of small local projects.

17.

The fourth category is small, very small, micro- business, where there are identified needs and opportunities. We had the opportunity to discuss the LEADER+ programme last year, and that tests new approaches to maximising economic potential for small businesses in rural areas, which can include farm businesses and on- farm activity.

18.

The fifth element is natural resource rural tourism, which is a special programme to help those rural areas with particular tourism potential to take advantage of the opportunities for tourism to be presented in the context of greater political stability. This will become increasingly important as we endeavour to work our way through, and out of, the foot-and-mouth-disease situation.

19.

The finance is through a combination of the European programmes, the structural funds, the Peace II programme, LEADER+ and INTERREG. Overall, the intended expenditure is around £75 million, which would take us through to about 2007. It should lever out another £25 to £50 million in spend in those areas, bringing a programme of around £100 million.

20.

The Minister, through this programme and following some extensive consultation, is endeavouring to provide flexible hooks that can catch a broad range of need and opportunity. For example, from a farming perspective, the work would be complementary to the mainstream agricultural support and the agricultural rural development accompanying measures, which are under the RDP - the organic farming, marketing processing and less- favoured areas support, and to the farm family support measures which will be proposed under the Peace II programme.

21.

Much work remains to be done on detail, but what we have been proposing has been well received so far in the European Commission and elsewhere. The key to success will be a series of good project proposals coming from across rural communities, individuals and representative organisations. What this is providing is the framework that can help to bring forward a very broad range of work. There have unfortunately been substantial delays in the formal negotiations with the European Commission, but we expect to get under way formally in the autumn of this year. Thank you Chairman. That is all I wish to say at the outset.

22.

The Chairperson: What has been the framework for consultation on the RDP? Have you had consultations separate and distinct from the series of evaluations that have taken place around the previous 1994 and 1999 programmes?

23.

Mr McWhinney: Yes. We have had some quite intense separate consultation exercises.

24.

The Chairperson: Who were they with?

25.

Mr McWhinney: We started in October 1997 with all the players who had been involved in the first round. They included the agri-food and LEADER network representatives, the Rural Development Council (RDP), and the Rural Community Network (RCN). We had a series of workshops in the rural colleges that were facilitated by Graham Cash who was a senior partner in PricewaterhouseCoopers and Lybrand. The output of that was a discussion paper in 1999 called "The Rural Development Programme" which went out very widely to farmers' groups, district councils, LEADER groups, community groups, the women's sector and so on. There were a series of responses. Overall, we have had over 100 written responses and submissions on the various aspects of the RDP.

26.

From February 1999 there were Common Agricultural Policy conferences promoted by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). I presented the rural development side of that at those conferences. One was at the Stakis Hotel and two were held at the agricultural colleges.

27.

We then produced other consultation papers in April 1999. These were called the "Blue" books and the "Pink" books, for anybody who remembers seeing them. They were in a series of different colours. At that same time, the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) started to get into the formal engagement of the round of consultations towards the next round of structural funds. We worked in parallel with that. There was a series of other consultations and documents.

28.

The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee was involved in the LEADER+ consultation that came on stream in March 2000, and we had 44 submissions from the public on that, which were taken in to account, and the document was worked up. That document has been well received in Brussels, and I am glad to say we just had a report last week that it is being held up as an exemplar to other regions as to how a document should be shaped up. There has been a series of consultations, written and conference-based.

29.

The Chairperson: Beyond 1999?

30.

Mr McWhinney: Beyond 1999 and right up to date. This is a part of it, and that it is pulled together in in this document.

31.

The Chairperson: In attempting to target those most disadvantaged in rural areas, how far has the RDP taken recognition of the policies outlined for less- favoured areas in the Rural Development Plan of 2000-06?

32.

Mr McWhinney: The focus of our work has been almost entirely in disadvantaged areas in the first round. Our disadvantaged areas, which were south Down, the Sperrins, the back end of the Glens, peripheral Fermanagh, south Armagh, were essentially many of the areas which co-ordinated exactly with the less-favoured areas.

33.

In the next round we will continue to focus on disadvantage, but not exclusively. We have not yet made a proposal about the percentage of input into disadvantage, but it will be somewhere around 65% to 70%. The focus will be on disadvantage, but also recognising that work has to take place outside those areas, in some instances, to maximise the impact inside the disadvantaged area. It is a broader approach retaining the focus, and the focus very much flows from the less favoured areas' definition of disadvantage - geographically and otherwise.

34.

The Chairperson: Will the largest percentage definitely be focussed on less favoured areas?

35.

Mr McWhinney: It will be.

36.

The Chairperson: Your up to date reference to the impact of the foot-and-mouth-disease crisis in Britain is welcome. If our position deteriorates, God forbid, does the RDP have flexibility to respond to targeting those most affected? There is a crisis in the fishing industry, which is nothing to do with you and for which you are probably thankful. In a programme like this, in an emergency, is there anything in the RDP that allows you to switch to emergency measures?

37.

Mr McWhinney: One does not want to go too far, but a key factor in this programme is its flexibility. It is an attempt to create a series of hooks on which proposals can be hung. For example, if there had to be rebuilding because of a deteriorating situation, which resulted in a need to promote tourism further, this programme could pick up sectoral proposals in that regard with a particular focus. It is very flexible and will be open for bids, which will reflect the demand at the time.

38.

Mr McHugh: This is a huge subject and we would need a lot more time to go through it properly. My questions are to do with the implementation of the strategy. You will be aware of the difficulties I have had from my own area regarding area based strategy area groups (ABSAG) and how projects and funding will pan out in the next round. A lot of people were dissatisfied with the way it went in the last round and they fear the same will happen again. Are the same people in control of those funds and deciding who gets what projects? LEADER II was quite good regarding farming the last time round. One of my difficulties is appointments to the overseeing bodies, with questions against some of the people these groups represent. They are not elected, and are placed on those bodies. I often wonder who actually appoints them. In some instances they would certainly not represent the interests of farmers.

39.

You say that the focus will be on disadvantaged areas. A number of people, in all those areas, would be against deciding where was disadvantaged using that as a criteria under the Robson Index. Some people were against Erne-east ABSAG getting funding in the first place, to the detriment of other areas. It has now been broadened out to almost a county basis, and worked through councils. Is there a possibility that farmers may be left out in the cold regarding funding, or that there could be overlap with projects that should be funded by central government?

40.

Mr McWhinney: The flexibility that I referred to will help to address what you are suggesting. It is intended that any area-based work will be in accord with the developing partnerships at council level. Those are the new regional district partnerships that are being worked up with a particular focus on Priority 3 of the Peace II programme. That is one aspect that will form the framework.

41.

There will be a process bid for LEADER+ groups. It will be up to consortia at local level to bid for LEADER+. There is no formal diktat for the exact representation of the LEADER group, but the bid will have to show the representative nature and how it will respond to local need.

42.

Both the RDP and the LEADER programme will offer opportunities for farmers and farming input. LEADER will offer, to the individual support for some aspects of individual farm business. Where a collective or co-operative group comes forward with a proposal in an area, the RDP will allow, for the first time, an opportunity to look at those proposals. Those things were not permissible previously in the last round. This recognises both the need and our wish to get farmers more engaged.

43.

All proposals will have to be scored against criteria that will be laid down and will come in a bidding process. There will also be selection panels. That will all have to be set up in the systems and procedures, which are not yet established, because the formal programme complements that shape that are still being considered with the European Commission. Have I covered all the main elements?

44.

Mr McHugh: The appointments not just to LEADER but to the various deciders of where projects go was another area. I was thinking of LEADER because I know who was on that.

45.

Mr McWhinney: When we were starting out the last time there was no formal selection panel or bidding procedure and systems were still being formulated. It was perhaps a little looser then than it is now that it has been mainstreamed. Each element of our programme will be subjected to formal selection. There will be formal procedures and appeal procedures will be in place.

46.

Mr Molloy: There are a lot of proposals on diversification, within farming, to micro-business on farm businesses. Can there be any cross-departmental liaison to ensure that the Planning Service will actually recognise that? Is there a process in operation that will ensure that planning permission is given for diversification?

47.

The project appraisal was a fairly big bone of contention the last time. What changes are envisaged with that? One of the criticisms that I found locally was that too much money went to consultants and various different bodies that came up with appraisals, yet the evaluation of those showed there was no means of actually doing that.

48.

Finally, one of the problems that we found last time with the basic services was that every time an application was made for basic services - electricity, child provision or whatever - it was turned down because it was irrelevant or because another department or statutory agency was responsible.

49.

Mr McWhinney: The planning issue is always very difficult for me because it is outside my particular jurisdiction. However, we have, through the RDP, worked as far as possible with planning, colleagues and through liaison groups on the ground to ensure as smooth a path as possible for project delivery with planners. What we cannot do is assume a role that carries planning authority responsibility.

50.

We can endeavour to influence and we share our policy and our proposals. I am glad to see that the regional strategy, which is being promoted by that Department, takes account at this stage of the need for local planning strategies that recognise that a balance is required between economic and social delivery in those areas. There will be recognition of that as we proceed. However, I am not in a position to go any further than that.

51.

The Public Accounts Committee criticised us over project appraisal. The projects looked at were the pre-1995-96 projects and the major projects - 15 out of some 3,000 overall that we have underway. Since late 1995-96 all projects have been subject to an economic appraisal and business plan before they can get underway. That will be part of the next round. The scale of the appraisal will relate to the scale of the project.

52.

I note with interest the point you made about consultants. It is our intention that we, as the funding body, engage the consultants under our terms of reference, as opposed to the community group or others doing so. We endeavour to have particularly tight terms of reference and make sure that they are formally addressed. That is all I can say on that subject, but I recognise the point that you made.

53.

You mentioned childcare as an example of local services. I spelt out a flexible programme, which indicates that we will be able to pick up on such an approach where the case is made - either locally or by a sectoral organisation - for a project that will bring, enhance and increase those services in rural areas, and which scores within the selection panel. Therefore, the ability to do that will be there.

54.

We have a broad range of activities and some very good pilot childcare schemes in Fermanagh. I recently co-chaired a conference at the Slieve Russell Hotel, attended by over 300 ladies. A pilot childcare scheme with three projects on each side of the border was doing some good work. People from the Northern side expressed intent to bring a proposal to us, which we await. That is an illustration of what may come forward.

55.

The Chairperson: I have been asked to raise a matter that overlaps with another Committee - Mr Cobain's Committee for Social Development. He is adamant that he is going to guard his bailiwick, and our Committee is just as adamant about defending ours. There are certain things that we must look at under law. I would like to ask you three simple questions from Mr Cobain.

56.

Mr McWhinney: Who is asking the questions?

57.

The Chairperson: The Committee for Social Development. The Committee had a long debate and decided that it had to be careful not to tread on our toes. However, it would like to tread on them a little. Have you consulted with that Committee and with that Department? The Committee for Social Development tells me that it runs certain programmes under the umbrella of rural development. It wants to know if that will be impinged upon. Those are not my questions - I have my own view.

58.

That Committee says that rural housing is strictly in rural development strategy under its Department. Do you agree with that? Would we not be allowed to look at housing at all? I would find it amazing if we were going to do something and could not have a look at housing. That would be difficult for us. However, Mr Cobain asks if there are strict lines of demarcation in your new programmes, which will enable us to say that some matters relate to our Committee and others relate to another Committee?

59.

Mr McWhinney, I do not wish to hurry you but please be brief.

60.

Mr McWhinney: I do not have a difficulty with any part of the questions. DARD has both a good formal relationship and a good informal relationship with the Department for Social Development (DSD). During the development of the programme I consulted with the senior executives of every Department and agency involved. I also talked with Mr Cobain for an hour one morning.

61.

DARD is very much interested in rural housing, particularly through working with developing consortia to deliver capacity building. It is working with communities that live in rural housing estates and is involved in physical work on the environment of those housing estates. The developing consortium includes the Housing Executive, DSD, DARD and the Northern Ireland Office (NIO). Therefore there is a partnership interest.

62.

In demarcation terms we have also shown that we will work outside towns and villages of 5,000 people. DARD will only work in an area in accord with DSD if both Departments agree that it is appropriate to do so. Borderline cases will be discussed before deciding who takes the lead.

63.

There is also an interdepartmental rural development steering group chaired by a deputy secretary of DARD. That steering group has a representative from each of the main Departments - including DSD. The steering group offers an opportunity for matters to be discussed and sorted out at official level. Therefore we have taken most of those issues forward and I have not detected any difficulty from those I have talked to so far.

64.

The Chairperson: I am glad to hear that. The Committee session is being reported by Hansard so a copy can be sent to DSD to show that we raised the issue with you. I am happy with what you say because a representative from DARD will be the chairman of the interdepartmental steering group if ever it comes under our bailiwick.

65.

Mr Dallat: Reference was made to consultants. Is there a policy of using the Government procurement procedure when sourcing consultants?

66.

Mr McWhinney: DARD will operate within that procedure. Many of our costs are at a fairly low level and it is hoped to get that cost down. However, the Department will always use the formal procedures. The procedures differ at the cut-off levels of financial input.

67.

Mr Dallat: That is brilliant. You referred to this when you talked about the regional strategy et cetera, but the delivery of the RDP requires co-ordination and that is what we are focusing on. There is co-ordination across a range of agencies and bodies in Northern Ireland. For example, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) is involved in natural resource rural tourism. Are suitable planning mechanisms and liaison arrangements with other relevant bodies in place to ensure co-ordinated delivery?

68.

Mr McWhinney: It is intended to use the natural resource rural tourism proposal as an example of co- ordinated and joined-up government. The Environment and Heritage Service, the NITB, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) and DARD are working together as a sub-committee of the interdepartmental steering group. The sub-committee will have representatives of those four departments and it will advance, under ministerial guidance, natural resource tourism management.

69.

There will be bids for partnerships, or a single partnership, in each of five targeted areas. To be successful that partnership, similar to the LEADER+ partnership, will have to show that it is representative of business interests, council interests, community interests and statutory interests. It will have to show that it is the best co-ordinated deliverer across that area. If the Sperrins is a targeted area, which takes in five or six district councils, a big consortium will have to be built. In some of the areas that we are targeting very good consortia are already shaping up, but we will have to advertise for bids. That partnership will be a critical factor in that.

70.

Mr Bradley: Previously, groups whose applications were refused by the European Fund for Peace and Reconciliation had no comeback. Was there any mechanism in place for appeal? Will it be any different next time round? I am thinking of groups who make applications for their own advantage, which are then rejected. Do they now have a line of appeal?

71.

Mr McWhinney: There will be an appeal procedure that was not there in the previous round.

72.

Mr Kane: After five years of the BSE crisis and blocked exports in Northern Ireland, how do you draw the line of demarcation between advantaged and disadvantaged rural areas?

73.

Mr McWhinney: There is substantial focus on disadvantaged areas, but there is also scope to work outside it, where necessary, for maximum impact. I do not want to give an exact percentage, but I am happy to give an indicative one of around 70% to disadvantaged areas.

74.

Mr Kane: You stated that 390 training and further education courses were completed. How many of those places were filled by people employed in the farming industry? You also said that 451 new businesses had been created. Do those businesses still exist?

75.

Mr McWhinney: There are always dropouts across any new start-up businesses. However, I am glad to say that the percentage of dropout in the RDP - perhaps because it is still relatively new - stands up to any scrutiny. To the best of my knowledge, it is less than the standard Local Economic Development Unit (LEDU) fallout, which over the years has recorded about 25% to 30% of new businesses failing. At present we are nowhere near that level perhaps because some businesses are just getting under way. The real evaluation will be some years down the road.

76.

Mr Kane: Can you give us a specific percentage of dropouts?

77.

Mr McWhinney: I could name businesses that have given us difficulty. There is a ceramics project in Fermanagh and a townland radio station in the Sperrins that unfortunately no longer exist. There are a few others, but no more than five or six. It is inevitable that there will be dropouts with anything new and experimental. It happens everywhere. We would not be taking a high enough risk if all businesses were working. It is a good question, but it is a year or two early to judge because many of the projects are just up and running.

78.

Mr Kane: You did not respond to the question about the number of training and further education courses completed.

79.

Mr McWhinney: I cannot answer that question specifically. It would take some detailed work - we may not even have the figures. I am sorry that I cannot say how many of those people came from an agricultural background. It was certainly a high percentage, but I would be hazarding a guess if I tried to be more specific. I will attempt to get an answer but it may not be easily found because there is such a spread.

80.

Mr Armstrong: Is the Department confident that those ultimately responsible for evaluation will be able to measure the performance of supporting activities? For example, under the heading of 'Sectoral and Area- Based Programmes' you say that you will stimulate awareness of the part-time job opportunities and offer practical support to potential recruits and employers. How do you envisage the success of such a supporting activity being measured?

81.

Mr McWhinney: That is mainly on the part-time approach?

82.

Mr Armstrong: Yes, monitoring to ensure that everyone has a real opportunity and that there is proper planning. If you monitor them, that will allow evaluation to take place.

83.

Mr McWhinney: Yes, we will be doing some specific work on that, largely in relation to the difficulties facing the farming sector. There is a growing realisation of the need for sons, second sons, daughters or other members of the farm family to be able to participate in something on a part-time basis. That can add to the value of the farm family as an economic unit, while the pressures in agriculture or the economic output from the smaller farms are insufficient to sustain that. That will form part of the background of what we are doing. If you are taking, for example, the LEADER+ initiative in the micro-business sector, then, between LEADER+ and our agricultural development service under the peace programme, there will be opportunities for farmers and farm families to look at diversification opportunities on a part-time basis. The monitoring, evaluation and recording of that and the indicators used will allow for testing as we go along.

84.

Mr Armstrong: Will there be good flexibility?

85.

Mr McWhinney: Flexibility is the name of the game. That is what we are trying to achieve.

86.

Mr Douglas: I am glad to see you are going to provide a flexibility framework. I am also glad that perhaps up to 40% of that money can be spent outside those disadvantaged areas. That is to be welcomed. With so much change in our rural areas and so many people leaving our agriculture sector, we currently have a difficult job in making decisions. However, no doubt there will be a place for some in the countryside. The numbers leaving the countryside will have a big effect on those who are left. Hence the shortage of employable people. There is a need for farm relief and farm management services. Does the Department agree? How do you feel that those might operate? Will there be any continuing finance, or will it be spread over a number of years? Is that indicated anywhere in the Department's paper?

87.

Mr McWhinney: Very much so. Under the rural development regulation, the relevant section for us is article 33. One of the headings in article 33, among other things, is farm relief services. There is an opportunity to bring forward farm relief services. It can be from a community on a not-for-profit basis or on a for-profit basis. If a collective of second sons, for example, were to come up with a proposal to bring forward a farm relief proposal that would give them more work off their farm and also give relief to a hard-pressed farm family, the opportunity exists. We would be delighted to hear such a proposal.

88.

Mr Morton: It would come under either the local regeneration projects heading, which is on page 31 and 32, or under the sectoral programmes. There could be a sectoral programme across the Province, as outlined on page 33.

89.

Mr Douglas: Thank you.

90.

Mr Ford: Welcome, gentlemen. The paper speaks a great deal about capacity-building, and I am interested that the term "institutional capacity-building" has now appeared. Having worked in the general field of community development in the past, I fear that knowledge will be acquired by organisations and institutions, only for it to be lost when someone moves on. There is currently a potential problem with LEADER II groups changing and perhaps becoming LEADER+ groups. How can you ensure that the largely personal expertise developed in institutions will be made available for the next phase of the RDP?

91.

Mr McWhinney: There are two aspects to that. First, interim or gap funding proposals are formally under discussion. The funding and operations of LEADER+ draw to a close at the end of the financial year. However, we have agreed to accept bids for interim funding from existing LEADER local action groups, something which could potentially take them as far as September or October 2001. That will allow a breathing space to retain expertise that will help produce whatever bids come in. I cannot prejudge that, since I do not know which consortia or LEADER groups will make bids in the next round. However, we have recognised that we do not wish to lose any expertise in the interim.

92.

The first part of your question related to institutional capacity-building, which is a recognition of exactly what you say - we should capture the developing values and strengths in organisations because of the ongoing consultations. We therefore wish to be able to say that we can offer an organisation some support to help it in such matters as securing the rural voice, lobbying or the development of an idea or plan. It should feel able to bring that to us without feeling unnecessarily restricted financially.

93.

Mr Ford: Related to that, are there any plans for changing the staffing complement of the Department's Rural Development Division, either to increase or reduce the size of your own staff on the ground?

94.

The Chairperson: What optimism.

95.

Mr McWhinney: Rural development staffing accounts for only 1% to 2% of the Department, but the responsibility is an important part of its work. It has been recognised as a growing part of the work, and we have been successful in our early applications for some expansion. That is necessary to carry forward a range of programmes for the next six years. That is underway, but it takes a while to get it up and running.

96.

Mr Ford: You cannot be any more specific than "some"?

97.

Mr McWhinney: No, I could not. We have made bids, which have been accepted in principle. However, the running costs are very tight. As one would imagine, there are many other demands owing to current pressures. We are fighting our corner with difficulty.

98.

The Chairperson: As soon as we can, we must make a response. We have asked for some time; it was requested from us three weeks ago. We are not in a position to make a response until we have an answer to some questions not asked today, of which there are at least 13. We do not want long answers, rather answers that steer us regarding the submission. If you get them to us, we shall get a response to you immediately. Is there a deadline?

99.

Mr McWhinney: The deadline is defined by the process. We must get the Committee's clearance before taking the matter to the Executive to get it approved. We must also secure the approval of DFP - they are all links in the chain. Minister Durkan has said he expects to have the programme complements cleared perhaps by May. The deadline for your paper is 4 May. I feel that is the deadline.

100.

The Chairperson: That is in addition to our submission. If you could get us those answers as quickly as you can, we will try to get the submission in two weeks.

101.

Mr McWhinney: Mr Morton and I will take that point on board. Mr Morton is keeping me right on a matter on which I possibly went too far.

102.

Mr Morton: Mr McWhinney talked about our proposals on gap funding for a LEADER programme. The formal approval of DFP is necessary for such proposals, and we are not yet over that hurdle. I do not want the Committee to get the impression that all the hurdles have been cleared.

103.

Mr Ford: The plan has cleared the DARD hurdle; do you mean that the DFP hurdle remains to be cleared?

104.

Mr Morton: Yes.

105.

The Chairperson: Thank you for your helpful submission. If you could get the required answers to the Committee, we promise that we will get our submission to you as quickly as we can.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Friday 25 May 2001

Members present: Rev Dr Ian Paisley (Chairperson)
Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Dallat
Mr Douglas
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh

Witnesses:
Ms B Rodgers )
Mr McWhinney ) Department of Agriculture
and Rural Development
Mr A Morton )

106.

The Chairperson: Minister, do you want to make a statement?

107.

The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Rodgers): Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman.

108.

I welcome the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee's inquiry into the rural development programme (RDP). You have already seen our formal submission. Delays in getting the structural fund programmes agreed have meant that we are not as far ahead with setting the detailed implementation arrangements as we would wish. However, I will endeavour, with my officials, to provide as detailed answers as possible.

109.

The RDP 1994-1999 came in for some criticism from the Public Accounts Committee. We have endeavoured to take those criticisms on board when drawing up the new RDP for 2001-06. You have already seen the proposed rural development strategy and are aware that the new RDP aims to create a flexible framework that will provide a broad range of opportunities for rural people to contribute to the regeneration of their areas. That includes farmers and their families, community and sectoral groups.

110.

The main components of the new RDP include the strengthening of rural communities, sometimes called capacity building, to continue to help rural people gain the skills and experience to allow them to engage in economic, environmental, social or cultural activities. Local regeneration projects and programmes, which can be on a non-profit or a for-profit basis, are also included.

111.

A further component are sectoral projects and programmes to provide support, which can be best tackled on a regional or area-based approach. Support for microbusiness, through LEADER+, and natural resource rural tourism (NRRT), a special programme targeted at disadvantaged rural areas with underdeveloped tourism potential related to their natural resources, will also be incorporated into the RDP.

112.

The programme overall will be financed through structural funds. The projected expenditure is around £75 million. It should lever out an additional £25 to £50 million spend in rural areas. Hence, the total value of the RDP to rural areas will be over £100 million. Work remains to be done on the detail of measures and in conjunction with the programme monitoring committees. Unfortunately there have been substantial delays in the formal negotiations with the European Commission. However, I am pleased that our proposals have been well received in the Commission and elsewhere. I look forward to good proposals coming from rural communities, individuals and representative groups.

113.

The Chairperson: The Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) suggests that projects under the initiative will be more effective if they are based on market need, rather than perceived need, of those living in a rural environment. One of the RDP's guiding principles is that the programme will be locally driven. Do you see a conflict developing before the initiative is under way?

114.

Ms Rodgers: No. We can complement each other's work. The NITB will be a partner in our work. I accept that we need to look at marketing.

115.

The Chairperson: We must consider the issue of perceived need versus marketing need before we start. We need to resolve any existing conflict there.

116.

Ms Rodgers: The baseline need will be assessed with the co-operation of the NITB. It will be important that this work takes actual market demand into account rather than perceived market demand. We have learned lessons from the past about the need for co-operation.

117.

The Chairperson: The NITB suggests that any tourism development taking place in the absence of sound market intelligence and visitor demand is inviting failure. Therefore it advocates a formal cross-departmental management team to deliver the natural resource programme and any other tourist-related part of the rural development strategy. What is your reaction to these points?

118.

Ms Rodgers: The formal structure for co-operation with the NITB is in place already through the rural development steering group.

119.

The Chairperson: Therefore you are already negotiating with the NITB.

120.

Ms Rodgers: Yes.

121.

The Chairperson: Will the Department be able to give details of that when it makes its final reply?

122.

Ms Rodgers: Yes.

123.

Mr Douglas: You said that participation in the sectoral initiatives in the RDP is likely to increase. How will specific initiatives target the critical groups?

124.

Ms Rodgers: There is a publicity campaign which will aim to bring the RDP to the attention of all rural dwellers. Public relations consultants will be preparing easily understandable documents to guide project promoters to the appropriate lead body. Additionally the three rural development co-ordinators will form liaison groups of delivery agents at local level and seek to develop a uniform "one-stop shop" response to help applicants. It is a system that is complicated due to the separate EU funding lines. In the past people have found it difficult to know where to go in order to access funding. Consultants will ensure that this is simplified so that people know what is available and how to access it.

125.

Mr Armstrong: We note that you are employing a professional public relations firm to look after publicity. Is there a danger that while this may look good on paper it will do very little to tackle the real problems in the rural community?

126.

Ms Rodgers: I do not accept that. We have employed public relations consultants to simplify the procedures and make them more accessible to communities as a response to requests from those communities to do so. There was a feeling last time that some people were not aware of what was available or did not have expertise or understanding of the projects. The consultants will ensure that this time the RDP will be made more available and more easily accessible.

127.

Mr Kane: Throughout section 7 of your submission, which relates to participation in the RDP, you are quite defensive of your position regarding the previous RDP. Do you not accept the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) criticism of the previous RDP and do you not envisage that improvements are necessary to increase general participation?

128.

Ms Rodgers: The Department has taken on board the NIAO criticism. The NIAO made the point that it accepted the RDP as a very valuable tool in regenerating rural communities. One way that we hope to improve participation by under-represented groups is through sectoral programmes - for example, the Rural Development Division is already working closely with rural women's groups to carry out a needs analysis. The intention is that this will identify opportunities for a sectoral programme specifically targeted at women. We will be looking for opportunities to use sectoral programmes to assist other under-represented groups as proposals come forward from various interested parties and as identified by rural development staff in the field.

129.

We will also be targeting farm families under the LEADER programme. We will be ensuring that the projects are as flexible as possible and that they will respond to what is coming from the communities in a positive way.

130.

Mr Kane: I am sure farmers will appreciate that.

131.

Mr Savage: Minister, we note that for the projects up to £50,000 a simple appraisal pro forma is sufficient. That is a very broad band, and the upper limit of £50,000 is significant expenditure. Are you confident that the standard pro forma appraisal is sufficiently robust to tease out the full business case? How does this band compare with other EU programmes or assistance packages from the Government with regard to project appraisal?

132.

Ms Rodgers: For smaller projects of £50,000, it would not be viable to go through the complicated procedure that is required. Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) guidance provides for a pro forma approach to be taken for small projects defined as those with up to £50,000 non-promoter funding. The pro forma addresses all the main issues set out by the Treasury and DFP guidance, and the Department's economists oversee the whole appraisal process. All staff involved in completing pro forma appraisals, including those employed by the LEADER groups, and so on, have received, and will continue to receive, appropriate training. Our regime is as robust as that in other Departments.

133.

Mr Savage: Do all those applications go through the rural development committee? How does someone apply for such schemes?

134.

Ms Rodgers: For all the schemes?

135.

Mr Savage: For the scheme that we have just been talking about.

136.

Ms Rodgers: The £50,000 one?

137.

Mr Savage: The £50,000 one.

138.

Ms Rodgers: They apply in the normal way to the appropriate delivery mechanism. You are highlighting the need for people to know because there was confusion last time.

139.

Mr Savage: That is exactly what I want to avoid.

140.

Ms Rodgers: That is why we will have public relations consultants to simplify matters and point people in the right direction. There will be a process that will make it easier to enter all of the schemes. The last time it was not as easy for people to know where to go, and the consultants will be dealing with that.

141.

Mr Savage: People in the farm and countryside development scheme do not know where to apply.

142.

Ms Rodgers: I take the point, and that is the way we are dealing with it.

143.

The Chairperson: Is the whole RDP cleared by the EU, or is it by individual applications?

144.

Ms Rodgers: The RDP is cleared, but the detailed complements are not, and that is what is holding it up at present. We have to have the detailed complements.

145.

Mr Bradley: Is there not a danger that the appointment of public relations professionals to publicise the scheme may look good on paper but will do very little to tackle the real problems of involving the local community?

146.

Ms Rodgers: Public relations consultants are experts trained in helping people to access information. In this case the PR consultants will clarify what needs to be done. The difficulty the last time was that the process was too complicated - there were so many different funding agencies that people were unaware what schemes were available and how they could access those. That point was put to the Department. As a result of the problems that people encountered the last time, the remit of the PR consultants is to work out a clear and simple way of allowing people to access those schemes. That will make it easier for people to access the funding.

147.

Mr Dallat: You referred to the public auditor's report and its criticism of past events. The public auditor also acknowledged the worthwhile work achieved by rural development projects. I would like an assurance that the Department will continue to strongly influence events in rural communities and that it will not be overshadowed by the NITB, who are not my number one friends at the moment.

148.

Many of the past problems related to the ad hoc appointment of consultants. In future will consultants be subject to normal Government procurement practices? Will consultants who are chosen for projects be scrutinised by the Government and by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD)? Can we be certain that there will be no reoccurrence of some of the past mistakes that were attributed to that Department but were due to poor consultants?

149.

Ms Rodgers: The Department will take a different approach to the appointment of consultants for the next RDP. The funders, not the project promoters, will appoint any consultants who are chosen to complete economic appraisals. That should result in a more independent appraisal system, and it will allow for more direct monitoring and control of the quality of appraisals that are produced. The procedures for the new RDP that is currently being drafted will set out the requirements for economic appraisals. Those will refer to the appropriate Treasury and DFP guidance. In the next round we will work in partnership with the NITB and the Environment and Heritage Service.

150.

Mr Dallat: I welcome that. Many successful projects would not be there were it not for the initiative shown by DARD in cutting red tape and taking risks. That may occasionally become a criticism in a public auditor's report, but nevertheless it cannot be totally cast aside because of that risk.

151.

Ms Rodgers: It is important to understand that the RDP was new and was meant to regenerate rural areas and those areas to which private entrepreneurs were not prepared to go and take risks, but risks had to be taken. As a result of that there was some criticism. We have tightened procedures considerably as a result of the constructive criticism that was made. There will always be an element of risk; nothing can be guaranteed, even in the next RDP. If we were to leave the matter solely to private entrepreneurs who are reluctant to take any risks - particularly in those rural areas that need regeneration - the purpose of the RDP would be defeated.

152.

The Chairperson: The important thing is access and accessibility for the people that are looking for these schemes. They should know where to go, the people to talk to and how to put in their applications. That must be made easy for them. Everyone knows that under the last schemes a lot of people fell down because there was no clear direct line of communication. I welcome the fact that there will be public relations officers who will be available to deal with the general public. Those people will be trained for that type of position. It will not be like talking to a civil servant who perhaps has a groove along which he runs. People will be talking to someone who is practical.

153.

A civil servant is not a public relations officer; let us be fair. A public relations officer will know how to do the job. I have found - and all my Colleagues around the table would say the same - that when people come to me I want to be able to give them a name, address, number and say "That is the person to go to".

154.

Ms Rodgers: Yes, I accept that.

155.

The Chairperson: That was not easy under the last scheme.

156.

Ms Rodgers: I accept that. I hope that the Committee and public representatives in general will help people to bring forward good projects, because there will be flexibility. We will be looking for good projects coming from local areas which are viable and which can generate what we are trying to create, which is the regeneration of the rural communities. It will be important that people - as you have already said - know what is available and have a clear line to follow to get to it. It will be equally important that the local communities in conjunction with private enterprise or with the councils come forward with really good projects. The best projects will get the funding, and the weak projects will not. So it is important that people have good projects and are preparing them even now.

157.

The Chairperson: They would need to be preparing them now.

158.

Mr McHugh: I agree with some of what has been said in relation to the appraisal process. However, as we know, the appraisal process was not carried out correctly either by individual promoters of projects or by the Department, which was proved in the Public Accounts Committee report. We hope that that will all change the next time round for everybody's benefit. Projects need to be appraised so that they can be sustained.

159.

One of the difficulties that rural areas will have in trying to get projects going in an area which is designated a tourist area, such as Fermanagh, is that they will hit the planning problems quite early on. Farmers or those in the more rural parts will especially find considerable planning difficulties, even with what seems like a good project. Perhaps there is a need therefore for you to go across Departments to see that those things do not come up or that at least there is enough flexibility. They would also give policies to us so that we can not move on them, so where do we go? How are we going to enact your programme if we are faced with that even in a few instances? However, I think it would be a considerable number rather than a few.

160.

The other question is in relation to councils. You said that there are going to be no area based strategy action groups (ABSAGs); certainly at present they are not considered. The councils will probably be the delivering body or part of the delivering body to which those people will go in the next round. Therefore, considering that councils in many instances are looking for a considerable amount of control over the funding and have followed pet projects of their own, who will decide which are the best projects and which are the weak ones? We have many instances where there was not the best of relationships between people working on projects and the Department, and others. So there are a plethora of difficulties all interspersed, and we want to see this moving forward smoothly rather than with difficulties.

161.

Ms Rodgers: In relation to the planning difficulties I am very aware - as most people around the table will be - of the planning difficulties that crop up when, for instance, diversification projects conflict with the planning laws. I have already spoken to Minister Foster about that issue, and you will be aware that we now have rural proofing in the Programme for Government. Clearly that will be one of the areas to look at to see how the need to regenerate, diversify and do all of the projects in rural areas are being, in some instances, frustrated by the planning laws. That is an area that will need to be looked at, and there also must be proper planning. We are going to have to look at the areas where there are difficulties.

162.

In relation to the councils and the working of the councils, we will be looking at local strategic partnerships to take an overview of how best to have projects on a strategic basis in an area.

163.

I am aware that under the EU peace money councils have worked very well in partnership with local community interests. That has worked - I know that in my own area of Craigavon it has worked extremely well - and I do not see any reason why it cannot work again. The best way forward is to have public representatives, the local community and, indeed, private enterprise all working together, and that is how I hope to see the thing developing. I know that when these things happen there is always a certain sense of people defending their own turf - that is human nature and is natural. Nevertheless, we want to see strategic local partnerships developing which will benefit the whole community.

164.

Mr McHugh: Regarding the partnership alliances that are building up, it would be important that officials from your Department try to have an impact on how they draw up their proposals with former partnership boards. Local partnerships have been very good in delivering and at building relations in all directions. We do not want to see these people pushed to one side in the future.

165.

Ms Rodgers: I appreciate your remarks about our own people, and our co-ordination teams will be working with the partnerships very closely - that is the idea.

166.

The Chairperson: Planning is very important, as there are going to be a lot of redundant office buildings in the country. Some years ago, under direct rule, one of the Ministers did a wise thing and eased the planning for small industries to be able to start in the country. I was at a local industry in my own constituency yesterday, where the man started in an old used cabin at the Cullybackey railway. He is now in a £1 million building and is sending much of his produce to the United States. This is now a big business, which resulted from a very small beginning. For a time they gave him the opportunity to use that building and the business has gone from strength to strength.

167.

We should have an easement in planning. These office buildings that are no longer used are there and should be made available to people for small indigenous industries. We are not going to have people coming in here saying that they are going to employ 1,000 people. If we are going to regenerate the rural industry, it will be small indigenous industries in those areas who have already a say and want to have a bigger say in their own industries.

168.

Ms Rodgers: This time the RDP will have more recognition of local need, which, as you say, is precisely what is needed. We do not need rules and regulations that are too hard and fast, and actually stunt development.

169.

The Chairperson: Even if they can get an agreement to get into a building for a period and get cracking, it would be very helpful to them.

170.

Mr Douglas: My question is on staffing. You state that the deployment of staff will be very similar to that during the 1994-99 RDP. Is it the case, therefore, that consultation and evaluation feedback on the last RDP reported a clean bill of health on staffing structure?

171.

Ms Rodgers: There were no comments to suggest that the present structures were not working. The central policy and financial management units deal with all policy aspects of the RDP and co-ordinate the implementation of the RDP. The three regional area co-ordination offices at Ballymena, Newry and Omagh will continue to interface directly with project promoters and co-ordinate local delivery. This will be through interaction with the Rural Development Council (RDC), the Rural Community Network (RCN), LEADER+ groups, the NRRT partnerships, other Departments, agencies, and private sector interests involved in local rural regeneration.

172.

Mr Savage: You talk about manuals that will contain the information on appraisal guidance, and we note that these are still at the draft stage. When will they be available, and can you provide assurances that they will provide consumer-friendly technical assistance which people can understand? I take your point that projects are coming forward. I was at a meeting recently - I think you know where. They told me that the applications must have substance. We will all have to stand over the successful applications in the future if rural development is going to be brought forward.

173.

Ms Rodgers: The procedure manuals are being drafted, and they will be available to staff in advance of the new programmes being launched. However, it will not be before early autumn.

174.

The Chairperson: Members must stick to one question so that everyone gets a chance to speak.

175.

Mr Armstrong: Minister, we understand that you must take cognisance of all EU requirements, but do you consider that you have gone far enough in clarifying the RDP and making it simpler for potential rural development applicants?

176.

Ms Rodgers: Public relations consultants were employed to ensure that the process is simplified and made more accessible. I am happy that that will happen and that people will find it easier to know where and how to apply this time round.

177.

Mr Armstrong: It is a problem that consultants have had to come in to clarify procedures to the applicants. Would it not have been simpler if the consultants had not been employed?

178.

Ms Rodgers: The consultants are experts in public relations, and it is their job to make it easier for the public to relate to what is happening. Applications require a lot of detail and the idea is to make the application as simple as possible and to let people know how to access the RDP.

179.

Mr Kane: Minister, you state that the selection criteria have not been finalised. When will that be prepared and how will it be communicated to the agriculture industry? Are you confident that by not applying a weighting criterion in favour of the critical groups you are not making your job much more difficult?

180.

Ms Rodgers: There are groups that we feel need to be targeted - women, the unemployed, farm families and young people. That is a response to the long consultations that we had in preparing the plan, and there was a need to target those people. Ultimately there will be a selection criteria, and nobody will suffer as a result of that. The idea is to help groups who were under-represented in the past, to target them and to ensure that they are represented and avail of the available opportunities that are there.

181.

Mr Bradley: What assistance or guidance is available for those people who have an idea for what may become a project in the future?

182.

Ms Rodgers: People, communities or groups who have ideas should talk to the local rural development co-ordinator. That will start them off on getting whatever help is needed. They would then be channelled in a suitable direction and given the required advice. However, initially they should talk to the local co-ordinator.

183.

Mr Bradley: Minister, you mentioned the four groups. What is the definition of a group? I have already sent a letter to Mr McWhinney on this matter. Can a group comprise of a group of residents in a lane, for example?

184.

Mr McWhinney: Therein lies the problem. The Minister will write back on that. There are non-profit- making groups and profit-making groups. A non-profit- making group is one which ploughs its profits into the community, and that would be handled through the RDC. The Department does not state what size a group must be, whether it should be a formal co-operative group or one that has been created to bid. It is the idea that is critical. Is it one that will bring forward a good proposal for rural regeneration that can be hung on one of the hooks in the RDP?

185.

We are not saying that a group should consist of five people or 10 people. It will need to be formally constituted, and it will need to be able to display the skills to deliver the project. However, we are not being prescriptive as to size or scale.

186.

The Chairperson: How can people find out the name of the local co-ordinator?

187.

Ms Rodgers: They can contact the Department.

188.

Mr McWhinney: They can phone the Department's helpline which is quite well known. That information will also be published as part of a PR exercise.

189.

The Chairperson: So if people ask us for the name of a co-ordinator can we refer them to the Department?

190.

Ms Rodgers: Yes, the Department will give them the name of the co-ordinator in their area.

191.

Mr Dallat: I am of the notion that most civil servants are intelligent people who are not stuck in grooves. My past experience has been that the role of field officer or co-ordinator is critical. I note that you have gained approval for extra staff in the Rural Development Division, and I welcome that. How far have you liaised with the RDC and other development bodies in planning your human resource requirements for the delivery?

192.

Ms Rodgers: The RDC put proposals to us, and we are working with them. An internal review which was carried out by the Rural Development Division identified the need for 21 additional staff to ensure the orderly closure of the last RDP and the implementation of the new one. This is in addition to the 48 staff working in the division in the 2000-01 financial year with a running cost of £1·4 million. Approval has been given to fill the 21 new posts.

193.

Mr Dallat: Can you ensure that they will filled by intelligent people?

194.

Ms Rodgers: I will do my best.

195.

Mr McHugh: Fermanagh has had a successful programme of targeting women in agriculture. Can this programme help further progress their strategies and can it be taken up to help other women who have not been involved in any of the groupings so far?

196.

Ms Rodgers: We are spending £20,000 on a scoping exercise for the needs of rural women. I am aware of the progress that has been made in Fermanagh with women's groups and the Fermanagh Women's Network. If they bring forward projects in the next rural development plan, they will be assessed in the same way that every other project is assessed. Women are also very good at networking. They have learnt that skill in recent years thanks to a lot of training by women's groups. I am sure that the Fermanagh women will network with other women and encourage them and help them.

197.

Mr McHugh: Can the programme be widened to include the rest of the counties?

198.

Ms Rodgers: I expect that the women will come up with a programme themselves. That will also be an aspect of the scoping exercise.

199.

The Chairperson: Minister, we will write to you if we have any further questions. Thank you.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Friday 25 May 2001

Members present:

Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)

Mr Bradley

Mr Dallat

Mr Douglas

Mr Ford

Mr Kane

Mr McHugh

Witnesses:

Mrs J McVey )

Mr M McDonald ) Rural Development Council
for Northern Ireland

Ms C Taggart )

Mr S Henry )

200.

The Deputy Chairperson: You are welcome.

201.

Mrs McVey: The Rural Development Council appreciates the opportunity to address the Committee and to answer any questions. I will briefly introduce the council members.

202.

Mr McDonald: I will briefly summarise the council's position, as a supplement to the written evidence that we gave to the Committee. We will deal with any questions or queries that might arise from our discussion.

203.

The RDC has revised its strategic direction, and that is spelt out in the draft strategy document that has been circulated to the Committee. We await departmental approval to proceed with the new programmes. We listened to what the Minister said this morning; it is unfortunate that we still cannot do the business for rural communities.

204.

The new areas of intervention, for the council, are the result not only of the considerations of the Public Accounts Committee and the Northern Ireland Audit Office considerations, but of the changes that we perceive. Those changes reflect the need to address the challenges facing people in rural areas. The rural constituency is changing. I do not need to tell the Committee what the facts and figures are, but there are several key indicators that are worth noting. We have taken account of those indicators in attempting to draw up our new strategy.

205.

Rural population is rising faster than urban population - it is roughly 4·8 compared to 4·1. It is difficult to find a job in a rural area, and a large proportion of the rural population has no formal qualifications. Women on farms are less likely to have a job than women not living on farms. The relevant statistics are as follows: [90] farm women 43%, non-farm women 57%.

206.

The overall economic structure of the countryside is changing. The Committee will be aware of the dependency on agriculture and, increasingly, on tourism. Agriculture accounts for about 4·5% of the gross domestic product and 6% of employment. Investment in tourism in Northern Ireland is well behind the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. We have a lot of catching up to do. In the food-processing sector, there are about 20,000 jobs, and there is a large amount of part-time employment in the manufacturing sector, which tends to be ignored by Government programmes; assistance is needed. There are opportunities for farmers who work part- time on the farm to provide assistance elsewhere. Some of our initial work on the previous rural development programme persuaded bodies such as the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to revise their programmes into mainstream support for the part-time labour market.

207.

There is less private sector business in rural areas, and there is a lower proportion of employment in public administration. The Department representatives talked this morning about the inability or reluctance of the private sector to take risks, which is why a programme such as this is needed. Somebody must take those risks. Business creation in rural areas is hampered by a lack of access to distribution channels and a poor communication infrastructure and is generally aimed at local consumer markets or niche markets with a strong local identity. We must enable our rural businesses to get into the global marketplace, which we cannot do without the proper IT channels.

208.

Northern Ireland has a lower farm size. Seventy per cent of the land is in less favoured areas, and 53% of our farms are too small to accommodate one full-time job. That is a serious statistic; only 31% of farming households depend solely on farming for their incomes. Almost 70% of farm income must come from another source. There is a need to regenerate rural areas. BSE and foot-and-mouth disease have had a devastating effect, not only on farmers but on the entire rural economy.

209.

There is a great deal of social exclusion. An increase in long-term unemployment levels is affecting the quality of life in rural areas. A crude measure of that is the fact that rural earnings tend to be 10% lower than urban earnings. Transport is a recognised problem, bus services are infrequent, there is only very limited access to the rail network, and rural roads are, at best, classified as secondary. The rationalisation of hospital services is a major issue for rural people and access - or lack of it - to centralised facilities must be improved. Rural Northern Ireland has many attractive and valued landscapes; that is a major asset.

210.

Those are just some of the issues that have influenced our strategy and our programmes. The measures in our strategy are designed to improve the economy, access to services, the environment, business, part-time employment, culture and heritage, village pride and IT. However, we must be realistic. The council might attract only a small proportion of departmental resources. The Minister mentioned a figure of £100 million for all the measures. We are likely to have 0·5% - perhaps, £15 million - over a six-year period for programme delivery and grant to the non-profit- taking community and collective sector. Farmers did not embrace that sector easily in the previous RDP, and that was one of the issues that the Public Accounts Committee raised. Farmers tend not to form together easily as collective non-profit-taking groups.

211.

The RDC exists as an independent body outside Government, with a capacity to advise and challenge Government policy as regards its impact on rural Northern Ireland. In many respects, that role should complement the functions of this Committee. We are keen to explore how our organisation might assist the future work of the Committee. The rural baselining programme being developed within our strategy might provide a mechanism to do that, with the collation of primary and secondary data showing the current situation and likely future trends in the rural community in Northern Ireland.

212.

The Countryside Agency has already produced two rural baselines for England, and we have had discussions with it about our proposals. Northern Ireland does not have a rural White Paper. The Countryside Agency had significant influence on the content of the rural White Paper for England. I hope that our baselining service, when it is operational, will assist this Committee to assess the impact of Government policy on rural areas of Northern Ireland and, importantly, find solutions for rural problems.

213.

The Committee's questions, which were answered in a written response from the council, are all the more timely and appropriate, given the current situation. Participation by all sections of rural communities must be encouraged. We accept that and are determined to improve it. The council's equality and targeting social need schemes will provide the framework for that. Socially excluded groups will be encouraged and assisted to participate in local community regeneration plans and proposals. In the original RDP, the Department was responsible for delivering programmes directly to the community sector, but the council is closer to the community sector. We have a database of between 400 and 500 community groups, and there are 1,000 applications under the Peace programme. We know who our target audience is, and we will be able to get to them. Those groups will relate to an organisation that is independent and outside Government. We are one step ahead in encouraging participation and getting in contact with socially excluded groups.

214.

The projects that we are likely to fund will be much smaller. There was much comment and criticism in the audit report about the appraisal of large projects and the ability of groups to run a £2 million project. Many communities that we engaged with did not have those skills, but they do have the capacity to take on small projects of, say, £50,000 or £100,000 and create one or two jobs and bring in socially excluded people. That is what they want to do, and projects must be designed to allow that.

215.

We also need the flexibility to deal with crises, so that we can target support at appropriate areas. The current foot-and-mouth crisis is a prime example. The council could not provide compensation to cover direct or indirect losses. However, we can assist local communities to prepare and investigate strategic solutions to problems. Some members of staff have already engaged with people in the north Antrim and Cushendun area, and we are considering requests from the lough shore community for similar support. We are about to engage with the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation, in response to their request for support, to investigate the development of a strategy in the aftermath of the foot-and- mouth epidemic. That type of policy intervention by the council can support the delivery of financial aid to the programmes that I have mentioned.

216.

The RDC has come though significant changes in the past two years to prepare operationally and strategically for the new RDP. We are ready to play our part with Government Departments and the Committee in the regeneration of rural Northern Ireland. There must be a joined-up approach to finding solutions to the problems facing our rural communities, and we welcome the opportunity to work closely with this Committee and the other Committees whose remit extends to rural areas. The problems facing agriculture cannot be solved solely by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, or by this Committee. We need the rural baselining and associated rural-proofing mechanisms both inside and outside Government to ensure that our rural areas are protected and enhanced.

217.

The Deputy Chairperson: The council has referred to the need for farmers to focus on collective and integrated action under the RDP, although individual support for the farmer will be controlled by the agrifood development services at departmental level. Can you explain the difference between support at programme level and support at departmental level? Is it not all part of the same RDP?

218.

Mr McDonald: The RDC gets 0.5% of the departmental budget, which means that DARD has 99.5%. We are all trying to encourage the development of a vibrant agricultural community. At programme level, it is the Department that decides how to allocate the money; we get a budget of £15 million. We can make decisions at local level and within our budget. We can engage directly with the farm unions, in order to explain the programme and get farmers to embrace the notion.

219.

We must be realistic. A farmer who faces a reduction of 75% in his income will not be interested in forming a community group that will not show profits for the next five to 10 years. As well as community activity, there must be direct support to tackle the crisis. For example, in the 10km areas, a team of experts should work with farmers to find out what the problems are and agree potential solutions. The team could help farmers to secure funding to solve their current problem and advise them on what to do in the longer term. There must be a programme approach from the Department and a practical approach from people on the ground.

220.

The Deputy Chairperson: Farmers need to know what the Government are doing.

221.

Mr McDonald: Yes.

222.

The Deputy Chairperson: According to the submission, there are three levels at which farmers could become involved in the RDP: collective and integrated action under RDC programmes; individual support for the agri-food development service; and involvement with the rural development division directly or through the LEADER groups. Will that programme ensure that all groups, particularly those not previously involved in the RDP, are made aware of their options, in order to maximise their involvement?

223.

Mr McDonald: It is important that a clear message be given. The Department has employed public relations consultants; we also use PR consultants. However, that should be supplemented with hands-on support from field officers and other staff, who can help our clients with the application form. For many people in rural communities, a complicated application form that requires details of monitoring information can be an alienating experience. For our programme, we intend to send out a simple application form to establish eligibility, in order not to waste people's time in filling out a detailed form. We did that with the Peace programme, and it proved to be successful. People need hands-on technical support to submit the applications; it is insufficient simply to advertise.

224.

We supplement that support with information evenings and roadshows, targeting the representative bodies, including the farming unions and women's networks. It is resource intensive. If we are to provide the service, we must be prepared to spend money; it is very time-consuming and requires substantial administration.

225.

Mr Ford: I am a great believer in joined-up government. It is a good principle and I am not convinced that we have it in Northern Ireland yet. Are you confident that we have established lines of demarcation between RDC, the Rural Community Network and DARD's rural development division. Do the people in the communities know who does what?

226.

Mr McDonald: The target audience is the community and collective sector. Previously, we ran LEADER+ programmes that funded the private sector; we did some ad hoc research; we funded the community sector; and we were involved in community development. We straddled all parts of the programme. Now, we are focused on the community and the collective sector.

227.

We have got our own house in order. It would be going too far at this stage to say that Joe or Josephine Public fully understands: they do not. The rural community must still go through a long learning process. It is not impossible, but we need to put a lot of effort into getting the message across clearly. I hope that PR consultants can assist us with that, but it comes down to the quality of the people whose job it is to point people in rural communities in the right direction.

228.

Private sector businesses know that the RDC is not their target audience. Farmers who want a grant for their own business will know that the council does not provide that resource. I can assure the Committee that we are clear about who our audience is, and we are prepared to go after it. There must be co-operation at programme level to make sure that a clear message is passed down to rural communities. That is beginning to happen.

229.

Mr Ford: Do you have any suggestions as to how the different roles might be explained to people, other than through the laborious work of field officers? That relates to the question of resources and relates to the way in which the Department operates and links up with other Departments. Does Northern Ireland need a rural White Paper? Is there a need for DARD to engage in more cross- and intra-departmental work, in order to liaise better with projects, with the RDC and with the RCN?

230.

Mr McDonald: On a practical level it does not matter whether we have a rural White Paper. England and the Republic have rural White Papers, but those countries do not have the same mechanisms as we have here. We would be better to concentrate our efforts on refining our mechanisms, rather than going after a White Paper. Rural-proofing is in the Programme for Government, and, like everyone else, we wait with interest to see what that will entail. It might take the form of a revamped rural development steering group, or it might involve people at a political or departmental level.

231.

We cannot comment on Government policy until we have the statistics. When a new policy is announced, if we have the statistics, we can say what the likely consequences of a particular policy intervention will be. We can look at the outcome - environmental or economic - and we can say whether a policy will make things better or worse. If we can get the baseline right, we will be better able to carry out rural-proofing.

232.

Ms Taggart: This morning, the Minister spoke about the use of consultants to advertise or launch the RDP, and that is a crucial part of the dissemination of information. However, that is only one of the ways in which we intend to communicate. We can also get the information across to people by word of mouth, through our field staff and by passing information on to other organisations that work in local development, such as district councils and partnerships. We intend to host information roadshows, which will be done at sub-regional and sectoral level. We will work with other agencies to identify potential user groups, such as ethnic minorities, women and farmers. We will work with the appropriate agencies to identify and invite certain people to an evening, so that we can explain the RDP to them and to identify the people who would be the best source of support for them.

233.

We also have an extensive database of groups that we have worked with in the past and groups that other agencies are working with, and we will contact those people by mailshot with information packs about the programme and the opportunities for funding and support through the RDC. We also use the databases that are available to us from partner organisations. We intend to host innovation workshops, at which we will invite people who have project ideas to develop those in a fashion that is appropriate to their community. Thus, we will be working with projects at development stage, rather than at information dissemination stage.

234.

We are compiling an expression-of-interest database. We log the details of people who telephone us or people with whom we are working who are looking for opportunities. We inform them about the opportunities that are available under the new RDP, while we await departmental approval. As soon as we have the information, we will get back to those people and explain how they can enter the schemes.

235.

Mr Kane: Will there be close communication with farming representatives, such as the Ulster Farmers' Union and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers' Association - when they get themselves sorted out - to ensure maximum representation from the farming community in the RDP?

236.

Mr McDonald: I will not comment on the NIAPA problems.

237.

Mr Kane: It is a straightforward question.

238.

Mr McDonald: We have had close contact with the UFU. The director general, the president and relevant members of the UFU have met our council at corporate level. We have had a broad discussion about what we hope to do in the new RDP and how we could work closely with the UFU to get farmers involved.

239.

I have also been out on several roadshows, and I have spoken to farmers' groups. At a recent meeting in the Radisson Roe Park Hotel, we had a discussion about strategy, during which a farmer asked whether two farmers made a community group. That is a practical question. That is what farmers want to know. Therefore, we have been out dealing with practical questions with farmers and farmers' representatives. We have not had the same level of discussion with NIAPA, although both NIAPA and the UFU are represented on the council. They have some input to the formulation of our policies.

240.

Mr Kane: What is the percentage make-up of your board from each of the two communities? That is an issue that must be addressed for everyone's benefit.

241.

Mr McDonald: Our council membership stands up to scrutiny. As part of our equality scheme, we had to screen some of our policies for gender balance and for representation of particular minority groups. I am not sure what the religious balance is at council level.

242.

Mr Henry: I do not know the exact numbers. We are satisfied that we have a broad representation from both sides of the community.

243.

Mr Kane: Could that information be supplied to me?

244.

Mr McDonald: Yes [91] .

245.

Mr Bradley: Mr McWhinney referred to a community group being "properly constituted" - that is the term that he used. Can you assist anyone who wants to set up such a group with drawing up a suitable constitution?

246.

Mr McDonald: There has been a key change in the new RDP in order to get the clarity that the Committee and the community are looking for. Previously, we were involved in that process, but other organisations were involved as well. That is where the confusion arose. The responsibility for generic capacity building - a fancy term for helping a community group to sort itself out - lies with the RCN. It will be given a budget to work with groups that are at an early stage and do not know how to form a community group. When that training has been provided, the groups are likely to target our programmes for support to carry out their projects. If we feel that a group has a good project but it does not have management skills or needs more financial or technical training, we would provide a short burst of training to bring them up to steam before they start to implement their project.

247.

Mr Bradley: The submission says that participation from farmers must be collective and integrated. Given the current pressure on farmers, their first priority must be to their farm. Will that fact be acknowledged? Farmers might not reject the programme, they might just have different priorities.

248.

Mr McDonald: Given the present crisis, farmers are less likely to engage in a collective form of activity until they get their own farms in order. There is a responsibility on the agri-food development service and it is currently discussing how it will use the money from the Peace Programme to provide support for farmers.

249.

As stated in the submission, there is no point in misleading farmers by saying that we can sort out their farm problems - we cannot. That is the Department's responsibility. It is better that we are honest about that from the outset. Hopefully, when the crisis is over the RDC will offer the type of assistance to farmers that it wants to give in the Glens and on the western shores - that is to signpost them in the right direction for support.

250.

Ms Taggart: We are working with a number of farmers' groups under the Peace programme. Our field staff are working with three farmers' groups in the north-west. They are surveying their local areas to assess the needs of farms and farm families. Our staff will help them analyse the results of those surveys and assist with action plans on how to address such needs in the future.

251.

As Mr McDonald said, it is not about tackling the problems of the individual farmer. We have already engaged with farmers who want to come together and develop issues collectively, and we will be able to engage with those farmers in the future. However, the foot-and-mouth crisis has affected the work of that group in the north-west because of the Government advice that people should not come together. People need to meet when collective solutions are being sought. However, the work is ongoing.

252.

Mr Douglas: How can socially excluded groups be particularly resource intensive? What percentage of your time is spent with socially excluded groups compared with other groups?

253.

Mr McDonald: From a philosophical standpoint, when you start to engage with rural communities you are looking at the socially excluded sector. Rural communities fall off the edge of the Government's mainstream table. One hundred percent of our effort goes to rural areas and, by definition, it is mostly targeted at socially excluded groups.

254.

The target set by the Government for the area in which we work is that 75% of the money spent needs to be targeted at socially excluded areas, defined areas of disadvantage, and socially excluded groups. However, there have been concerns about how disadvantage is defined. Under the previous RDP we worked with a number of groups that had already been through an initial sift where possibly some Department said that they did not meet the criteria of social exclusion.

255.

Our statistical service contains a geographical information service. We have surveyed areas and groups and - using a range of indicators - we have helped them to substantiate their cases for support to Government departments or agencies. That has been a useful service and there has been a high level of uptake. Therefore, although our target is socially excluded groups, we have found that some groups are perceived not to be socially excluded. However, when you dig a wee bit deeper and you provide the statistical and technical help, such groups manage to get through the door.

256.

Mr Douglas: A lot of money has been pumped into some areas. Will that be re-evaluated? Is it possible that they might not be in the socially excluded league any longer, providing an opportunity for other areas to be funded?

257.

Mr McDonald: Mike Noble is currently revising the Robson indicators, and the framework for the review is out for consultation. It will be tested to see what areas it defines as being disadvantaged. The data from the 2001 census will then produce a different picture to that given before.

258.

We will look at rural areas using the framework and the census information. We will then be able to advise Government that a particular Department contains groups or sectors that have the potential to be classed as socially excluded. We see it as part of our role to lobby and advise Government to ensure that nobody slips through the net.

259.

Mr Douglas: How do you define social exclusion?

260.

Mr McDonald: There is a range of indicators. Someone always seems to slip through the net no matter what set of indicators is used. There should be flexibility to enable a group to make a case for carrying out a project because it feels that it is socially excluded. If a group of people feel that they are socially excluded, there is no point in telling them that they do not meet the criteria. That is where the problem arises. There has to be the opportunity to engage with groups.

261.

Mr Henry: We currently map all applications for grant aid that we receive - and we did that during Peace I. During the first round of applications for Peace I we realised that areas in south Antrim, mid-Down and north Down had very low application rates. We targeted those areas with information and that increased the rate of applications from those areas. That will be a very important exercise for the next programme period. We will map the applications and if there are gaps we will target those areas in subsequent rounds to ensure that we get an equal range of applications across Northern Ireland.

262.

Mr Douglas: Some of your comments today concern me. You talked about areas that have suffered from foot-and-mouth disease - and it will be difficult for those areas. If you targeted those areas then everybody could apply for assistance. However, another area nearby could be excluded because of such targeting.

263.

Mr McDonald: That is a very valid point. Our initial target area will be all of rural Northern Ireland and that will cover everything outside Belfast and Derry/ Londonderry. Our equality scheme obliges us to treat the nine reference groups and everyone else equally. That will be our starting point. As there is a crisis at the moment, we felt that it was appropriate, in the short term, to provide additional resources to look at those areas. If the crisis is resolved then we can deal with everyone equally. If you go too far on one side, that upsets the balance. However, it is only through continuous monitoring that we can keep the balance right.

264.

Mr Dallat: I congratulate the RDC for work done in the distant past. They encouraged communities to work together to discover what was needed. That was a fine ideal and it was badly needed. Now that there is relative peace we tend to forget that fact, but it is still very important. Today, the emphasis quite rightly is on social exclusion and marginalised groups. Can you assure us that you have the funding mechanism in place to continue the extraordinary work that you carried out in the initial stages in getting a community at war for 30 years to start working together?

265.

Mr McDonald: Thank you for those comments. It is a path that started with a rural action project in the early-to-mid 1980s. This programme started in 1990, and it is not an easy path. We were engaging with rural communities that had had not seen a civil servant from a Government Department in 20 years, and which had no interest in broad rural regeneration. It was an uphill struggle to get communities to take rural development seriously. Thankfully we have crossed that hurdle. It brought a lot of risk and there have been problems, but in the next 10 years we will be able to reap the benefits.

266.

In trying to ensure that we keep community activity and interest going, we have to be innovative in the programmes we bring forward. We have to be flexible, but we have to be able to take risks also. If this were a safe game there would be no need for an organisation such as the RDC because the private sector would do it. There must be a balance between audit considerations and public accountability. We have to ensure that we are responsible for public money and that we use it properly. At the outset we need to have the flexibility to accept that not all of the projects we fund will succeed. There is a failure rate of 30% to 40% for new business start-ups in the first year. That percentage, by definition, should be higher in a community or a collective or in a more marginalised socially excluded group. There will be failures. However, failures are not a problem as long as we learn lessons from them and other people move on to succeed. We have to go through that continuous process of self-evaluation, learning from our successes, and from our mistakes.

267.

Ms Taggart: While there may be failures, the projects are important output and they need to be assessed for their financial sustainability. However, experience has taught us that the process that the groups go through in developing and assessing need, getting funding, and managing the project, has as much learning and skills acquisition as the project itself.

268.

Even if the project is not the panacea for the community's needs, learning will be involved. We attempt to ensure as far as possible that a group is given the maximum opportunity to make their project a success. Through our developmental support programmes we can ensure that the learning path of implementing the project has its own outputs.

269.

Mr McHugh: Your organisation has done a power of good for rural areas, particularly in promoting what you do. You have promoted your services very well in comparison with other groups. Communication is very important, and that has been part of the problem with funding over the past number of years. There is a question over the current participation of farmers compared with that during the last funding round.

270.

At the beginning of the last round of funding, farming was in quite good shape. There were high prices and farmers were looking at mainstreaming as being the way forward. They did not therefore tend to get involved as easily in things such as rural development or diversification which they considered to be outside their main business.

271.

This time, the difficulty is that farmers do not have their own resources to invest, if they decide to diversify. That matter needs to be addressed and taken into account in your strategy to get people to participate. The 'Women in Agriculture' programme in Fermanagh highlighted a lot of people who were never involved in anything like this before. Some of them needed to build their self-confidence, even if it just involved looking for work.

272.

Farm women have been isolated for years, and some of them are very young. That has surprised us. They are probably an audience that you could target in this round of funding, trying to get them involved, not just in Fermanagh, but in other areas also. They are a hidden and isolated group. Will your strategy be able to impact on such groups? How do you intend to reach people outside your scope or that of the women's network?

273.

Mr McDonald: You have raised some serious ideological issues, which go right to the heart of what rural development is all about. It is about confidence building. Many farmers need confidence when thinking about moving off the farm. It is a big psychological move to make.

274.

Within our current programme, we have started to work on a programme called 'Farmers Managing Change'. It is about engaging with farmers; getting them to think seriously about the range of skills they have in running their farm business, and whether there is a future for them in farming. It is about getting people to face up to the reality that on the margins they are not going to succeed in farming; they will need to translate their skills into doing something else. That takes a lot of time, effort, and handholding. We piloted that under the first programme and it should be mainstreamed.

275.

The Government must be more proactive, and they must recognise that some farmers will not survive this crisis and will not be saved by the brown envelope or an additional mainstream grant. However, that money could be diverted to enable these farmers to take a step towards a more sustainable business.

276.

One of the measures under the Peace Programme relates to part-time employment. There are many part-time jobs available, but businesses said that their problem was that they could not match job opportunities with the labour supply. They could not get a guarantee that they could get fifty farmers to work at this issue at any particular point in time. Also, farmers did not want to go through the process of recruitment agencies and filling in forms. We worked through the local enterprise agency network to match the job opportunities with the labour supply through better signposting. We introduced a web page listing the opportunities so that farmers and others could see where potential jobs were based.

277.

Mr Mc Hugh: Part of your submission relates to the structural change of farming and the subsequent benefits to the consumer. I am not sure that is the case. I have difficulty with the idea that farmers will have to leave their farms in order to take up other work. The movement away from rural areas will be speeded up if farmers have to leave their farms. They will not be able to do the other part of their work - milking or looking after cattle - if they have to go to the nearest town to start a small business. That is where planning difficulties begin.

278.

Furthermore, the DARD figures are used when determining whether a second person is allowed to remain on the farm and build, for example, a second bungalow. Those figures relate to mainstream farming only, which may be on the wane on a particular farm. How do you intend to address those problems?

279.

Mr McDonald: In rural areas, the type and quality of jobs is as important as the number available. We could tell the Committee that we created 50 jobs through a particular programme. However, if the farmers taking those 50 jobs had to leave their farmland and travel 30 miles to the nearest town to get to work, then they would not be quality jobs.

280.

We must provide jobs in rural areas that suit farmers and their spouses. We must recognise that they have a farm business to run and that they are involved in environmental protection of the landscape. That is why we have intervened within the part-time sector in order to match the labour supply with the jobs. There have to be jobs where farmers need them. In that context, half a job is better to a farmer than one job that he must travel 20 or 30 miles to do. It is the quality, type and location of job that is important.

281.

A programme such as ours could never create a massive amount of jobs. However, we believe that the quality and type of jobs that the programme provides, as well as the additional spin-off of enabling the farmer to stay on the land, is more important than the overall number of jobs created.

282.

Mr Henry: The Government's policy on rural proofing is absolutely critical. Although we are experiencing economic growth in Northern Ireland, we must ask where that economic growth is taking place and if it is occurring in rural areas. We view our work in rural baselining as contributing greatly to opening up the discussion as to what parts of Northern Ireland are actually gaining from economic growth and how we can maximise the impact of economic growth on our rural areas.

283.

It goes without saying that we need jobs in rural areas. There is no doubt that the future of small farms depends on people receiving off-farm sources of income, but we want that income to be generated as near as possible to the actual farm.

284.

The Deputy Chairperson: Economic appraisal is a very important step in the overall project appraisal procedure. You have stated that your staff has had some initial training on performing economic appraisals. Is that training sufficient to appraise a project adequately? If a project is turned down on the basis of an economic appraisal, is there recourse to an appeal?

285.

Mr McDonald: This morning, the Minister touched on the threshold and the Department of Finance and Personnel guidelines to be followed when an economic appraisal is triggered. Our maximum grant aid - and the bid we have made - is £150,000 from whatever programme we are running and that is likely to be matched by another £150,000 to £200,000. Our maximum project size will be smaller than in our first round of projects. There will not be the same need for large-scale economic appraisals.

286.

Most of our projects are likely to be under £50,000. We will need to ensure that our staff are well trained. First, there is a need for business acumen; to be able to look at a business project and make an economic and investment appraisal. It is the same in the private sector. When you are going to invest money in the countryside, or in any project, you get a gut feeling and a reaction when you look at a set of figures. We are trying to provide training for our staff so that they can read a set of accounts and recognise a reasonably good project. The figures might stack up, but there has to be that inherent judgement.

287.

We are discussing the introduction of a post within the organisation, which will be taken by a person who has not only the business acumen and the accountancy qualifications, but who has also seen real business in operation. Therefore, when the economic appraisal is carried out, someone outside the programmes will be able to take an independent view.

288.

We have begun the initial training, and the Department has offered us the facilities. We are currently carrying out a training needs analysis of all our staff. We have just moved people around within the organisation to make sure that their qualifications are suited to the posts that they are likely to be involved in. That would be supplemented by detailed in-house training, which will include financial training.

289.

All of our projects are unlikely to be on the economic side; there will be environmental and social projects also. Our employees need to be able to understand social inclusion or exclusion, so that they can empower communities, through community relations, peace building outputs and protecting the environment. The economic outputs from an organisation such as ours are around 25% to 30%. The remainder of the outputs will fall into the areas of culture, peace, environment and community relations. We need broad-based staff.

290.

Mr Henry: We have an appeal system for all applications. When we open a round of grant aid, we are two or three times oversubscribed. We find that if the applicants are informed as to why they have not received grant aid, they are usually content with the reasons. However, there is a formal appeals system in place.

291.

The Deputy Chairperson: Is your organisation the only one managing not-for-profit community projects? How much funding is dedicated to this section of the RDP?

292.

Mr McDonald: We believe that we are the only organisation involved in this work. We will be watching carefully how the Department rolls out its programmes because we will want to ensure that there is no duplication of effort. If another organisation is nominated to provide the same type of facility then we believe it will be the wrong step for the RDP to take. It is not that we are the only people capable of doing this work but if we are going to provide the clarity that everyone seems to be calling for then it is better that the service is provided by a single organisation. That is the basis of our bid to the Department and represents the verbal assurances that we have been given to date.

293.

We need to ensure that whatever we do complements what is going on at a local district council level. There is no point in our organisation urging communities to develop projects that will not fit in with a district council's strategy. We have taken our strategy to the councils and explained the types of measures required to achieve the level of complementarity required.

294.

The figure for the budget was £15 million. There is likely to be £5 million for Peace, although that is still subject to the outcome of the tender, and £10 million for local regeneration. Considering the numbers of projects there will be over six years; that is not a lot of money. In Peace I we had 900 applications and we were capable of funding 150 of them. As regards where we drew the line as far as the quality of the projects was concerned, we could have funded 400 to 500 projects. We could have taken twice as much money.

295.

If you use that example as a parallel - and it is likely to be the same this time - we will be vastly oversubscribed. A budget of £15 million will not meet the demand, but I understand the argument that if more money goes into rural development it has an opportunity cost. There are political decisions that the Government must take about how they want to spend their money. As an organisation, we have the resources and the capacity to deliver that £15 million programme. All we can say is that if more money becomes available over the programme period we have the systems to absorb and deliver it, if that is felt to be appropriate.

296.

The Deputy Chairperson: Are you saying that if more money becomes available, you are capable of handling it?

297.

Mr McDonald: Yes. The other issue about money is that rural development is a very cross-cutting measure. It is not just about agriculture. If we are talking about the sustainability of rural communities it might well be that we have to look to the situation after this round of EU money. What is going to happen then? Will the Government mainstream the support for rural development when the EU money dries up?

298.

The Deputy Chairperson: There is a question mark there.

299.

Mr McDonald: The issue arises and certainly needs to be addressed. We will want to raise the debate within Government. We are now two years into the new RDP. It will soon be mid-programme and we have not yet started the first programme. We will be back against the wall very shortly.

300.

The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you, on behalf of the Committee, for your contribution. If we have any further questions we will write to you, and we hope you will reply.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Friday 8 February 2002

Members present:
Rev Dr Ian Paisley (Chairperson)
Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Douglas
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr Murphy

Witnesses:
Mr G McWhinney ) Department of Agriculture
and Rural Development
Mr A Morton )

301.

The Chairperson: I must ask the members to declare any interests they might have.

[Mr Bradley and Mr Kane declared an interest].

302.

We will have a further canter round the course on the issue. Perhaps, Mr McWhinney, you could define "rural proofing"? I am only joking; if your boss is unable to give a definition, I can hardly expect you to do so. I apologise that I must leave in about five minutes, but my capable Deputy Chairperson will take over. If I am sore and lash you with cords, he will lash you with scorpions.

303.

The Committee requires an update on the rural development programme, because considerable time has passed since we last discussed it. Members will then ask you a few questions.

304.

Mr McWhinney: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to update the Committee on the rural development programme, for which I have responsibility.

305.

The Chairperson: Will you leave your video with the Committee? May we have further copies? It would be nice if each member could have a copy.

306.

Mr McWhinney: Yes. We can do that.

307.

Much has happened since we first spoke to the Committee last year. However, substantial work must be done before we will have everything in place for the new programme. The programme strategy was published in 2001, which was followed by the formal launch of the programme on 13 November, at which some Committee members were present. As we indicated previously to the Committee, we published a signposting document to help people to understand the programme. In addition, we produced the short video to which you referred, and which illustrates the programme's value and potential. The video has been well received and widely used. We were going to show it, but we will give members copies of it instead.

308.

At the time of the launch in November, the Minister announced a call for applications as part of the rural development programme. Over 200 applications have been received to date, perhaps 300 in round terms. Most of those are from community organisations, and more than 20 are from applicants with farming interests.

309.

As the Committee is aware, the 12 LEADER+ groups have been selected, and they have been asked to prepare business plans based on their agreed strategies. They will have up to three months to prepare those plans. Thereafter, when the plans are signed off, there should be local calls for projects. We must prepare the detailed LEADER+ programme complement, which will further detail indicative actions. It is being drafted, and it will be formally submitted to the commission after the LEADER+ monitoring committee has approved it. We hope to appoint that committee soon.

310.

The Committee retained an interest in the natural resource rural tourism initiative that the Department is managing through an interdepartmental group under the Peace II programme. The five partnerships to deliver that initiative have been selected, and they are being invited to prepare sustainable tourism strategies for their respective target areas. They will have up to six months to submit their strategies, which we will assess through the interdepartmental group as soon as we receive them. If strategies are received before the six-month deadline, we will ensure that they are taken on board.

311.

The Special European Union Programmes Body is leading the preparation for INTERREG, the cross-border initiative. The operational programme for INTERREG includes a rural measure, which our Department and its Southern counterpart have developed and will deliver. Applications under the Peace II proposals must be lodged by December 2004, and spending can roll out until December 2006. Applications under the building sustainable prosperity, LEADER+ and INTERREG programmes must be made by December 2006, with spending continuing until 2008. That is the timeframe for the current block of rural development work.

312.

The Department recognises that there will be a steep learning curve for new organisations, groups and individuals as people become accustomed to different methods of operation and gaining entrance to the schemes. The Rural Development Council, the network and rural enterprise division staff will give what help they can to guide people through the system.

313.

As we discussed, the programme's success will depend on the standard, numbers and eligibility of applications made over the coming months and years. I hope that the Committee finds that this summary indicates progress from where we left off and that it is leading us towards the start of the new programme.

314.

The Chairperson: That is a helpful update. Mr McWhinney and Mr Morton will now gladly attempt to answer members' questions.

315.

Mr McWhinney: Thank you for that recognition.

316.

The Chairperson: They might not respond in the way that you want them to, but they will answer.

317.

Mr McHugh: The programme is obviously important financially. One of the difficulties for people will be to try to sort out which sector they should aim for, especially at the early stage of their first application. The deadline has already passed for certain applications.

318.

What has the Department done - and what will it do - to level the playing field for applicants? You mentioned 200 applications from community organisations and 20 from farmers. I suspect that those with a potential farming interest would be disadvantaged in their attempt to get involved, by comparison with community organisations, which will have had a great deal of recent experience in applying for programmes. You mentioned that the quality of application would determine their acceptance or failure. How can we ensure equality in respect of the standard of applications and people's technical ability to complete them, given that a part of some applications must be completed using the Internet? We must direct applicants towards the appropriate sectoral areas of the programme rather than their wasting time or getting confused, with the result that they would miss the deadline and would have to wait until the next round.

319.

Mr McWhinney: The Department is aware of the complications. They arose, for the large part, because it is engaged in three or four different programmes that, because of the Brussels links, must be kept in individual silos; that is an unfortunate fact. In this part of the programme the Department tried to ensure that as many doors as possible are left open for farming families against the complicated background of European state-aid restrictions on agricultural activity.

320.

The Department has tried to leave the process of applications to the programmes as flexible as possible. A group, led by the agri-food development service, has been set up to prepare explanatory material. The Department hopes to provide a flow chart, booklet or decision tree to simplify the programmes so that farmers will interpret the system more easily. The Department will try to provide different versions of that information to suit different circumstances - meetings or individual situations, for example.

321.

The complications apply also to the rural development plan, the environmental element of the rural development regulations, whereby guarantee funds are used to encourage farmers to carry out more environmental farming and "greening". I am sure that the Committee knows about that. However, this part of the rural development programme is directed at broader rural communities, including farm families. I recognise that that is complicated, and we are at the start of a long game. However, the Department is trying to open the door to give people an opportunity to come in. The Department will try to facilitate that as much as it can.

322.

Mr McHugh: Will there be hands-on networking with potential applicants? Some very good presentations were made throughout the counties, in agricultural colleges, for example. However, it is likely that only the "usual suspects" attended those events, while many others who need more localised information missed out.

323.

Mr McWhinney: A series of meetings continues and the Department had 17 roadshows. The rural area co-ordinators are meeting individual farming groups on request. The Department has met around 500 farmers in recent weeks. Over 2000 people attended the roadshows. That was a substantial turnout - larger than I expected. Those roadshows resulted in a substantial number of expressions of interest and a large percentage of the applications, which are now on the table.

324.

We will have to address the problem of applying strict criteria to those applications. That is why it will take a long time to get the new groups in, which was the original reason for your question. The Ulster Farmers' Union has approached the Department to discuss what help can be given in that regard. That is being discussed at the moment.

325.

Mr Douglas: In May 2001 the Department identified the need for 21 additional staff. What is the situation in respect of those posts? Press releases have claimed that large sums are being made available for those living in rural areas - in one case, up to £20 million. There is concern, perhaps from the inside, that the Department is using much of that money to cover its own costs. Is it the case that, despite headline news of such funding, the money does not go to the people on the ground?

326.

Mr McWhinney: For the large part, those 21 staff are in post. To date, the division has 70 staff in post. There was an assessment of requirement and it was met. It takes a long time to identify staff and to get them into post.

327.

Will you clarify your second question about the £20 million?

328.

Mr Douglas: The £20 million was the particular amount involved in one case. I am concerned that much of the money identified for rural development might not be delivered on the ground.

329.

Mr McWhinney: It is possible that the £20 million that you referred to is LEADER+ money. I can assure you that none of the funding that is announced as part of the programme is used to cover departmental running costs - all of it will be used to set up outside projects or partnerships.

330.

Mr Morton: The Department receives one or two per cent of the programme costs to use for technical assistance, including such tasks as programme monitoring and evaluation, which the commission requires.

331.

Mr McWhinney: Generally, the money is used to cover the cost of outside partnerships and organisations.

332.

Mr M Murphy: The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development stated in its earlier submission that it intended to apply a ceiling grant of £50,000 to LEADER+ projects, other groups and partnerships. Is that ceiling still in place? Has consultation on that taken place?

333.

Mr McWhinney: The ceiling of £50,000 will apply to LEADER+ groups. In respect of the natural resource tourism partnership work, the grant ceiling for community-based projects will be £50,000; it will be £150,000 for other projects.

334.

Mr M Murphy: Can you specify the differences?

335.

Mr McWhinney: The difference is that under the LEADER+ programme, letters offering sums of up to £50,000 can be issued. That programme deals primarily with individuals and microbusinesses. The natural resource tourism proposals can include minor infrastructure projects for the public good. Examples might include a project to broaden a road, or to build a lay-by or farm car park, based on a tourism need. Those projects quickly absorb a good deal of money.

336.

Mr M Murphy: What would be the limit for those projects?

337.

Mr McWhinney: The funding limit for such projects would be £150,000. A request for a greater sum of money would be referred back to the Department for its consideration.

338.

The Deputy Chairperson: It can be difficult to gain planning permission for such projects in rural areas. Can that problem be alleviated?

339.

Mr McWhinney: I appreciate deeply that difficulty, but I must recognise the authority of the Planning Service and the district councils. When local projects are being developed through such a programme, it is to be hoped that planning considerations and potential difficulties would be teased out, discussed and managed early in the process. I hope that those matters can be considered in that context through the partnerships involved, the interdepartmental steering group that examines rural development matters and the new regional and area planning proposals.

340.

Mr Armstrong: A future problem will be the question of who should maintain that afterwards.

341.

Mr McWhinney: I knew that I should not have given an example.

342.

Mr Armstrong: Yesterday I spoke to a departmental member of staff about the same problem. Even if planning permission were granted, would a council take responsibility? You say that there are between 200 and 300 applications, but only 20 are from farmers. How much money is going into the programme?

343.

Mr McWhinney: The rural development programme, as launched, comprises £80 million. The Minister announced it as a programme worth £100 million, because we anticipated that it would trigger some £20 million of additional expenditure. The trigger level amounts to only a quarter of the total, because much of the work will be with communities or for the general good. Therefore, the total anticipated input until 2008 is £100 million - £80 million of European and national funds and £20 million of triggered funds.

344.

Mr Armstrong: Are no administrative costs included in that?

345.

Mr McWhinney: There are no departmental administration costs, other than the 2% technical assistance that Mr Morton mentioned. However, that sum includes the costs of outside partnerships or organisations that will run the schemes. There are always substantial running costs, but the cost of departmental staff is not taken out of the total amount.

346.

Mr Armstrong: Will the administrative costs of LEADER+ groups and outside communities be taken out of the total amount?

347.

Mr McWhinney: A LEADER+ group can use up to 15% of its grant allocation to cover administration costs.

348.

Mr Armstrong: That means that some of it goes to the agricultural or rural community?

349.

Mr McWhinney: Yes. The bulk of the money goes to the rural and agricultural community.

350.

Mr Armstrong: Can farmers make their own applications?

351.

Mr McWhinney: LEADER+ talks about microbusinesses. Farms are classified as microbusinesses, and farmers can apply under LEADER+.

352.

Mr Armstrong: The form is complicated. Will individual direction be given to farmers?

353.

Mr McWhinney: Local LEADER+ groups are preparing business plans against the strategies that are in place, and agricultural interests are represented on all of them. Once those are signed off, the groups will call for applications.

354.

Mr Armstrong: A farmer cannot apply directly?

355.

Mr McWhinney: A farmer can make his interest known, but he must apply through a LEADER+ group.

356.

Mr Bradley: The Committee noted that the intention is to provide a simple application form to establish eligibility and to have a two-stage application process. The Rural Development Council explained that a complicated application form can be an alienating experience for people and that field staff and others will provide hands-on support to clients. That issue was not fully explored with the Department. Regarding the project application process, what are the Department's intentions for the parts of the programme to be delivered by Rural Development Division? Also, is there an appeals mechanism whereby projects that were refused at the outset can be looked at a second time?

357.

Mr McWhinney: The application form system is complicated and, I accept, potentially off-putting. The Department and any grant-giving agents across the structural funds are linked to a mandatory two-stage process. Part A collects information that is common to all structural fund applications. Part B deals with information specific to the grant and measure. It has been debated for some time. The scale of information sought is considered to be unavoidable and is required by the managing authorities to meet the structural funds' management and control obligations. Much of the information must be collected at the application stage. The Department provides guidance notes with the application forms. It is Internet-based, but the Department has also arranged for manual forms to be available on request. If someone appeals, there is a review process. The application would be presented to a higher panel for consideration.

358.

Mr Bradley: Is the review process a purely desktop exercise, or does it involve going on site? How detailed is it?

359.

Mr McWhinney: It is a paper-based process that essentially checks that the panel followed the proper procedures in arriving at its decision.

360.

Mr Bradley: Would nobody be prepared to go and see the project?

361.

Mr McWhinney: The review panel must consider what it deems necessary to ensure that the decision reached by the original selection panel was "reasonable" - that is the term. If the review panel decides that the decision was not reasonable, it would have to give an indication of its requirements in relation to that case. The panel may require something along the lines that you mentioned. You could not say what the review panel's view on that would be.

362.

Mr Bradley: I am worried that the form appears to be so frightening that the message about what the projects are really about could be missed.

363.

Mr McWhinney: I can only repeat what I have said. We understand that some people feel that the form is complicated and potentially off-putting. The Department is doing what it can, including giving advice. If approached, someone in our office will give help and advice to an applicant.

364.

The Deputy Chairperson: I want to take that on a step. All applications must go through a LEADER+ group. Individuals cannot apply. Is that correct?

365.

Mr McWhinney: We are talking specifically about LEADER+. LEADER+ is one of the measures under the rural development programme. Individuals must apply through a local LEADER+ group.

366.

The Deputy Chairperson: Through that LEADER+ group, is the application pointed the way that the old scheme was, or is the application taken on its merits, as presented?

367.

Mr McWhinney: It would be too early for me to say. There are 12 local LEADER+ action groups. They will decide on the measures that they will be promoting, and they will adjudicate on the applications. That will be done at local level.

368.

The Deputy Chairperson: I sit on another Committee and it said that it wanted applications with substance coming forward for LEADER +. I do not want to see good proposals coming forward and not meeting the criteria or the points system laid down by some of those groups. That is my fear.

369.

Mr McWhinney: A panel sitting to adjudicate would want to be clear that it had sufficient information and background knowledge on the project in whatever form it deemed necessary to adjudicate within the rules on that application. It is difficult to comment further. The 12 local groups will do that within the guidance given to them.

370.

Mr Kane: The majority of the capital is going towards community partnership projects and very little capital is being directed towards individual farming projects, and the applications relate that. Farmers are becoming increasingly disgruntled by the fact that modulation, which is currently taken from farmers' premium cheques - and I want you to note that, Mr McWhinney - seems thus far to be delivering nothing back to the industry via rural development. You have commented on the method of providing information to farmers and also the anticipated period for rural development policies to be fully developed. Can you elaborate on what I have said about the modulation taken from farmers' premium cheques and about nothing going back into the industry via rural development?

371.

Mr McWhinney: We have not specified under this part of the rural development programme what is available for farmers or what is available for other groups. Under the applications that are open at present, for example, farmer groups, community groups and other sectoral groups can apply. It is not specific to community groups. The Rural Development Council has some specific community-orientated work. The Department has opened its first call for profit-taking projects. Those projects can include applications from farmer groups, and the Department has already received some. It is not saying which groups can come in.

372.

Mr Kane: Do you accept that finance is being taken from the farmer on the one hand and that he is losing out on the other hand?

373.

Mr McWhinney: No. I was going to move on to that. This is a very important point. I understand that no modulation money has been put into the rural development programme, nor is there any intention to do that. The modulation money, either already taken off or intended to be taken off, will be transferred to environmental-type farming work and countryside management approaches. That does not come under my direct responsibility. However, my understanding is that that is all being channelled back towards farmers.

374.

Mr Kane: I am glad to hear that. That had been worrying me for some time.

375.

Mr McWhinney: Mr Morton, do you agree?

376.

Mr Morton: Yes. That is my understanding.

377.

Mr McWhinney: I see this type of programme as an additional, much smaller-scale opportunity than the larger agriculture budgets. It is a time of change and a time to look at different opportunities. It is going to be a long game.

378.

Mr McHugh: There are many who believe that there is not much return for modulation, if the agriculture base fails. Regarding duplication, you gave an example of a park. Some would say that that should be the responsibility of local councils or perhaps the Department for Regional Development. Various statutory outfits mentioned that part of a bridge or some such thing should have been funded through Peace money. Such things should be the responsibility of Roads Service, and that is where we redirected it. Will there be enough scrutiny in the system to ensure that we do not duplicate something that should be done by other statutory bodies?

379.

With regard to forward monitoring, the co-ordinators in the various areas are a powerful influence as to how this all rolls forward. As you know, there were difficulties with area-based strategy action groups (ABSAGs) and various other things. Those bad relationships still remain in those areas. There are areas that may not make gains from this programme because of bad experiences the last time. What are you doing to resolve that?

380.

Mr McWhinney: We would not be allowed to engage in any duplicate activity. When I raised a purely theoretical example earlier, I used the term "minor infrastructure". We simply could not engage in doing a stretch of normal road. We would not want to; Europe would not allow it. It must be something that would not be prioritised as potential action under a mainstream programme. We are working in areas that are less advantaged. We are doing something that would not otherwise be done. That is the best way of doing it.

381.

My feeling about ABSAGs is that there was some excellent work carried out right across the nine areas that were engaged. We hope to draw from that experience, and in accord with the local strategic partnerships, we hope to develop rural strategies as far as possible through those partnerships, rather than duplicate them. So it is hoped that rural aspects of that work will be engineered through the local strategic partnership development. The next six to 12 months will be critical.

382.

Mr McHugh: Will there be any special environmental demands placed on those in farming that will not be placed on others who are not in that business?

383.

Mr McWhinney: From our perspective, there will be no special environmental demands other than that it is a requirement for us all to ensure that the environmental impact of all that we do is not adverse. Through natural resource tourism, we have as an active partner the Environment and Heritage Service. It is bringing both expertise and money to the table.

384.

Mr Armstrong: The Rural Development Council is one of the bodies that is delivering part of your programme. The closing date for some of its projects was supposed to be 1 February this year. Was that extended for a month?

385.

Mr McWhinney: That is incorrect, but I will clarify that for you. The Rural Development Council is responsible for non-profit-taking groups, and it closed the first phase of applications on 1 February. Those from farmers' groups and others in the profit-taking sector who were engaging in this for the first time said that that was insufficient time. Therefore we decided to keep it open-ended and to give four weeks' notice of closure. I expect to leave it open for another few weeks.

386.

Mr Armstrong: What is the Rural Development Council's total budget?

387.

Mr McWhinney: Budgets are annualised, but I expect that over the period of this range of programmes the budget for those projects would be around £9 million out of the £80 million.

388.

Mr Bradley: Nearly all my questions have been answered. Are there absolute closing dates for all applications?

389.

Mr McWhinney: Two aspects were opened - a Rural Development Council one for the non-profit-taking community-type operation and one for the profit-taking sector, which is the new part of the programme. The latter remains open, and we expect to close it in perhaps four to six weeks. I am guessing, but I want to leave that open. Those who applied by 1 February will be given the opportunity to put some further work into their applications if they feel that they need to. Those applicants are being written to individually.

390.

Mr Armstrong: Has that letter been sent?

391.

Mr McWhinney: It should be out in the next couple of days.

392.

The Deputy Chairperson: Do you cater for applications that come in from those in the agrifood sector, people who want to specialise in niche markets in the rural areas?

393.

Mr McWhinney: That may possibly come under my wing where the project is small-scale. There is a fairly big processing and marketing grant scheme, and the minimum level of engagement for that scheme is £70,000. A valid small niche-marketing proposal could come to us, and then it would be considered with other applications, taking account of state aid rules. So the answer is "Yes". It is a complicated answer, but it works on a scale. There is a big scheme for the big players.

394.

The Deputy Chairperson: Will you please clarify the ceilings of £50,000 and £150,000?

395.

Mr McWhinney: We touched on that earlier. For the LEADER+ programme we are stretching to £50,000. The ceiling for natural resource tourism is usually £50,000, but there may be occasion for that to rise to £150,000 for the public good.

396.

The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you. We have some other questions that we would like you to answer, and we will send those to you.

397.

Mr McWhinney: I understand that the Minister has a letter that has some of those questions, and we hope to reply to that in the next 10 days.

APPENDIX 3

ANNEXES TO THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF PUBLISHED MEMORANDA

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME STRATEGY 2001-2006:

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD)

Questions to DARD - 30 March 2001 ANNEX A1

Response to questions from DARD - 3 April 2001 ANNEX A2

Committee response to the Rural Development Programme Strategy 2001-2006 - 6 April 2001 ANNEX A3

DARD's response - 24 April 2001 ANNEX A4

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 2001-2006:

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD)

Committee letter to DARD seeking submission - 13 March 2001 ANNEX A5

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development - 3 May 2001 ANNEX A6

Additional questions to DARD - 12 June 2001 ANNEX A7

Response to questions from DARD - 27 June 2001 ANNEX A8

Request for update to DARD - 18 January 2002 ANNEX A9

Written update from DARD - 14 February 2002 ANNEX A10

Additional information regarding DARD's Procedural Manual - 5 March 2002 ANNEX A11

Rural Development Council for Northern Ireland (RDC)

Committee letter to RDC seeking submission - 20 March 2001 ANNEX B1

Rural Development Council for Northern Ireland - 3 May 2001 ANNEX B2

Additional questions to RDC - 4 June 2001 ANNEX B3

Response to questions from RDC - 26 June 2001 ANNEX B4

Request for update to RDC - 18 January 2002 ANNEX B5

Written update from RDC - 30 January 2002 ANNEX B6

Rural Community Network (RCN)

Committee letter to RCN seeking submission - 20 March 2001 ANNEX C1

Rural Community Network - 4 May 2001 ANNEX C2

Additional questions to RCN - 22 May 2001 ANNEX C3

Response to questions from RCN - 2 July 2001 ANNEX C4

Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU)

Committee letter to UFU seeking submission - 20 March 2001 ANNEX D1

Ulster Farmers' Union - 10 May 2001 ANNEX D2

Professor Simon Miller

Professor Simon Miller - 2 May 2001 ANNEX E

East Down Community Network

East Down Community Network - 23 April 2001 ANNEX F

Mr John A Payne

Mr John A Payne - 3 May 2001 ANNEX G

Northern Ireland Tourist Board

Northern Ireland Tourist Board - 22 May 2001 ANNEX H

The Half Bred Horse Breeders Society

The Half Bred Horse Breeders Society - 23 May 2001 ANNEX I

Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers' Association (NIAPA)

Committee letter to NIAPA seeking submission - 20 March 2001 ANNEX J

Annex A1

COMMITTEE for AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE TO:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
ON THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME STRATEGY 2001-2006:

30 March 2001

Rural Development Programme Strategy 2001-2006

Thank you for your attendance at today's meeting of the Committee . You will recall that the Chairman stated that the Committee would seek answers to a number of additional questions before it could finalise its response to the Minister.

The Committee has resolved to consider your reply at next week's meeting and I would therefore be grateful if you could provide a response by 2 pm on Tuesday 3 April, in order that I may issue it with members' papers.

As you know, the session was recorded for use in the Committee's Inquiry and I will forward a draft transcript as soon as it is available.

The questions are as follows:

Operation of the RDP Strategy

The Committee notes the inclusion of appropriate risk management as one of your guiding principles being in place in respect of innovative and experimental projects. However, this is a very complex area requiring specialist skills. Who do you envisage as having responsibility for risk management analysis during the implementation of the Programme?

You state that one of the challenges of the Programme is to lever a greater level of private sector investment and this indeed was endorsed in the Northern Ireland Audit Review. It is not clear from the supporting actions presented how precisely this will be achieved. How do you envisage this difficult challenge being met?

The Committee understands that, because the Programme will have to react to demand from local communities, the setting of firm targets is difficult. However, most of the actions proposed in the Programme are in the form of activities 'supporting' particular objectives. Is there not room in the Programme for at least a small number of measurable targets? For example, the Programme states that it will support a rural base-lining project to be undertaken by the Rural Development Council. Would there not be value in converting this into a measurable target by at least stating a target completion date for such output?

The Committee understands that the delivery of the Programme requires the involvement of a range of bodies such as the Rural Development Division, The Rural Development Council, and the Rural Community Network as well as the plethora of community based organisations and private individuals. While some of the activities have been attributed to a particular body, some have not. Would it not be valuable to highlight the lead body responsible for delivery across the range of support activities presented?

Links between the RDP Strategy and the EU Structural Funds

Can the Department clarify which Structural funds will actually support the Rural Development Programme? For example the RDP states that INTERREG III will be utilised, though this is not discussed in the paper received earlier by the Committee on Structural Funds which detailed rural development activities.

How does the Department envisage the setting-up of farm relief and farm management services, (under the NI Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity) and where is this indicated in the Department's Rural Development Programme Strategy?

The definition of 'Basic Services' under the NI Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity e.g. small-scale electricity/water provision, childcare provision, and under Priority 1 of the Peace II Programme e.g. ICT development and training for rural communities appear to be somewhat different. Both of these, the Committee understands, are the responsibility of DARD. Is there a difference, and if so will there be clarification on what can be defined as a basic service for funding purposes? Are both sets of "Basic Services" part of the Rural development Strategy?

Some of the issues referred to under 'Basic Services' infer the involvement of other government departments e.g. Regional Development. Will structural funds be diverted to finance initiatives that technically may be the responsibility of other departments?

There appears to be considerable overlap in the areas to be funded under the NI Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity and Priorities 1 and 2 of the Peace II Programme. When applying for financial assistance for an initiative that meets the requirements of both sources of funding, to which fund should an applicant apply?

Will there be two different funding application processes for each of these programmes?

Will an individual or group be able to make separate applications for funding to each programme for the same initiative/project?

Considering the overlap in the areas funded by Peace II and the NI Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity, is there room for rationalisation of administration of the funding programmes or do they have to be administered separately?

DARD has a total allocation of approximately £38m under the Peace II Programme. What proportion of this will be dedicated to cross-border issues e.g. community development, cross-border diversification, fishing and aquaculture co-operation as indicated under Priority 5 of Peace II? How much of this lies within the Rural Development Strategy?

Annex A2

COMMITTEE for AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

Response to Questions From:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
ON THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME STRATEGY 2001-2006:

3 April 2001

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME STRATEGY 2001-2006

Thank you for your recent letter. I have set out below the Departments response on the questions raised by the Committee, in the order in which they appear in your letter.

Operation of the RDP Strategy

The point that we are making in relation to risk management is that the reason Government intervention is necessary to regenerate rural areas is largely because the private sector is unwilling to invest due to the high risks and relatively low returns. If Government is to make a difference, promote social and economic advance and focus on addressing disadvantage, it has to be prepared to take risks that the private sector shuns. We manage the risk by requiring the preparation of an economic appraisal for each project and in appropriate cases a business plan. This process is overseen by the Department's economists. We will also be drawing on advice from consultants and the Department's accountants as necessary.

We are hoping to stimulate greater private sector involvement in the programme by broadening its scope. For example, under the 1994 to 1999 programme support was provided for local regeneration projects promoted by non-profit taking community organisations. Under the 2001 to 2006 programme support will also be offered for local regeneration projects and programmes promoted by profit-taking collective or co-operative bodies to address the economic, environmental and social needs of their areas. The LEADER + programme will have a specific focus on the micro-business sector and since the maximum rate of grant being offered will be 50% there is considerable opportunity to lever in private sector investment. The LEADER II Programme has already been particularly successful in this regard.

The strategy document sets out the Vision and Aim of the overall programme and the Aims of the individual elements of the programme. We have not included targets in the strategy because these have to be agreed with the European Commission and the monitoring committees for the various EU Structural Funds programmes which will co-finance the programme. The Programme Complements are expected to be finalised during May. As regards the rural baselining project which will be undertaken by the Rural Development Council this is intended to provide an on-going evaluation tool. Although the details have not yet been agreed it is likely that it will require a phased introduction over the early years and initially will concentrate on the development of an agreed list of appropriate indicators. It is likely therefore that the first phase will involve a pilot exercise using a limited number of indicators with a report before the end of the year.

Overall the programme will be administered by the Rural Development Division of the Department. That said I entirely agree that it will be important to ensure that there is clear "sign-posting" to the lead delivery agents for each element of the programme. The Department has engaged a specialist public relations consultant to assist in the development of a campaign to launch the programme including preparing easily understood documentation to guide project promoters to the appropriate lead body. DARD Rural Area Co-ordinators will also form liaison groups of delivery agents at local level and seek to develop a uniform "one stop shop" response to applicants.

Links between the RDP Strategy and the EU Structural Funds

The earlier paper provided to the Committee by the Department dealt only with the Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity and the PEACE II programme. It did not include the community initiatives, of which INTEREG III is one. I attach as an Annex a short paper which summarises the links between the various elements of the RDP and the Structural Funds. This paper is, by necessity, rather complex but I hope it will be of some assistance to the Committee.

The Committee has asked a number of questions relating to Measures in the Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity and PEACE II programme. The EU legal authority for the Rural Development Programme measures under those programmes funded from EAGGF derives from Article 33 of the EU Rural Development Regulation. Article 33 allows for measures relating to farming activities and their conversion and to rural activities. The Article consists of 13 indents which further clarify the kind of support which can be offered. To meet the Commission's legal requirements, the Rural Development Programme activities under the Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity and PEACE II programme have had to be transformed into Measures which conform with the Article 33 indents of the Rural Development Regulation.

The third indent of Article 33 relates to "setting up of farm relief and farm management services". Such activity can be supported under the Rural Development Programme either under local regeneration projects and programmes (page 31 of the strategy) or sectoral development programmes (page 33 of the strategy). The Department will seek proposals from appropriate organisations for the delivery of such services.

"Basic services for the rural economy and population" is the fifth indent of Article 33 and is being used as the legal basis for actions under both the Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity and PEACE II programme. The activities which can be supported under each programme are different and further clarification will be given in the programme complements. However, as I explained at last Friday's hearing, the Minister's aim under the Rural Development programme is to provide as flexible a range of opportunities as possible within the constraints of the EU legislation.

Rural Development Programme funds will not be used to substitute for programmes administered by other Government departments. The Programme will contribute to minor infrastructure works only where other departments or agencies are unable to meet the identified need.

The Department will provide guidance on the eligibility criteria under the various elements of the Programme. All the organisations involved in delivery of the Rural Development Programme will ensure that applicants are directed to the most appropriate source of funding for their project.

The procedures for the implementation of the Rural Development Programme have not yet been fully developed. Whilst there may be some difference in the application process for different part of the Programme to meet specific needs it is hoped that it will be possible to have a largely common approach.

Applicants will not be able to apply for funding for a project under both the Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity and PEACE II programme.

The Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity and PEACE II programme will have to be administered separately.

Of the Department's £38m PEACE II allocation approximately £2.5m will go towards cross-border actions. Around £220,000 of that funding will fall within the scope of the Rural Development Programme. Most of the funding for cross border rural development will come from INTERREG III. In addition some Rural Development Programme actions under the Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity and LEADER + are also expected to be on a cross border basis, although at this stage it is not possible to provide financial quantification.

I hope the Committee will find this additional information helpful in its consideration of the Rural Development Programme strategy.

Gerry McWhinney

LINKAGES BETWEEN RDP AND STRUCTURAL FUNDS

The EU structural funds programmes which will co-finance the Rural Development Programme are set out on page 44 of the strategy.

The Department has attempted to develop a broad and flexible programme and therefore has had to draw on a range of structural funds programmes.

The links between the RDP strategy and the structural funds are as follows:

• Capacity building (pages 28 and 29 of the strategy)
• Support for community development - Building Sustainable Prosperity

(Priority 4 Measure 7)

• Support for the development of regeneration projects - Building Sustainable Prosperity

(Priority 4 Measure 7)

• Institutional capacity building - Building Sustainable Prosperity

(Priority 4 Measures 7)

• Local Regeneration projects and programmes (pages 31 and 32 of the strategy)
• Support for local regeneration and projects and programmes promoted by non-profit taking community groups and collective bodies - Building Sustainable Prosperity (Priority 4 Measures 4,6,7,9,10 and 11)
• Support for local regeneration projects and programmes promoted by profit-taking collective or co-operative bodies - Building Sustainable Prosperity (Priority 4 Measures 4 and 6 to 12)
• Support for local peace and reconciliation projects - PEACE II (Priority 2 measures 9 and 10)
• Support for cross-border projects - INTERREG III
• Sectoral and Area-Based development projects and programmes (pages 33 and 34 of the strategy)
• Support for sectoral development projects and programmes - Building Sustainable prosperity (Priority 4 Measures 4,6,8,10,11 and 12)
• Support for area based development projects and programmes - Building Sustainable prosperity (Priority 4 measures 4,6,8,10, 11 and 12)
• Support for sectoral peace and reconciliation projects and programmes - PEACE II Priority 1 Measure 10, and Priority 2 Measure 9)
• Micro business development (pages 35 and 36)
• LEADER +

• Natural Resource Rural tourism

• PEACE II Priority 1 Measure 2

Annex A3

COMMITTEE for AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

COMMITTEE'S RESPONSE TO:
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT'S RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME STRATEGY 2001-2006:

06 April 2001

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME STRATEGY

In your letter of 13 March, with which you enclosed a copy of the draft Rural Development Programme Strategy 2001-2006, you asked for the Committee's comments on the draft strategy.

Thank you for arranging the attendance of officials at the Committee's meeting on 30 March. Members found the comments made, and answers given, by the officials both interesting and useful in their deliberations. Can you also pass on the Committee's thanks to Mr McWhinney for his very quick response to the additional questions forwarded by the Committee following the meeting.

At the Committee's meeting on 6 April, members agreed this letter as their formal response to your request. Members also agreed that comments should be noted as "without prejudice" to conclusions they may reach as a result of the current Inquiry into the Department's preparations for the next phase of the Rural development Programme.

The Committee's response falls under a number of headings.

Consultation

The Committee was pleased to note that the Department undertook consultation on this strategy over a period since 1997 and that so many responses (100 for the Programme and 44 on the LEADER + consultation) were received. The Committee sees this as confirmation of the importance attached to the Rural Development Strategy by the rural community. Members felt that the positive reaction in Europe to the LEADER + document was to be commended.

Flexibility and Expansion of the Programme

The Committee was particularly pleased by the officials' reference to the flexibility inherent in the Programme. In answer to a specific question, Mr McWhinney forecast that the Programme could respond to short-term emergencies because of its flexibility. Members will, of course, be interested to see how this might develop in practice but welcome the stated intention.

Members also welcomed the expansion of the programme from previous practice to include a wider variety of eligible applicants and to move away from a focus exclusively on disadvantage. The Committee accepts that disadvantage will remain a priority, indeed the new TSN policies would require such an approach. However, members believe that it is appropriate for non disadvantaged areas and groups to have access to a proportion of the funding.

Involvement of Farmers and their Families

Members noted the references made to farmers and farming within the Strategy, in Chapters 2 and 3 but felt that more specific reference could have been made in Chapter 4 as the five elements of the programme were outlined. The Committee was, however, reassured by comments made by Mr McWhinney throughout the evidence session. He advised that both individuals and farming collectives would be provided with opportunities through LEADER + and other parts of the programme, with flexibility the key.

The Committee believes that farmer participation is crucial, particularly if the programme is to gain maximum credibility and to prove that it is complementary to mainstream agricultural support and that offered by the Accompanying Measures Plan.

Members recommend that the Strategy should highlight the desire to include farmers, and the opportunities for inclusion, more clearly than is the case at present. Members also believe that DARD must provide assistance for groups such as farmers, who may be engaging with the programme for the first time, to enable them to compete with 'veteran' applicants for limited funds.

Rationalisation

The Committee, having noted the Department's commitment to rationalise programme structures, remains concerned that the structures may be complex and difficult to negotiate. Mr McWhinney spoke of bids from consortia to act as LEADER + groups, similar partnerships in each of 5 areas for the Natural Resource Rural tourism initiative and an area based approach which will "be in accord with" the emerging partnerships at Council level which will administer PEACE II funding. At first sight this would appear to be an over-proliferation of partnerships, whose accountability and membership may be called into question.

It would also concern the Committee that projects might be eligible for more than one type of funding. For example, Mr Morton advised that farm relief services might come under 'local regeneration' or "sectoral programmes'. Similarly, the Capacity Building element of the programme allows for the development of regeneration projects by Community Groups while the Local Regeneration Projects and Programmes Elements appears to allow the same thing. Flexibility is to be commended, but not if confusion might arise as a result.

The Committee does, however, note DARD's intention to prepare easily understood documentation with which to launch the programme and to guide promoters to the correct lead body. The Committee believes, however, that more clarity regarding lead bodies should be incorporated into the Strategy and more fully explained in the subsequent documentation.

The Committee has noted the explanation given regarding Article 33 of the EU Rural Development regulation, and how this accounts for the similarities in terminology used in both the PEACE II and Prosperity programmes. The Committee believes that clarity is vital in bringing forward a complex strategy such as that proposed, and recommends that DARD, in bringing its programmes to the public, takes great care to avoid the use of confusing terminology.

Co-ordination of Work across Departments

The Committee welcomes references to cross-Department co-operation and notes the close involvement of a number of agencies in the management of the Natural Resource Tourism Programme. It is clear to members that the Rural Development Strategy will require significant levels of co-operation and co-ordination between agencies. Members would urge the Department to lead this process energetically and to ensure that the strategy's customers are neither confused nor disadvantaged because of other agencies' involvement.

One area where the Committee sees co-operation as crucial is in liaison with the Planning Service. Members accept that DARD cannot take over this process but are concerned that laudable and promising economic diversification objectives should not be curtailed by an unfairly stringent response from the planning authorities. Indeed, in its comments on the draft Regional Development Strategy, the Committee made this point.

Risk Management, Appraisal and use of Consultants

Members have noted the Department's response to its question on risk management, and the onus on the Department's economists in managing risk. The Committee accepts that risk will be an inevitable part of any programme with regeneration objectives. However, members believe that DARD must ensure that the appraisal process will in fact recognise and identify risk. It must also ensure that staff charged with managing any risk so identified will be qualified and able to do so.

Members have noted the officials' comments on improved appraisal and will seek evidence of preparation for this as part of the Inquiry.

Members welcomed Mr McWhinney's assurances that the proper procedures would be adhered to in commissioning consultants. This is an area in which the Committee will retain an interest. There are always complaints from constituents about the amounts of money paid to consultants and the Committee would repeat its recommendation on the LEADER+ Programme, that close control should be kept on consultants to avoid abuse by, or over-use of, consultants.

Miscellaneous

The Committee has noted that individual targets will be agreed within the context of the EU Structural Funds Programmes but believes that targets should be published for the Strategy as a whole. This should be possible once the programme complements are agreed.

The Committee welcomes the introduction of an appeals process to this strategy and recommends that this includes an independent element.

The Committee appreciates the information provided in an attempt to explain the Strategy's relationship with, and funding by, the EU Structural Funds. It is indeed a complex picture and members agree that this complexity must not be allowed to become an obstacle to prospective project promoters.

While noting the Department's response on private sector investment, the Committee remains unconvinced that there is enough emphasis in the strategy on securing such investment - rather it is described, in the written reply, as a possible consequence of LEADER + funding levels. While funding levels in other programmes must be attractive enough to engage target customers, they must be set at a level which will ensure maximum leverage of non-public funds.

Finally, the Committee notes the Department's comments regarding staffing requirements and believes that DARD must ensure proper levels of staffing, allocated in a well thought out and effective way, to deliver the Strategy.

I trust that you will feel able to take the Committee's comments on board as you take forward the Strategy.

Annex A4

COMMITTEE for AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

WRITTEN RESPONSE BY:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

24 April 2001

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME STRATEGY

Thank-you for your letter dated 6 April providing the Committee's response to the Rural Development Programme Strategy 2001 to 2006 which I sent you on 13 March 2001. I welcome the constructive and helpful comments the Committee has made.

I appreciate that the Committee's comments are without prejudice to the outcome of the Inquiry into the Rural Development Programme and I will be making a submission to the Committee to assist it in its deliberations.

It is my intention to seek the endorsement of the Executive to the 2001 to 2006 Rural Development Programme Strategy as soon as my officials have completed their discussions on the Strategy with the Department of Finance and Personnel, following which the Strategy will be published. In the meantime I would like to respond to some of the points raised in your letter.

Involvement of Farmers and their Families

It is my earnest wish that farmers and their families will avail of the opportunities which the new programme will offer. My Department is preparing a publicity campaign to launch the new programme and the opportunity will be taken to encourage all groups which were under represented in the 1994 to 1999 Programme to participate fully in the new round. My Department will be considering how farmers, in particular, can be made aware of the opportunities which the programme offers and I hope that the farming unions and your Committee will support us by actively encouraging members of the farming community to become involved and to work up ideas and proposals in preparation for the call for applications. I expect us to reach that stage in the autumn of this year.

Rationalisation

I note the Committee's concerns about the over-proliferation of partnerships. Under the 1994 to 1999 Rural Development Programme there were 24 LEADER groups and 9 Area Based Strategy groups. Under the 2001 to 2006 programme I envisage around 10 to 12 LEADER + local action groups and 5 partnerships to deliver National Resource Rural Tourism (NRRT). At this stage we do not envisage creating any new area based strategy groups.

It is a specific requirement of the LEADER + programme that it is delivered by means of local action groups. The partnerships which will lead on NRRT will cross district council and county boundaries reflecting the geography of the areas targeted. We will encourage the targeting of Rural Development Programme finance in accord with the strategic Partnerships which are planned for each Council area to deliver part of the PEACE II programme.

The Department will be publishing a guide to the programme which will direct prospective applicants to the relevant contact points for advice on the appropriate source of funding for a particular type of project. I hope that this will minimise any potential for confusion. It is also our aim to have all publicity material written in a simple and easily understood style that avoids jargon and confusing terminology.

Co-ordination of work across departments

The arrangements which are being put in place to manage the NRRT Initiative are an example of our intention to ensure a holistic approach. The overall management of the initiative and policy co-ordination will fall to the inter-departmental Committee on Rural Development which is chaired by the DARD Deputy Secretary with policy responsibility for the Rural Development Programme. A sub-group of the Committee has been established, involving DARD, E&HS, NITB and DCAL, to co-ordinate the implementation of the Initiative at working level.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is the lead department for the Initiative and our Rural Area Co-ordination offices will work closely with the Partnership groups on the ground. The Partnership groups will be the main interface with applicants at local level. These arrangements should ensure that the involvement of a number of departments and agencies in this Initiative does not impact adversely on the public.

Risk Management, Appraisal and use of Consultants

I fully accept that it is important to identify, as far as possible, any risks associated with a project at the outset. All projects, except those involving funding of less than £1000, are subjected to the economic appraisal process in accordance with HMT and DFP guidelines. In the interests of proportionality, the level of detail required for the economic appraisal varies depending on the amount of grant aid being sought. However all economic appraisals for projects seeking grant of £50,000 or more are scrutinised by the Department's economists who also see a sample of appraisals for lower cost projects.

We are intending to adopt a different approach in relation to the use of consultants. Previously the Department provided funding to project promoters to employ consultants to undertake economic appraisals. We feel that a more independent appraisal will be obtained if the funders employ the consultant and we will be adopting this approach for the new programme. This will also allow more direct control over the quality of the appraisals provided by consultants.

Training on the appraisal methodology is afforded to all staff in Rural Development Division and the Rural Development Council who are involved in the process. The Department will also make this training available to LEADER local action groups and NRRT partnerships.

Miscellaneous

I note the Committee's suggestion that targets for the Strategy should be published when the programme complements have been agreed. It is my intention to publish a short summary of the Strategy together with the overarching targets, later in the year.

The details of the appeals procedures which will apply to the various elements of the programme have not yet been settled. The Committee's recommendation will be taken into account in the deliberations on this matter.

The difficulty in attracting private sector funding for projects in rural areas was acknowledged in the Northern Ireland Audit Office report on the rural development programme. Part of the aim of broadening the scope of the programme is to lever in more private finance. I fully accept that levels of grant should be set to maximise the leverage of non-public sector funding which is why grant rates are set flexibly, for example in terms of "up to 50%" under LEADER + and for local regeneration projects promoted by profit taking collectives or co-operatives. This allows the minimum of grant necessary to allow the project to proceed to be awarded.

I note the Committee's comments about staffing and I will return to this matter in my formal submission to the Inquiry.

BRÍD RODGERS
Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development

Annex A5

COMMITTEE for AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

COMMITTEE LETTER SEEKING SUBMISSION TO:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

13 March 2001

I wish to inform you that the Committee agreed, during its meeting held on Friday 9 March 2001, to undertake an Inquiry into the Department's preparation for the next phase of its Rural Development Programme. The Inquiry relates to the recent findings and recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee and Terms of Reference adopted by the Committee are attached.

This decision coincides with your request, in your letter to me of 13 March, for the Committee's views on the draft Rural Development Programme Strategy 2001-2006. I believe this consideration and the Inquiry will complement each other, and that through both, the Committee's views may indeed be taken into account as the Strategy is implemented.

I understand that you wish to reduce delays in implementing the new Programme and members agreed (at their meeting on 16 March) that they would discuss the content of the Strategy at their 30 March meeting. In order to give the matter their fullest consideration, members agreed to seek the attendance of relevant officials at that meeting and I would be grateful if you could arrange this. The exact timing of the session can be discussed between the Clerk and your officials. Members agreed that the early meeting would also offer the opportunity to address some of the issues for the Inquiry and resolved that the session should form part of the Inquiry. It will therefore be recorded by Hansard in the usual way.

There is not, of course, sufficient time for officials to address all of the issues, which the Committee wishes to cover in the Inquiry, by 30 March and the closing date for submissions is 4 May. Members have agreed that the main Inquiry evidence session involving the Department should take place on Friday 25 May, a date on which you had already agreed to set aside time to meet with the Committee, and I would wish to proceed on that basis.

A number of organisations, including the Rural Development Council, the Rural Community Network and the two main farmers' representative bodies are being asked to make submissions to the Inquiry. Other interested parties may also make submissions and a public notice and press release will issue later this week inviting them to do so.

Your general response to the issues raised by the Inquiry's Terms of Reference will be valuable. There are, however, a number of specific points on which I would seek your views.

Participation in the Strategy by under-represented Groups

The Department's response to PAC conclusion 4.5 states the Department's intention to encourage participation of the under-represented groups in the new programme. It specifically mentions the LEADER + Programme in this regard. The Committee, when it considered the LEADER + Programme on 6 October, welcomed the intention to include various groups, but asked that you consider what DARD might do to assist groups, including the farming community, to bring forward their proposals under the programme.

I would be grateful, therefore, for an explanation of precisely how participation is to be encouraged in each of the component parts of the new strategy. This would include a definition of "participation" i.e. are such groups or people eligible to apply directly as, for example, partnerships under the LEADER + and the Natural Resource Rural Tourism Initiative, or indirectly, as applicants to those partnerships? What help will be given to these groups to bring forward proposals, and to implement them? How will DARD assess whether the groups are participating or not? Has the Department set any targets for participation, or will it set targets for partnerships selected to deliver parts of the programme? Are the selection criteria for each component programme yet established, and if so, do they incorporate any weighting for the inclusion of under-represented groups?

Appraisal of projects in the new strategy

The Committee's interest in this regard stems from PAC conclusions 4.6 - 4.12 and 4.15. These conclusions cover the appraisal requirements, including the need for marketing and management needs to be taken into account during appraisal, and the requirement for an operating manual.

Given DARD's acceptance of most of these recommendations and the fact that DARD is now embarking on a new programme, the Committee now seeks evidence that the procedures, for each component part of the programme, include the proper level of appraisal and that an operating manual has been produced for each. Can you explain the definition of "larger projects" referred to in the response to PAC conclusion 4.6? An explanation of precisely how marketing and management considerations will be taken into account during appraisal is also sought.

Of particular interest to the Committee will be DARD's proposals to use consultants in the appraisal process, particularly in light of the DARD and DFP responses to PAC conclusion 4.12. The Committee seeks evidence that DARD has, in each of the component parts of the programme, established procedures for employing and managing consultants during the project appraisal stage, and that standards will be applied to their work. Where DARD selects partnerships to deliver aspects of the programme, will it prescribe the requirements for use of consultants by these partnerships and how does DARD propose to monitor this use?

DARD's response to PAC conclusion 4.9 contends that arrangements are in place to ensure that new and existing DARD staff receive appropriate training in appraisal. Can you provide details of the involvement of DARD staff in appraisal (for each of the component parts of the programme) and link this to the training they receive? Can you provide details of recent training provided to staff? Can you comment on the involvement in appraisal, and training, of staff who will be employed by partnerships that will deliver parts of the programme?

Rationalising Programme Structures

The PAC conclusion 4.23 referred to the Accounting Officer's comments about rationalising programme structures. Can you comment on how this has been achieved in practice, given the large number of component parts of the new programme? Can you comment on the exclusivity of each part of the programme with regard to the other parts e.g. could a project be eligible for funding under more than one scheme? If so how will the promoter assess which scheme to apply to? Will any of the component schemes be 'competing' for projects with programmes administered by other Departments or agencies? If so, will promoters have to satisfy two, or more, different funders' requirements? How will administrative costs be shared between agencies in such a scenario?

Resources

In following up the PAC conclusions, the Committee wishes to assess the resources which are to be allocated by DARD. Have you assessed the financial and human resource requirements of implementing the new Rural Development Programme? If you have, how do these compare to the resources used in the last programme and those currently available to DARD? If there are shortcomings in resource availability what effect will these have on the programme's implementation if they are not addressed? Can you describe how DARD will assign its people to deal with each component part of the programme and confirm whether or not any changes are to be made from the arrangements in place for the previous programme? Does there remain a resource requirement in finalising the previous phase of the Rural Development Programme? If so, how will this impinge in the implementation of the new programme?

In order to plan and prepare for the Committee's oral evidence sessions for this Inquiry, it would be most helpful to have the DARD submission before 4 May, which is the closing date for written submissions.

Yours sincerely,

IAN R K PAISLEY
Chairman

Annex A6

COMMITTEE for AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT

3 May 2001

In your letter dated 13 March 2001 you invited a submission from my Department.

Officials attended the Committee meeting on the Rural Development Programme Strategy 2001 to 2006 on 30 March 2001 and have provided additional information in a letter dated 3 April 2001. I also wrote to you on 24 April in response to your letter dated 6 April 2001.

I now enclose our formal submission to your Committee. As well as addressing the specific points raised in your letter of 13 March 2001 it sets the Rural Development Programme and the reports of the NIAO and PAC in context and gives a brief overview of the 2001 to 2006 programme.

Due to delays in getting the Structural Funds programmes agreed with the Commission we are not as far ahead with settling the detailed implementation arrangements as we would wish and consequently we are not in a position to give definitive answers on all of the points the Committee has raised. Nevertheless the submission attempts to be as fulsome as possible.

Officials are available to provide clarification if the Committee considers it necessary and I look forward to contributing as appropriate to the Committee's considerations when we meet as scheduled on Friday, 25 May 2001.

BRÍD RODGERS
Minister of Agriculture & Rural Development

CONTENTS

1. Summary of Submission

2. Background to the Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme

3. NIAO Review of the Rural Development Programme

4. PAC Report on the Rural Development Programme

5. The development of the 2001 to 2006 Rural Development Programme - the consultation process

6. Rural Development Programme 2001 to 2006

Specific areas to be considered by the Committee

7. Participation in the strategy by under-represented groups

8. Appraisal of projects in the new strategy

9. Rationalising programme structures

10. Resources (financial, people and other) to be assigned to the strategy

Appendix

Outline of the Participation of Women in the Rural Development Programme

1. SUMMARY

Context

1.1 At the time of its inception the Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme was an innovative approach to rural regeneration, which sought to ameliorate the adverse impact of market failure particularly in the most disadvantaged areas of the Province. It was unique in its genuine engagement of local people in the regeneration process.

1.2 The 1994 to 1999 programme has been acknowledged as an important vehicle in the drive towards the economic and social revitalisation of deprived rural areas. Many lessons have been learned through the administration of the programme and some of these have been highlighted in the recent NIAO report.

2001 to 2006 Programme

1.3 The 2001 to 2006 Rural Development Programme will build on the past successes. The aim is to create a flexible framework that can provide a broad range of opportunities for rural people to contribute to the regeneration of their areas.

1.4 There are five main components of the programme:

• capacity building (helping rural people gain the skills and experience to allow them to contribute to regeneration activity);
• local regeneration projects and programmes (support for economic, environmental and social/cultural projects brought forward by community groups, collectives or co-operatives);
• sectoral projects and programmes to provide support which can best be delivered through an area or themed approach;
• support for micro business development through LEADER +; and,
• natural resource rural tourism - a special programme targeted at disadvantaged rural areas with under developed tourism potential related to their natural resources.

1.5 The Programme is being part financed through a number of EU Structural Funds programmes, specifically:

• the programme for Building Sustainable Development
• PEACE II
• LEADER +
• INTERREG III

1.6 The LEADER + and INTERREG Community initiatives are still being negotiated with the Commission. The Programme Complements for the Building Sustainable Development and PEACE II programmes are being prepared. As a consequence the implementation arrangements for the Rural Development Programme have not been finalised and procedures are still in the process of being developed.

Points highlighted by the Committee

1.7 Given the current stage in setting up the Programme it is not possible to give a definitive response to all the issues raised by the Committee. Against that background this submission attempts to explain the current state of thinking in relation to the four areas of particular interest:

Participation by under represented groups - It is the Department's intention to encourage the participation of the farming community, women, young persons and the long-term unemployed in the programme at all levels. A range of approaches will be adopted to encourage wide ranging participation including publicity, making such groups a priority under LEADER + and specifically targeted sectoral programmes.

Project appraisal - The Department will continue with its current policy of requiring economic appraisals to be undertaken for all projects seeking funding of more than £1000. This requirement will be included in the procedures manual, which is currently being prepared. Specific training will be made available to all Department staff, and to the staff of agents delivering the programme on the Department's behalf, who are involved in the appraisal process. Where consultants are used to prepare the appraisal they will be appointed and monitored by the funders, rather than the project promoter.

Rationalisation of programme structures - The Department has had to take account of EU requirements and separate funding lines in developing the different elements of the programme. This increases its complexity. However, the number of partnership groups will be significantly reduced. A users guide to the programme will set out the roles of the key delivery agents.

Resources - In terms of staff numbers, the Rural Development Programme is relatively small and its administration costs amount to less than 2% of the Department's running costs budget. Increased staff numbers will be required over the next two years to close the 1994 to 1999 programme and start up the 2001 to 2006 programme. This work is ongoing.

2. BACKGROUND TO THE NORTHERN IRELAND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

2.1 In the 1980s, a range of Government schemes existed to support the development process in the rural areas of Northern Ireland. However, most of these schemes were focused on individual sectors of the economy and there was little or no co-ordination between them. Furthermore, the schemes were not designed to meet specifically rural needs.

2.2 In the late 1980s, work in both Northern Ireland and the European Community (as it was then called) highlighted the problems facing rural areas. 'The Future of Rural Society', a report published by the European Commission in 1988, accurately anticipated the pressures which traditional agriculture would face from CAP reform, the GATT negotiations and the introduction of the Single Market. It concluded that special action would be needed right across the European Union to tackle the particular problems faced by rural areas.

2.3 In Northern Ireland, a Rural Action Project, which had been supported through the European Anti-Poverty Programme, drew similar conclusions in its report, entitled 'Rural Development - a challenge for the 1990s' which was published in 1989. It also recommended:

• a bottom up approach to rural development;
• the formation of a rural development centre; and
• the creation of a specific fund for rural development.

2.4 The debate sparked by 'The Future of Rural Society' and the work of the Rural Action Project led the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to establish the Interdepartmental Committee on Rural Development in 1990. The Committee's task was to advise the Government of "the best way of carrying forward action to tackle the social and economic problems of the most deprived rural areas of Northern Ireland."

2.5 The findings and recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee formed the foundations upon which the current Rural Development Programme was established in 1991. The main elements of the Programme were:

• the creation of a Division within the Department of Agriculture which was given lead responsibility for rural development policy;
• the establishment of a Rural Development Steering Group made up of senior officials from all Government Departments;
• the creation of a Rural Development Council which was representative of a wide range of rural interests; and
• support for the Rural Community Network, an umbrella organisation for rural community groups.

2.6 The key characteristics of the Programme were:

• the creation of a balanced partnership which involved central Government, local authorities, rural communities, voluntary bodies and the private sector;
• an integrated approach which recognised the need to engage with rural communities and rural people and build their skills as a first step before providing financial assistance for projects and programmes; and
• a focus on disadvantaged rural areas.

2.7 The three organisations which have played the biggest role in the Rural Development Programme since its establishment have been the Rural Development Division of the Department of Agriculture, the Rural Development Council and the Rural Community Network. Each has its own role in the process.

• Rural Development Division orchestrates and co-ordinates rural development policy, manages the delivery and implementation of rural development projects, strategies and programmes and acts as an interface between the Rural Development Programme and other public sector bodies.
• The Rural Development Council provides guidance and support for community groups which are interested in economic regeneration projects, undertakes research and training activities on behalf of rural people and rural communities and advises the Government on rural development issues.
• The Rural Community Network articulates the voice of rural communities and gives support for community development through networking, community infrastructure participation in partnerships. The Network works in association with Sub-Regional Networks in the first stage of community development, building the confidence and skills of rural people and preparing rural communities for engagement in the regeneration process.

2.8 Although there has been considerable change in the rural development policy environment since 1991, the basic foundations of the Rural Development Programme - in the shape of the main elements, key characteristics and division of roles described above - have remained constant throughout its early years.

2.9 Another key point which has remained constant is the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's vision of the role of rural development in Northern Ireland's rural areas. The Rural Development Programme has never been seen as competing with, diminishing or replacing the important role which agriculture plays in the economy, environment and society of Northern Ireland's rural areas. Neither can it replace the work of the other public and private service providers who operate in rural areas.

2.10 Rural development has offered additional economic, environmental and social opportunities where agriculture is unable to meet all of those needs and helps to fill the gaps which other service providers cannot meet.

2.11 In the first phase of the Programme, between 1991 and 1993, Government funding for projects was supplemented by the International Fund for Ireland and the EU LEADER I and INTERREG I Programmes. These programmes combined to create a flexible funding base.

2.12 In total, 22 projects were supported during this phase. Two examples of these 'Phase 1' projects and the impact which they have had are:

• The Rural College - The College, which is based in Derrynoid Forest near Draperstown, develops and delivers training and development for community leaders, community groups which are working on regeneration projects and individual rural dwellers. It also delivers the MSc in Rural Development in conjunction with Queen's University, Belfast, to students of rural development theory and related disciplines. Like all rural development projects, the College has an impact on its immediate area, in particular by providing full-time and part-time employment for over 30 people. However, the nature of its activities means that it also has a wider impact over the rest of rural Northern Ireland by providing a focus for rural community development activities.
• An Creagan - Mid Ulster Enterprises (Creggan) Limited is a community owned business established in 1989 to implement a rural regeneration programme for the Creggan area. The area is one of particular rural disadvantage which engaged from the mid-1980s onwards in the community regeneration process. To date, the following projects have been developed.
• the An Creagan visitor centre, housing a restaurant, cultural/conference facilities, craft shop and interpretative exhibition, as well as office facilities for the company;
• 8 self catering cottages, built in traditional style and aimed at the tourism market;
• the "Peadar Joe Haughey" Farmhouse - the homestead of one of the last Gaelic speakers in Co Tyrone, restored to provide a recreational and educational facility; and
• a successful mushroom business leased into and managed by the private sector.

In total, these rural development projects represent an investment of over £1.5 million into the area, resulting in the creation of 37 jobs and a community business turning over in excess of £340,000 per year. The projects listed above enjoy strong local support as well as attracting considerable inward tourism into the area.

2.13 The current phase of the Programme covers the period between 1994 and 1999. Funding has been provided by the Department of Agriculture, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development Sub-Programme of the Northern Ireland Single Programme and the EU LEADER II, INTERREG II and PESCA Initiatives.

2.14 Each of the elements has an important and logical relationship with the others.

• Rural Community Development is the foundation for the process which makes up the Rural Development Strategy for 1994 to 1999. It involves the development of the leadership and managerial capabilities of rural people and community groups and the establishment of networks of groups.
• Community Based Regeneration projects allow local communities in the disadvantaged rural areas which have gone through the community development process and identified economic needs in their areas to formulate development plans and implement projects which promote the sustainable diversification of the rural economy and encourage the growth of local enterprise. The International Fund for Ireland makes a significant financial contribution to this element.
• Area Based Strategies provided highly adapted responses to the needs of disadvantaged rural areas. They are a recognition that not all of the problems of disadvantaged rural areas can be addressed by separate projects brought forward by individual communities. Therefore discrete rural areas which are experiencing particular disadvantage are identified and strategies designed to tackle that disadvantage are established. This spatial approach is gaining favour.
• The Community Initiatives, particularly LEADER II and PESCA, spread the benefit of rural development to a wider range of geographical areas and economic sectors by providing assistance which allows cross-border, innovative or small scale projects promoted by community organisations, individuals or private firms to obtain financial support and progress more rapidly than would otherwise be the case.

2.15 The 1994 to 1999 Rural Development Programme has started to put in place a clear infrastructure, both within the public sector and among rural communities, to support the development of Northern Ireland's rural areas, but the work which the Programme has started has not been completed. Each of the elements of the Programme has brought benefit to the rural areas, but each also offers lessons on how future rural development activities might be better designed and delivered.

2.16 Rural Community Development has contributed greatly to the increase in community activity in rural areas. It has also been central in developing the capabilities of rural people (and therefore community based organisations) to become involved in the development and management of regeneration programmes, strategies and projects. However, the community development process has not brought along all rural dwellers. Some groups in the rural population such as women, small farmers, the young and the long-term unemployed have been under-represented in the process and it is necessary to find new ways of promoting their participation in rural development.

2.17 Community Based Regeneration Projects have invested over £30 million into the most disadvantaged rural areas. This money has been provided by, among others, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the European Union, the International Fund for Ireland, the National Lottery and rural communities. These projects have been of enormous importance, not only in bringing direct investment, but also in raising the self-confidence and personal aspirations of rural people and thereby promoting the enterprise culture which is vital to the creation of a self-sustaining and broadly based economy in rural areas. This can be seen on a general scale in the case of the early projects which involved the renovation of derelict cottages to create self-catering tourist accommodation and in the longer term improve the vernacular housing stock. The example which these projects have set has encouraged the owners of other abandoned rural dwellings to undertake similar renovations. A more localised example is Phennick Cove Marina in Ardglass which has created a new market for local bed and breakfasts, bars and restaurants by attracting new visitors to the village. The challenge is now to find new ways of spreading these benefits to a larger proportion of Northern Ireland's rural areas and of bringing in more private sector investment.

2.18 Area Based Strategies have focused the attention of the Government on the needs of the most disadvantaged rural areas and, in doing so, they are helping to skew resources and investment towards meeting those needs. The strategies have been particularly important in involving local people in rural development - the strategies are drawn up by local people and managed by local people for the benefit of local people. Many lessons have been learnt from the implementation of the Area Based Strategies, including the need to focus more clearly on a small number of issues in each area to maximise the impact of each strategy.

2.19 The PESCA and LEADER II Initiatives have greatly enhanced the geographical and sectoral impact of the Rural Development Programme. LEADER II has provided significant amounts of funding across Northern Ireland's rural areas to innovative projects and programmes while PESCA is helping to diversify the economies of Northern Ireland's four main fishing villages which are located in County Down. The work of LEADER II and PESCA, along with the Area Based Strategies, has demonstrated the need to rationalise the local development structures in Northern Ireland's rural areas.

2.20 The main impacts of the Rural Development Programme to date have been:

450 community groups have become involved in rural development - many have cross-community objectives

178 Community animation programmes undertaken

Over 1200 rural people have successfully completed training and further education courses

73 Community based regeneration projects supported

60 new businesses have been created

465 full-time equivalent jobs have been created, safeguarded or maintained*

9 Area Based Strategies established in disadvantaged rural areas

15 Local Action Groups - partnerships drawn from the public bodies, private organisations and communities active in rural areas - established to implement the LEADER II Programme

8 Rural Collective Bodies have been funded to undertake projects to develop specific sectors of the rural economy

5 major research projects have been carried out into various aspects of the rural economy and rural society.

*This includes 170 full-time equivalent jobs created, 180 full-time equivalent jobs safeguarded or maintained and 115 person years of temporary employment created (using EU classifications).

2.21 Independent mid-term evaluations have been carried out on the rural development measures of the Sub-Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development, the LEADER II and PESCA Initiatives and INTERREG II. Among the key recommendations of those evaluations were:

• that the rural community development process could be further enhanced by targeting support towards emerging groups
• that the rural community development process should be maintained to create a 'reservoir' of groups which would drive the regeneration process
• that action should be taken to broaden participation in the rural development process by encouraging, amongst others, women, young people and farmers to become involved
• that the partnership approach to the management of Local Action groups and Area Based Strategies should be retained to take advantage of the range of multi-sectoral expertise which it offers
• that the wider geographical and sectoral coverage provided by the LEADER II Initiative should be retained

3. NIAO REVIEW OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

3.1 In May 1997 the Northern Ireland Audit Office initiated a review of the Rural Development Programme. The report of the review was published on 4 July 2000. [92]

3.2 The report concludes that the Rural Development Programme is an important vehicle in the drive towards the economic and social revitalisation of deprived rural areas in Northern Ireland. The report also identifies several key areas that the Department must address in order to improve the effectiveness of the programme. These areas are:

• the need for a comprehensive management information system to facilitate the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the economic and social performance of the programme and to demonstrate the value for money achieved
• the need for comprehensive and clearly documented procedures for the appraisal, monitoring and evaluation of regeneration projects
• rationalisation of the programme structures and delivery mechanisms
• the need to increase the level of private sector investment in regeneration projects
• ensure that all sections of the rural community are fully represented within the programme

3.3 The Department welcomed this report by the Northern Ireland Audit Office on the Rural Development Programme. Its publication was timely as work on the proposals for the new 2001 to 2006 Rural Development Programme was underway but has been delayed as new detail of the Structural Funds programmes are still to be agreed.

3.4 In considering the NIAO report there are a number of important points which must be taken into account. Firstly, the report primarily focuses on the early stages of the Rural Development Programme, essentially up to 1997. At its outset it was an innovative programme with no equivalent rural regeneration programmes anywhere within the British Isles. Northern Ireland was breaking new ground. It is only within the last few years that the term 'rural development' has become an integral part of mainstream government policy in GB and the ROI. Northern Ireland was leading the field in the genuine engagement of local people in regeneration partnerships. This work required sensitive risk management at the interface between community demands and the necessary bureaucracy attached to grant programmes.

3.5 The remit of the programme was to tackle both social and economic problems in Northern Ireland's most deprived rural areas. There are a number of key points here - firstly it was not simply an economic or 'job creation' programme, its remit was much wider and so when, for example, one attempts to compare the cost of jobs against other purely economic programmes one has to recognise that it is not comparing like with like.

3.6 The programme has always adopted a 'bottom up' approach. This works on the principle that local communities are best placed to judge what is needed in their areas for social and economic regeneration. The benefits of creating a sense of local involvement, commitment and ownership are invaluable in the process of sustainable rural regeneration. But working through voluntary community groups also presents considerable challenges both for the groups themselves and for government departments. There is a very fine balance to be struck between complying with the requirements of government accounting and avoiding swamping voluntary groups in bureaucracy. Accountability must, of course, always have precedence and in attempting to find the appropriate balance the Department may not have always got it right but, it was new ground and this was a learning process. As the NIAO report shows lessons were learned.

3.7 It is also important not to lose sight of the delicate social and political environment in which the programme operated during the early 1990s. The Department was attempting to engage with communities in a climate of political and social upheaval, and many of those communities felt alienated from both Government and the State and sometimes polarised locally. Against that background it is a tribute to the hard work and effort of the local Department staff that the NIAO has been able to report that 'the Rural Development Programme is an important vehicle in the drive towards the economic and social revitalisation of deprived rural areas in Northern Ireland.' and that '.considerable progress has been made.'.

3.8 The programme was targeted primarily at disadvantaged rural areas. A significant factor in that disadvantage was that the private sector would not invest in the areas because the risks were too high. If Government, through the Rural Development Programme, was to make a difference in these areas and offer a genuine hand of partnership to local people it had to take the risks which the private sector shunned. In many cases if the Department had not supported the project there would have been no regeneration activity in the area because the project was the only one which had support at local level.

3.9 It is the Department's intention to ensure that the lessons learned from the previous programmes, and particularly those highlighted in the NIAO report, are fully taken into account in the arrangements for the new programme.

4. PAC REPORT ON THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

4.1 On 25 October 2000 the Public Accounts Committee met to consider the NIAO report on the Rural Development Programme. The Permanent Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development together with some of his senior colleagues and the Chief Executive of the Rural Development Council gave evidence at the meeting. On 19 December 2000 the Committee published its report [93] on the Rural Development Programme.

4.2 Although the report focussed on the shortcomings in the Department's administration, the Committee recognised the potential importance of this programme and the positive impacts that had already resulted, including, for example, the extent to which it had succeeded in developing rural community networks and partnerships within rural areas.

4.3 In accord with normal protocol the memorandum response to the PAC report was presented to the Assembly by the Minister for Finance and Personnel, on 19 February 2001. [94]

5. DEVELOPING THE 2001 TO 2006 PROGRAMME - THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

5.1 In October 1997 the Department's Rural Development Division initiated a series of three workshops as the first stage in formulating the new rural development programme. The Rural Development Council, the Rural Community Network and the Northern Ireland LEADER Network were all represented at the workshops together with Rural Enterprise Division of the Department's Agri-food Service and Rural Development Division.

5.2 These meetings led to the formulation of a preliminary discussion paper entitled "The rural development programme in Northern Ireland. Proposals and opportunities for 2000-2006 arising from the European Commission's proposals for support for rural development." This paper was distributed in January 1999 to a wide range of rural interests including district councils, LEADER II groups, community groups and the women's sector.

5.3 The comments received in response to that paper assisted the Department in formulating a consultation paper "proposals and opportunities for 2000 to 2006 in partnership with the European Structural Funds". This paper was used as the basis for discussion on rural development at a public consultation conference on post-1999 Structural Funding held in Loughry College on 26 April 1999. The conference was attended by a wide range of rural interests including community groups, LEADER + and Area Based strategy groups, the farming sector, women's groups and district councils.

5.4 The first half of 1999 also saw a number of conferences/seminars organised to consider agenda 2000 and EU structural funds at which Rural Development Division participated to explain the thinking on the next rural development programme.

5.5 In May 1999 the Department of Finance and Personnel established a "Core Consultative group" to provide advice and comment on the development of the Northern Ireland Structural Funds Plan, including those parts which would contribute to the rural development programme. In November 1999, that group was replaced by an "EU Programmes development committee" which brought together in one forum the assembly parties, representatives of the local authorities and the key economic and social partners.

5.6 A written round of consultation was undertaken by the Department of Finance and Personnel in February 2000 on the consensus position reached by the Executive on the structural funds plan.

5.7 A consultation document on proposals for the Northern Ireland LEADER + programme was issued by the Department in March 2000. In June the Minister invited prospective LEADER + local action groups to submit summaries of their proposed strategies for their areas to inform the development of the new programme.

5.8 In September 2000 the final draft of the proposed Northern Ireland LEADER + programme was issued for comment to everyone who had been involved in earlier stages of the consultation process and the document was also submitted to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. Officials from Rural Development Division attended a meeting of the Committee on 6 October 2000 to respond to Committee Members' questions.

6. RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 2001 TO 2006

6.1 Through the 2001 to 2006 Rural Development Programme, the Department will establish a comprehensive and integrated Departmental strategy for rural development in Northern Ireland.

6.2 The intention is to create a Programme that will be able to tackle the widest possible range of needs and opportunities in Northern Ireland's rural areas and support the widest possible range of beneficial projects.

Vision Statement

6.4 The Rural Development Programme's vision for the disadvantaged rural areas of Northern Ireland is for:

"A healthy and diverse economic and social environment where the quality of life is enhanced by quality of opportunity."

Overall Aim

6.5 The overall aim for the Rural Development Programme will be:

"To promote comprehensive and integrated action towards the sustainable and equitable development of rural areas, and in doing so, contribute to the economic, environmental, social and cultural well being of the rural community for the benefit of the whole community of Northern Ireland."

Guiding Principles for Implementation

6.6 The programme will adopt eleven "guiding principles" for the implementation of the programme. These principles are derived from the lessons learned from the earlier phases of rural development in Northern Ireland and are outlined below:

Locally driven - Wherever possible, local people will be involved in drawing up and implementing local regeneration plans and policies. In rural areas, local people, including farmers and farm families must be encouraged to become involved and participate fully in rural development.

Partnership - The creation of strong partnerships involving public agencies, the private sector and rural communities has been one of the successes of the Rural Development Programme. The Programme will continue to develop partnerships

(a) at local level with communities and project promoters;

(b) at sub-regional level with key local players drawn together to develop and implement local strategies; and

(c) at regional level with Government agencies and representative bodies.

Equality of Opportunity and Inclusion - The benefits of rural development will be open to all rural people, and all sections of the rural community will be encouraged to become involved in rural development.

Reconciliation and Community Relations - In all of its activities, the Programme will take account of the effect of community divisions, and, where appropriate, will endeavour to tackle them within the context of wider social and economic development.

Sustainability - Great importance will be placed on social, economic and environmental sustainability. While respecting the environment and the natural resources, the Programme will endeavour to put in place programmes and projects that will have continuing economic and social benefits after grant aid has been exhausted.

Quality - The need for the provision and maintenance of the highest quality standards will be emphasised in all of the Programme's activities.

Integration and co-ordination - All of the Programme's activities will form part of an integrated and co-ordinated whole and will complement the aims and objectives of other regional, national and European policies and programmes.

Targeting disadvantage - The Programme will give priority to strategies, programmes and projects that address identified needs, whether they be in groups of people, sectors of the economy or geographic areas, to equalise economic and social opportunities across Northern Ireland.

Innovation - The development and promotion of new ways of tackling the needs of rural areas will be encouraged in all of the Programme's activities.

Context - All of the Programme's activities will contribute to the overall adaptability, sustainability and competitiveness of Northern Ireland. They will support and complement the work of District Councils, and other Government Departments and Agencies in ensuring the maintenance and provision of rural jobs, services and infrastructure.

Risk Management - Innovative and experimental work carries an element of risk. That risk will be recognised, assessed and managed in the selection, delivery and monitoring of programmes and projects.

Structure of the Programme

6.7 The structure of the programme emerged from the series of consultation exercises, which started in 1997, and a series of evaluations. The different elements of the Programme have been grouped under five headings.

(a) Capacity Building - to continue to strengthen rural communities through the provision of advice and financial assistance and to provide rural people with the skills, knowledge and experience which they need to play a part in the significant economic, environmental and social changes impacting on rural areas.

(b) Local Regeneration Projects and Programmes - to provide the resources rural people need to implement their plans to improve the economic, environmental, social and cultural conditions in their areas.

(c) Sectoral and Area Based Development Projects and Programmes - to provide support for programmes and projects designed to tackle the needs or opportunities of specific sectors of the rural economy, environment or society that can be best tackled by area based or Province-wide programmes rather than a series of projects in local communities.

(d) Micro-business development - this will be a focus of the LEADER + initiative in Northern Ireland. Local partnerships will be encouraged to test out new approaches to maximise the economic potential of very small businesses in rural areas, including small farms.

(e) Natural Resource Rural Tourism - a special programme to help Northern Ireland's rural areas take advantage of the particular opportunities that are presented by tourism in the context of greater political stability.

7. PARTICIPATION IN THE STRATEGY BY UNDER REPRESENTED GROUPS

7.1 In its report on the Rural Development Programme the NIAO recognised in paragraph 2.28 that not everyone within a community may wish to become an active member of a community group. [95] The NIAO went on to recommend that the RDC and the Department take steps to ensure as far as possible that groups are truly representative and that projects represent the result of broad and effective consultation within the community. The NIAO went on to record in paragraph 2.29 that some rural dwellers, such as farmers and the long-term unemployed, are not sufficiently represented within community groups.

7.2 PAC also commented on this matter in paragraph 4.5 of its report [96] saying: "We look to both the Department and the Rural Development Council to ensure, as far as possible, that under represented groups such as the farming community, women, young persons and the long-term unemployed, fully participate in the programme in future".

7.3 Both the Department and the Rural Development Council (RDC) have attempted to ensure that community groups are fully representative of the area. Public meeting are held, local audits are undertaken and groups hold annual general meetings. In addition direct advice and support has been given to all community groups involved with the RDC in finding ways to maximise inclusion in local development. However, it is a fact of life that not everyone within a community wishes to become an active member of a community group or indeed has the time to spare. Inevitably it tends to be a relatively small core of active members who drive a project forward.

7.4 These comments should not be taken to imply that groups such as the farming community and women have not participated in the Rural Development Programme to date. That would be incorrect. Taking farmers as an example, thirteen of the fifteen LEADER II local action groups have a farming theme in their local strategies and have supported projects brought forward by farmers. Two of the 'Other Collective Bodies' under the LEADER II programme, Family Farm Developments and Rural Development Services Ltd, are specifically focused on the farming community. Five area based strategies also contain a farming theme.

7.5 Some specific projects which have been supported under the programme include a small milk producers scheme involving 34 farmers in south Armagh, the quality assured suckled calf production and marketing initiative for the Teemore/Derrylin area involving 77 farmers and the Sixtowns Machinery Ring.

7.6 Similarly women have benefited from the Rural Development Programme through projects supported by LEADER local action groups, area based strategies and community based projects. An outline of this involvement is given in Appendix A to illustrate the extent of such work at local level.

Participation

7.7 In response to the PAC recommendation the Department has confirmed its intention to encourage the participation, in the 2001 to 2006 programme, of the under represented groups highlighted by PAC. The Department views participation in the context of the Rural Development Programme in its widest sense, including membership of partnership groups, administering programmes, involvement in projects as well as benefiting from the impacts of the programme.

Participation in the component parts of the strategy

7.8 In publicising the 2001 to 2006 programme the Department will endeavour to encourage participation by under represented groups at every level of the programme. The Department will be considering how farmers, in particular, can be made aware of the opportunities which the programme offers and it is hoped that the farming unions and the Committee will also actively encourage members of the farming community to become involved and bring forward proposals.

7.9 Partnership groups being established to deliver LEADER + and Natural Resource Rural Tourism will be encouraged to have a balanced membership. In this regard the Committee will be aware that the LEADER + programme states in Chapter 7, paragraph 8 that "The membership of the Local Action group must consist of a balanced and representative selection of partners drawn from different socio-economic sectors. The membership of the Local Action Group should show a balance in the representation of men and women and have a religious composition representative of the population of the area that it covers."

7.10 In developing the new programme the Department has provided scope for sectoral programmes which can be specifically targeted at such groups and it has specifically highlighted women, young people, farm families and the long term unemployed as priority groups for the LEADER + programme.

7.11 Rural Development Division is currently working with the Women's Resource Development Agency and six rural women's networks to carry out an economic appraisal and needs analysis on the rural women's sector to address the needs of rural women. The Department is funding the economic appraisal. The appraisal should allow a strategic approach to the development of an appropriate sectoral programme to meet the needs of rural women within the context of the Rural Development Programme.

Selection and monitoring

7.12 The selection criteria for the various elements of the programme have not yet been finalised. It is not the intention at this stage to set specific targets for the participation of specific groups or to weight selection criteria in favour of such groups. The aim is to encourage the full participation of all rural dwellers in the programme and the focus will be on the use of publicity to ensure that the opportunities available are brought to the attention of the widest possible audience. The Department has commissioned a private sector public relations firm to assist with the publicity campaign and this work is underway.

7.13 The monitoring arrangements for the programme have not yet been developed but it is the intention to monitor the involvement of under represented groups.

8. appraisal of projects in the new strategy

8.1 The NIAO report on the rural development programme recorded a range of concerns regarding the structure of the Department's appraisal process. The NIAO conclusions were based on the examination of 15 community-based projects from the early phase of the programme. Eleven of these projects involved support in excess of £1 million. To put this in context the Rural Development Programme has now supported over 3300 projects and the vast majority of these have received funding not exceeding £50,000.

8.2 In the early stages of the programme projects were assessed on the basis of business plans. As pointed out in paragraph 3.14 (ii) of the NIAO report in late 1995, Rural Development Division instructed its regional offices that economic appraisals were to be carried out on all projects, completed to standards laid down in HM Treasury guidelines.

8.3 The Division's current policy is that all projects which receive funding in excess of £1000 must be subjected to an economic appraisal. For projects with non-promoter funding of under £50,000 a simple appraisal is under taken using a proforma. Where funding of £50,000 or more is involved a more comprehensive appraisal is required and generally consultants are appointed to undertake the task. It is these latter projects which are referred to as the "larger" projects in the Memorandum of reply to the PAC report.

8.4 All full appraisals consider the management, structure and responsibilities of the group and where appropriate a marketing assessment.

8.5 The Department's economists oversee this process. They see a sample of proforma based appraisals and all appraisals for projects seeking funding of £50,000 or more. Appraisals for projects costing £1 million or more are also submitted to DFP for final approval.

8.6 This same approach will be adopted for the 2001 to 2006 programme. In addition the Department is making provision to involve its accountants in the process should the need arise.

8.7 The procedures manuals for the various elements of the programme are currently being drafted. The manuals will record the requirement for economic appraisals as described in the foregoing paragraphs and make reference to the appropriate Treasury and DFP guidance.

8.8 For the new programme a different approach will be taken in relation to the use of consultants for preparing economic appraisals. Previously the Department provided funding to project promoters to employ consultants to undertake appraisals. It is now considered that a more independent appraisal will be obtained if the funders employ the consultant and this approach will be adopted for the new programme. This will also allow more direct monitoring and control of the quality of the appraisals provided by consultants.

8.9 The Department will follow the guidelines set down by the Government Purchasing agency for the appointment of consultants and all appraisals prepared by consultants will be quality assured by the Department's economists.

8.10 LEADER local action groups and NRRT partnerships will have a grant ceiling of £50,000, so they should not need to employ consultants to undertake appraisals.

8.11 It is the responsibility of project officers, whether in DARD, the RDC or partnership groups to ensure that economic appraisals are completed in accord with Programme policy. For projects receiving funding of under £50,000 the project officers have to ensure that the proforma appraisal has been properly completed before the grant application is submitted to the assessment panel.

8.12 Training on the appraisal methodology is afforded to all staff in Rural Development Division and the Rural Development Council who are involved in the process. The Department will also make this training available to LEADER local action groups and NRRT partnerships.

9. rationalising programme structures

9.1 As part of its review of the Rural Development Programme, the NIAO conducted a postal survey of a number of the main representative bodies involved with rural regeneration - the Area Based Strategy groups, LEADER II local action groups and district councils - to gauge their opinions on the structure and delivery of programme. The NIAO records in paragraph 5.32 of its report that the survey suggested there is a need for structural rationalisation and a greater co-ordination between bodies involved in the programme.

9.2 The Department has sought to create a flexible programme which will provide as wide a range of opportunities for rural dwellers as possible within the legislative constraints which provide the basis for the programme. Much of the programme is co-funded through EU Structural Funds programmes, specifically the Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity, PEACE II, LEADER + and INTEREG III. As a consequence the Department has had to take account of EU requirements and the need for separation in developing the different elements of the programme.

9.3 The Department has endeavoured to simplify the programme as much as possible, for example by condensing the 8 indents under Article 33 of the Rural Development Regulation (which is the legal basis for EAGGF funded actions under both the programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity and PEACE II) into the three broad themes of capacity building, local regeneration projects and programme and sectoral projects and programmes.

9.4 The Department recognises the need to give project promoters clear guidance on where to direct applications for support under the programme and has commissioned a private sector public relations firm to assist with the preparation of a simple guide to the programme.

9.5 The Department has also recognised the need for structural rationalisation. Under the 1994 to 1999 Rural Development Programme there were 24 LEADER groups and 9 Area Based Strategy groups. Under the 2001 to 2006 programme around 10 to 12 LEADER + local action groups and 5 partnerships to deliver Natural Resource Rural Tourism (NRRT) are envisaged. At this stage the Department does not envisage creating any new area based strategy groups and intends to deliver this aspect of rural development in accord with the District Council/PEACE II Partnership Strategy groups which are coming on stream.

9.6 It is a specific requirement of the LEADER + programme that it is delivered by means of local action groups. The partnerships which will lead on NRRT will cross district council and county boundaries reflecting the geography of the areas targeted.

9.7 Applicants will not be able to apply for funding for a project under more than one element of the programme or under any other EU funded programme. In the event of a project appearing to be eligible under more than one programme the Department's Rural Area Co-ordination staff or RDC staff will provide advice.

10. resources

10.1 The Rural Development Programme is administered in DARD by Rural Development Division (RDD). In the financial year 2000 to 2001 RDD had on average 48 staff (full time equivalents). RDD running costs were £1.4 million.

10.2 In November 2000 RDD carried out an internal review of its immediate staffing needs taking into account the requirement for the orderly closure of the 1994 to 1999 Rural Development Programme and the further work needed to implement the 2001 to 2006 programme. That review identified the need for an additional 21 posts. Approval to fill these new posts was given in March 2001.

10.3 The deployment of staff within the Division will be much as it was for the 1994 to 1999 programme. There will be a Central Policy and Financial Management Unit to deal with all the policy aspects of the Programme and to co-ordinate the implementation of the programme. There will be three regional Area Co-ordination offices (based in Newry, Omagh and Ballymena) which will interface directly with project promoters and co-ordinate local delivery through interaction with the RDC, RCN, LEADER + groups, NRRT partnerships, other departments and agencies and partnership organisations, communities and private sector interests which are involved in local regeneration activity.

PARTICIPATION OF UNDER REPRESENTED GROUPS IN THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

APPENDIX

EXAMPLES OF THE PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN IN THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

CASE Women's Group covers the Strabane District Council and neighbouring cross-border area working to develop the capacity of women to fulfil their potential. Group members are involved in completing an innovative audit of their area which will allow them to identify ways in which they can help people fulfil their potential and make some contribution towards investing in human capital. Group members will be actively involved in completing the audit (with assistance from RDC) and will embark on an accredited training course to facilitate this. CASE's management committee includes women who are unemployed, looking after the home or family, pursuing full and part-time education and those employed full and part-time. The Group has recently secured funding to run workshops/classes dealing with social inclusion.

Acorn Women's Group, based in Augher, currently developing a childcare project;

Blossom Trust, based in Keady, currently developing a project to deliver services to adults with learning disabilities.

Granaghan Women, based in Swatragh implemented a small project to provide a pre-fabricated building for IT training, craft classes, health education, etc. to complement their pre-school provision.

rural community network

Capacity Building supports to women's networks

RCN has been involved in the design and delivery of strategic development workshops with a number of the women's networks including the Mid-Ulster Women's Network, Omagh Area Women's Network and Fermanagh Women's Network in association with the Women's Resource and Development Agency.

RCN have links to international Women's Networks including Women's European Platform, US Women's Groups and Eastern European Women's Groups.

Community Based Regeneration projects

Lakeland Community Care (LCC) - a rural community development initiative involving four small communities; Teemore, Belcoo, Garrison and Derrygonnelly which have come together and formed a company to offer day care and domiciliary support to elderly people who live in these rural areas. A general manager and a small core of full-time staff manage the company. However, it is providing part-time employment for 150 local women (between 15-30 hours work per week per person).

Leyland Fashions provides flexible employment suited to women with family commitments. The RDP has concentrated on creating employment opportunities for rural women and to increase their skills base.

Country Markets - a market development for locally produced food, craft and giftware supporting employment for local women in rural areas.

Mid-Ulster Women's Network under the MVDP ABS received funding of £20,000 from the RDP to secure premises for the provision of training, education for additional opportunities in preparation for rural women to return to work.

The Acorn Women's Group, based in Augher, Co Tyrone have received funding to put in place a forest school at Aughadarragh (3 miles from the border) that will offer pre-school, after-school and out of term childcare provision for up to 40+ children.

Claudy community and business Resource Centre - multi-purpose social and community centres including childcare facilities. Project will create 14 new jobs that will be attractive to women.

area based strategies

Moyola Valley Development Partnership - Fourteen playgroups and two after school clubs have received grants for a combination of training, equipment and refurbishment of premises.

South Armagh ABS. The strategy has directly engaged with women's issues through the provision of financial assistance towards the following groups:

• Women on Rural Development (WORD) - to assist in setting up an office base for Group
• Keady Young Women's group - to assist with a coffee bar as a social contact point for young mothers
• Little Bo Peep - Playgroup equipment and furniture

Erne East ABS has provided funding support for four new business proposals for local women:

• Pipershill Nursery - development of a nursery to help supplement the family farm income
• Goat Farming/cheese making - development of a goat farming enterprise
• La Couche nursing pillow - funding provided for marketing of pillow for nursing mothers
• Mobile creche - equipment for mobile creche

Western Sperrins ABS has provided funding support to Sharon Wauchob Designs for the manufacture of designer clothes.

leader ii

Coleraine Local Action Group for Enterprise has funded a number of projects which benefited women. These include Community Education for around 70 rural women. Funding went to many individual women to help set up businesses e.g. child care, self catering business, pet grooming, kennels, securing around 13 full-time jobs and 9 part-time jobs for women.

Rural Area Partnership in Derry has funded a number of Women's Health Information Days and courses through women's groups in the area. Funding has been offered to a women's group which hopes to set up a childcare network in the rural area.

North Antrim Leader Ltd (NAL) has funded training for Glens Home Crafts, a group of 52 Aran knitters (all women) from the North Antrim area who will earn in a spare time capacity. This cottage-based industry has been in existence for 10 years but now they wish to expand and develop to satisfy the export demand. NAL also contributed to funding for a child day care facility in Larne that benefited working mothers from the rural areas around Larne, Ballygally and Carncastle.

Magherafelt Area Partnership Ltd have funded 2 women to set up activity holidays, one a textile holiday package (making quilts etc) and another a language holiday (teaching English as a foreign language).

Cookstown Leader Action Group provided funding to Cookstown Women's Group to run a 'Positive Steps' course targeting women in rural areas who are economically inactive. They provide training in IT, business, confidence building, etc and provided childcare and transport facilities. They also provided funding for a partnership of women 'Farmhouse Collection' to undertake training in craft skills.

Armagh District LEADER's special initiatives were aimed primarily at Women. These initiatives were:

• Beekeepers Association - female participation in Training and education programme - capital assistance provided.
• Killylea and Country Markets - consortium of rural women promoting local crafts.
• YFCU - employed 2 female Development Workers.

 

• Armagh/Razgrad Craft Fair - transnational co-operation Female craft producers.

Craigavon Rural Development is promoting training, mentoring, marketing and distribution which they are targeting towards a "Rural Women into Business" initiative in conjunction with the local enterprise agency. They have also funded women in businesses e.g. B&B, Equestrian Centre for disabled, garden ornament business and strawberry growing business.

interreg ii community economic development measure

Cross-Border Rural Childcare Project

The project promoters are the Northern Ireland Pre-school Playgroup Association/Irish Pre-school Playgroup Association (NIPPA/IPPA). It is an Action Research and Development project, providing better quality and accessible child care provision to disadvantaged rural areas along both sides of the border. The rural areas targeted on the Northern side are Belleek, County Fermanagh, Donemana and Clogher Valley in County Tyrone. A range of childcare services meeting locally identified need is being provided.

ANNEX 7

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE TO:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

12 June 2001

Thank you for your contribution, and that of your officials, to the Committee's Inquiry into the next phase of the Rural Development Programme, at the meeting on 25 May 2001. I indicated at the time, that we may have further questions and these are as follows.

Terms of Reference 1: How DARD and the Rural Development Council will encourage full participation in the new strategy by under represented groups; particularly the farming community.

1. The Committee notes that no targets have been established with regard to increasing participation. While recognising that such targets are likely to be difficult to establish, should an attempt not be made to at least establish some form of quantitative indicators?

2. Your intention to monitor participation issues is noted, but the process has not been finalised. Can you give a timescale of when monitoring procedures for this important element of the RDP will be in place?

Terms of Reference 2: How DARD will ensure full and proper appraisal of all projects developed through the new strategy, including an assessment of staff training in appraisal, the use of consultants in appraisal and inclusion of marketing and management requirements in appraisal.

3. You state that there is provision under the new RDP to allow for DARD accountants to get involved "should the need arise". Under what circumstances do you see this need arising? What will be the remit and powers of the Departmental accountants should they become involved?

4. The Committee notes that training on appraisal will be offered to relevant staff. Will this training be compulsory and how will management set about reviewing and quality - assuring staff's appraisal work?

Terms of Reference 3: How DARD will rationalise programme structures within the new strategy, to avoid duplication of roles and responsibilities and competition with other agencies, and to ensure clarity for the strategy's customers.

5. The RCN indicated that it believed there was still opportunity for better dialogue and integration within DARD in order to optimise Rural Development opportunities and even suggested that a Rural White Paper was required to determine a new direction for the countryside. To what extent has the ethos of 'rural proofing' been adopted within the Department? Have you identified room for more integration between sections in the Department?

6. What role will the Rural Enterprise Division play in the delivery of the Programme?

I would be grateful if you could provide a response as soon as possible, preferably within the next two weeks.

ANNEX A8

COMMITTEE for AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

27 June 2001

You wrote to me on 12 June with regard to a number of further questions about the implementation of the 2001 to 2006 rural development programme. The questions and my responses are set out below.

I hope the Committee finds this additional information of assistance.

BRÍD RODGERS
Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development

Question One

Q. The Committee notes that no targets have been established with regard to increasing participation. While recognising that such targets are likely to be difficult to establish, should an attempt not be made to at least establish some form of quantitative indicators?

A. It is my intention to actively promote and monitor the engagement of women, young people, long term unemployed and farmers participating in the programme. I do not intend to establish targets as participation in the programme depends largely on the proposals that are made to the Department.

Question Two

Q. Your intention to monitor participation issues is noted, but the process has not been finalised. Can you give a timescale of when monitoring procedures for this important element of the RDP will be in place?

A. The Department hopes to be in a position to publicly launch the new Rural Development Programme during September. New procedures will be in place before programme delivery commences.

Question Three

Q. You state that there is provision under the new RDP to allow for DARD accountants to get involved "should the need arise". Under what circumstances do you see this need arising? What will be the remit and powers of the Departmental accountants should they become involved?

A. The Departmental accountant's role is to provide advice for consideration by the project assessment panels. The advice of the accountant will be sought if the project staff of RDD or its agents, the Department's economists or the assessment panels consider that additional accountancy advice is needed on any aspect of an appraisal or business plan.

Question Four

Q. The Committee notes that training on appraisal will be offered to relevant staff. Will this training be compulsory and how will management set about reviewing and quality - assuring staff's appraisal work?

A. It will be a requirement that all staff involved in the appraisal process receive appropriate training. The quality of work related to appraisals will be overseen by the Department's economists who see a sample of project appraisals for grant of up to £50,000 and appraisals for all projects involving grant of more that £50,000.

Question Five

Q. The RCN indicated that it believed there was still opportunity for better dialogue and integration within DARD in order to optimise Rural Development opportunities and even suggested that a Rural White Paper was required to determine a new direction for the countryside. To what extent has the ethos of 'rural proofing' been adopted within the Department? Have you identified room for more integration between sections in the Department?

A. The preparation of a rural White Paper would involve a number of government departments and therefore would have to be considered by the Executive in the context of the Programme for Government. However, what I am committed to is the concept of Rural Proofing, and to this end I propose to establish a Rural Proofing Unit within my Department. Unfortunately the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease has severely hampered progress but I will be returning to this issue over the next few months.

The Department acts as a corporate body and works to maximise co-ordination across its activities. Given the growing prominence of the non-agricultural sectors of the rural economy, it recognises the need to ensure clarity in relation to roles and responsibilities. Working groups at both policy and implementation level have been meeting and will continue to meet with the objective of ensuring co-ordination and complementarity across the range of activities being funded under the 2000-2006 Structural Funds.

Question Six

Q. What role will the Rural Enterprise Division play in the delivery of the Programme?

A. Rural Enterprise Division, in co-operation with Rural Development Division, will encourage farmers to consider the opportunities in the programme and assist farmers to develop plans to access the programme.

ANNEX A9

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

REQUEST FOR UPDATE FROM THE COMMITTEE TO:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

18 January 2002

You will recall that the Committee embarked on an Inquiry, in March 2001, into the preparation for the next phase of the Rural Development Programme (RDP), as a follow-up to the report on the Programme published by the Public Accounts Committee. Written and oral evidence was taken from the Department and other organisations, and this process was completed in late June 2001.

The Committee decided to concentrate on bringing its other Inquiry, into aspects of the Livestock and Meat Commission, to a conclusion and has only now been able to return to the RDP. The Committee discussed the Inquiry at its meeting today and members acknowledged that much has occurred regarding the launch and implementation of the Programme since June.

Members were content that the Inquiry remains relevant and important, but agreed that they must seek updates on a number of matters raised in evidence, and take account of the new Programme's implementation to date, prior to reaching their conclusions. A number of issues are set out as questions which are attached, and I would be grateful if you could arrange for a response to them to be forwarded to the Clerk. In view of the nature of some of these questions, I feel it would be appropriate to seek a response within two weeks of the date of this letter.

Members also felt that the Committee's collective understanding of the new Programme, and of the Department's approach to it, would be better informed if the relevant officials could make a short presentation to the Committee. It was unfortunate that only three members were able to attend the Programme's launch in November. They have advised the remaining members that a video had been produced and the Committee has agreed that it would be helpful if this could form part of the presentation. The officials should also be in a position to provide clarification on some of the points raised in this letter. Members agreed to reserve a 'slot' on the agenda for their meeting on Friday 1 February and I would be grateful if officials could confirm their attendance to the Clerk as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative date.

I believe it is important that the Committee ensures that its findings are current and that the Department is given the opportunity to demonstrate that it has met commitments given to the Committee and to others. I trust that the Department will co-operate fully in this regard.

Yours sincerely

IAN R K PAISLEY
Chairperson

QUESTIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT ARISING FROM EVIDENCE GIVEN TO THE INQUIRY

Terms of Reference One - How DARD and the RDC will encourage full participation in the new strategy by under-represented groups, particularly the farming community.

1. The oral evidence and written submissions to the Inquiry appeared to identify a potential stumbling block for the participation of farmers' groups, particularly those new to the Rural Development Programme. Neither the RDC nor RCN appeared to be certain about who would offer early project planning support. The RDC's opinion was that additional capacity building support (which may come from the Rural Enterprise Division) could increase the number of collective proposals coming to the RDC from farm groups. RCN said that it would analyse needs of farmers and others but that funding would come from the sectoral programmes. Can DARD confirm whether or not the Rural Enterprise Advisors (to whom farmers are 'signposted' in the published document) are sufficiently resourced and skilled to provide capacity building support (including information on how to constitute a group) or whether it is the intention that the RCN will provide services to all new or inexperienced groups, including farmers' ones?

2. The Committee noted the RDC's intention to provide a "simple application form to establish eligibility" and to have a two-stage applications process. The RDC explained that a complicated application form can be an alienating experience for people and that field staff and others would provide hands-on support to clients with the form. This issue was not fully explored with DARD. Can DARD advise the Committee of its intentions regarding the project applications process for the parts of the programme to be delivered by Rural Development Division?

3. The Department has kept the Committee informed regarding the implementation of two important elements of the RDP, namely the NRRT Initiative and the LEADER + Programme. Having acknowledged the Department's definition of "participation" as including membership of partnership groups, it would be appropriate to establish whether or not the successful partnerships, which will deliver these programmes, have demonstrated inclusion to date. In documentation for both these elements, which DARD supplied to the Committee, there was a requirement of prospective partnerships to demonstrate that their membership reflected the main public, private and voluntary sector interests in the area concerned. The UFU suggested to the Committee that, in many rural areas, partnerships could not be said to represent the whole community unless they included farming interests. Can DARD provide information to the Committee on whether the four successful NRRT partnerships (announced on 14 November 2001) and the twelve successful LEADER + groups (announced on 17 December) all demonstrated that their membership reflected agricultural interests? If any did not, can DARD comment on whether, given the relative importance of agriculture in the area concerned, the Department's requirements in this regard have been met? Any further comment on participation by women, young people and the long-term unemployed within these partnerships would also be helpful.

4. In the Department's submission of 27 June, DARD clearly stated its intention to monitor participation in the programme of women, young people, long-term unemployed and farmers. It was also stated that new monitoring procedures would be in place before programme delivery commences. Given the Programme's recent launch, the Committee would ask DARD to provide evidence that such monitoring procedures are now in place.

5. The Committee has noted the list of information seminars to be held at a number of venues throughout Northern Ireland. Assuming these all took place, can DARD supply any information on the attendance at the seminars? Can DARD also advise whether or not there was specific targeting of invitations to the seminars (e.g. to farmers' or women's groups) and whether they were advertised widely in the press (including the agricultural press).

Terms of Reference Two - how DARD will ensure full and proper appraisal of all projects developed through the new strategy, including an assessment of staff training in appraisal, the use of consultants in appraisal and inclusion of marketing and management requirements in appraisal

6. The Committee received assurances from the Department that Procedures Manuals, which would set out the requirements for economic appraisals, will be available to staff in advance of the new programmes being launched. Can DARD provide evidence that these manuals are in place for the various different elements of its Rural Development Programme, and that the requirements for economic appraisal are clearly set out in each? The Committee would not intend to publish the Department's manuals but submission of copies (preferably electronically) would provide the clearest indication to the Committee that DARD's assurances had been met.

7. The Committee noted, from documents provided by DARD, that the call for applications from prospective NRRT partnerships was specific about the requirement for all projects to be subject to an economic appraisal. However, this was not the case when the call for prospective LEADER + Local Action Groups was issued. Indeed, applicants were asked to provide, as part of their application, details of the procedures that they proposed "for the appraisal and selection of projects and the criteria to be used." Can DARD comment on this apparent discrepancy?

8. In DARD's submission of 3 May, the intention was stated to apply a "grant ceiling" of £50,000 to LEADER + Groups and NRRT partnerships. This would mean that neither type of body should find it necessary to employ consultants to undertake appraisals. In the calls for applications, in neither programme documentation does there appear to be any reference to a grant ceiling. Can DARD confirm that the ceiling of £50,000 remains their intention?

Terms of Reference Three - how DARD will rationalise programme structures within the new strategy, to avoid duplication of roles and responsibilities and competition with other agencies, and to ensure clarity for the strategy's customers

9. Within the documentation issued by DARD when calling for applications from prospective LEADER+ Groups, there is a clear indication that support can be given to farm diversification projects, but not to projects of a type that may be supported by a separate programme, being implemented by the Agri-food Development Service. This would appear to leave prospective beneficiaries uncertain as to the more appropriate funding route. The Department's 'signpost document' simply states that micro-business development (i.e. LEADER +) "includes small farms and farm diversification projects." Can DARD comment on this apparent lack of clarity for what is a target sector?

Terms of Reference Four - what resources (financial, people and other) DARD will assign to the Strategy's delivery and how they will be assigned

10. During the evidence session on 25 May 2001, the identified need for 21 additional staff (over and above the then current figure of 48) was highlighted. The Committee heard that approval had been given, in March 2001, to fill the 21 posts. Can DARD advise the Committee on the current position regarding these posts?

11. In the RDC's submission to the Inquiry (3 May) that organisation advised that it had prepared budgets for the full programme period and awaited DARD's approval. The RDC went on to state that it was content that it could deliver its aspects of the Rural Development Programme if the submitted bid was approved. Can DARD confirm whether or not it has approved these budgets?

ANNEX A10

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

WRITTEN UPDATE FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

14 February 2002

Further to my letter of 31 January responses to the questions annexed to your letter of 18 January are attached.

I hope the Committee finds this further information of assistance and I look forward to seeing the report on the Committee's Inquiry.

BRÍD RODGERS
Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development

Q. Can DARD confirm whether or not the Rural Enterprise Advisors (to whom farmers are 'signposted' in the published document) are sufficiently resourced and skilled to provide capacity building support (including information on how to constitute a group) or whether it is the intention that RCN will provide services to all new or inexperienced groups, including farmers' ones?

Farmers are signposted to the Rural Enterprise Advisors as a source of information on how to avail of funding under the programme.

The Rural Enterprise Advisors are not resourced to provide capacity building support beyond the scope of their own current programme - but through their liaison with Rural Development staff they can guide towards other potential sources of help.

Rural Enterprise Advisors already work with around 50 existing groups and have been helping these groups build their capacity over a period of time. Rural Enterprise Advisors continue to mentor these groups as they consider strategies to avail of rural development funding. Some of these have advance to specific project proposals.

Rural Enterprise Advisors are currently developing a Diversification Challenge programme which will be of benefit to farmers wishing to diversify from mainstream farming. This challenge programme will complement the funding support for diversification under the various Structural Funds and Community Initiatives.

While Rural Enterprise Advisors have insufficient resources to capacity build a large number of new groups on an individual basis, they are currently investigating the provision of a Group Start-up course for farmer groups, this spring (March/April). It is the intention to deliver the course to group representatives on a collective basis and in a number of locations throughout Northern Ireland.

The Group Start-up course should include:-

• Group constitution
• Group objectives, needs analysis, membership etc
• Potential sources of funds
• Application procedures
• Project management.

The RCN provides capacity building training programmes for those interested in understanding and becoming involved in community development. Farmers can avail of this training although places are limited.

Q. Can DARD advise the Committee of its intentions regarding the project applications process for the parts of the programme to be delivered by Rural Development Division?

The application form is complicated and potentially off-putting. We are however linked to a mandatory two-part Structural Funds application process. Part "A" of the application form collects information common to all Structural Funds applications and Part "B" gathers information more specific to the type of grant and measure.

The scale of information sought is unavoidable, and required by Managing Authorities to meet Structural Funds management and control obligations. Much of the information has to be collected at application stage.

To assist the applicant, the Department provides guidance notes with its application forms.

While the application process is internet-based, the Department has arranged for a paper version to be made available on request.

Rural Area Co-ordination offices will give advice on form completion if approached.

Q. The UFU suggested to the Committee that, in many rural areas, partnerships could not be said to represent the whole community unless they included farming interests. Can DARD provide information to the Committee on whether the four successful NRRT partnerships (announced on 14 November) and the twelve successful LEADER+ groups (announced on 17 December) all demonstrated that their membership reflected agricultural interests?

Any further comment on participation by women, young people and the long-term unemployed within these partnerships would also be helpful.

Farming Interests

The five successful NRRT partnerships and the twelve successful LEADER + groups all have some farming representatives on the Boards. In some cases these may be farming union representatives, in others they are individual farmers.

Other Interests

Generally women are not as well represented as we would wish and in some cases we have asked groups to address this deficiency. However we have to recognise that there tends to be a real difficulty for groups in getting women involved.

We have not at this stage gathered information on the representation of other groups such as young people and the long-term unemployed and would anticipate their involvement being more likely at project and subsidiary programme level as the work rolls out over the next two years.

Q. The Department stated its intention to monitor participation in the programme of women, young people, long-term unemployed and farmers. It also stated that new monitoring procedures would be in place before programme delivery commences. Given the programme's recent launch, the Committee would ask DARD to provide evidence that such monitoring procedures are now in place.

Rural Development Division is currently setting up a central database to meet its detailed monitoring requirements, and this will record and monitor participation by priority groups, such as women, and young people.

We are still awaiting Commission agreement on some of the indicators, for example for LEADER+. The baseline study which has been commissioned for the Natural Resource Rural Tourism may also generate further indicators.

Q. The Committee has noted the list of information seminars to be held at a number of venues throughout Northern Ireland. Assuming these all took place, can DARD supply any information on the attendance at the seminars? Can DARD also advise whether or not there was specific targeting of invitations to the seminars (e.g. to farmers' or women's groups) and whether they were advertised widely in the press (including the agricultural press)?

Seventeen information seminars were held at venues across the Province. The events were held in conjunction with the Rural Development Council and the Rural Community Network. The Department's Rural Enterprise Division also provided representation at each event in order to disseminate information on funding opportunities to the agricultural sector. Over 2000 people attended these events.

The events were advertised one week in advance in provincial and some local newspapers.

Some 660 'expressions of interest' proforma were subsequently received.

Rural Development Division staff have subsequently had a series (around 30) meetings with groups of or representatives of farmers. Over 500 people have participated.

This is an ongoing process and over the next 12 months we will be holding further information events, targeting specific groups as necessary.

Q. Can DARD provide evidence that these (procedures) manuals are in place for the various elements of its Rural Development Programme, and that the requirements for economic appraisal are clearly set out in each?

The general structural funds manual prepared by DFP is now published on the Internet at the DFP web site. This includes a specific EAGGF section and a section on economic appraisals.

A call for projects has been announced for the Building Sustainable Prosperity Programme element of the RDP and the internal procedures for that element of the programme are in place. These include instructions and guidance on the economic appraisal arrangements.

These procedures will be forwarded to the Committee shortly. The Committee has confirmed that these internal procedures will not be published.

We are still working on our detailed procedures for LEADER + and Natural Resource Rural Tourism. Calls for individual project applications will not be made for some months. The Local Action Groups are preparing their business plans and NRRT Partnerships are currently preparing local strategies. They will receive instructions on the requirement for economic appraisals in their operating guidance which is also being drafted and which will be in place before projects get underway.

Q. The specific call for applications from prospective NRRT partnerships was specific about the requirement for all projects to be subject to an economic appraisal. However, this was not the case when the call for prospective LEADER + Local Action Groups was issued. Can DARD comment on this apparent discrepancy?

All projects will require an economic appraisal.

The guidance issued to prospective Local Action Groups was a general guide to help groups submit an application to act as a delivery agent under the LEADER + programme. It was not intended to detail the full requirements of the Programme.

The document issued at the time of seeking bids from prospective NRRT partnerships was a general consultation document.

The LAGs and NRRT Partnerships will receive instructions on the requirements for economic appraisals in their operating guidance which is being drafted and will be in place before individual projects are assessed.

Q. Can DARD confirm that it is still the intention to impose a grant ceiling of £50,000 on LEADER + groups and NRRT partnerships?

Under LEADER + a maximum grant ceiling of £50,000 will apply.

Under NRRT the grant ceiling will be £50,000 for community based projects and £150,000 for other projects, although in some specific circumstances a partnership may be able to offer a higher amount of grant with the prior written approval of the Department.

Q. Within the documentation issued by DARD when calling for applications from prospective LEADER + groups, there is a clear indication that support can be granted to farm diversification projects, but not to projects of a type that may be supported by a separate programme, being implemented by the Agri-food Development Service. This would appear to leave prospective beneficiaries uncertain as to the more appropriate funding route. The Department's 'signpost document' simply states that micro-business development (ie LEADER +) "includes small farms and farm diversification projects". Can DARD comment on this apparent lack of clarity for what is a target sector?

The Department is very aware of these complications. A group has been set up led by the Department's Agri-food Service to prepare explanatory material.

We are hoping to provide a flow chart, booklet or 'decision tree' which will simplify the programmes so that they may be more easily interpreted by farmers. The presentation style has not yet been decided and we may keep several versions to suit different ways of looking at the process.

What we are doing here is endeavouring to ensure that as many doors as possible are open to farm families against the complicated background of EU restrictions.

Q. Can DARD advise the Committee on the current position regarding these (21 additional) posts?

The number of staff in post given to the Agriculture Committee on 25 May 2001 was 48 and we indicated that we would be seeking an additional 21 staff to give us a total of 69 staff. As at 8 February 2002 we had 70 staff.

An external review of the RDD staffing position has been commissioned and is expected to start this month.

Q. In the RDC's submission to the Inquiry (3 May) that organisation advised that it had prepared budgets for the full programme period and awaited DARD's approval. The RDC went on to state that it was content that it could deliver its aspects of the rural development programme if the submitted bid was approved. Can DARD confirm whether or not it has approved these budgets?

The Department has approved the budget for the Rural Development Council to deliver the Local Regeneration Programme (non-profit taking) subject to detailed annual consideration.

Rural Development Division
Department of Agriculture & Rural Development

ANNEX A11

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

5 March 2002

Your e-mail of 27 February 2002 to Alison Morrow refers. Firstly it should be noted that the procedures are a working document that will be revised and updated regularly throughout the period of the Programme.

As you quite rightly point out in both written (3 May 2001) and oral (25 May) evidence, DARD stated that projects under £50,000 would be covered by a pro-forma economic appraisal and that those over £50,000 would have a more comprehensive appraisal, generally carried out by consultants. This was the case at the time. However DFP have since issued revised guidance that full Economic Appraisals should be completed for projects over £250,000.

In conjunction with Economics and Statistics Division DARD has made a policy decision that Economic Appraisals should be completed for projects over £150,000. The policy remains that all projects will be subject to an economic appraisal with a proforma being used for grants from £1,000 up to and including £150,000.

RDD is in the process of drafting a proforma for grants up to £1,000, which we will ask Economics and Statistics Division to clear.

The discrepancies in the wording of the Economic Appraisal proforma are being corrected.

Alison Morrow will amend the procedures in light of the above, can you please advise if you wish to receive a copy of the revised procedures.

ROISIN LILLEY
Rural Development Division

ANNEX B1

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

COMMITTEE LETTER SEEKING SUBMISSION TO:
RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

20 March 2001

You may be aware that the Committee has agreed to undertake an Inquiry into the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's preparation for the next phase of its Rural Development Programme. The Inquiry relates to the recent findings and recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and Terms of Reference adopted by the Committee during its meeting on Friday 9 March 2001 are attached.

The Committee agreed that it should place a public notice (in the three main regional newspapers) and issue a press release announcing this Inquiry, but that a number of organisations, including yours, should be approached directly to seek written submissions. The Committee is also seeking submissions from the Rural Community Network and the two farmers' representative bodies.

You will see from the Terms of Reference that the Rural Development Council is specifically mentioned in terms of encouragement of under-represented groups. This stems from the PAC conclusion 4.5:

"We look to both the Department and the Rural Development Council to ensure, as far as possible, that under represented groups such as the farming community, women, young persons and the long-term unemployed fully participate in the programme in future".

DARD's response was to state its intention to encourage participation of under-represented groups in the 2001-2006 programme and to say that there would be sectoral initiatives allowing support to be given to farm families, women and young persons.

The Department has provided its draft strategy to the Committee. I would ask you to provide your view of the RDC's role within the new strategy and to outline your proposals to ensure these groups' participation in RDC-led activities i.e. precisely how participation is to be encouraged. This would include your definition of "participation". What help will be given to these groups to bring forward proposals, and to implement them? How will the RDC assess whether these groups are participating or not? Has the RDC set any targets for participation? Are the selection criteria for the new RDC programmes yet established, and if so, is due weight given to inclusion of under-represented groups? What lessons in this regard has the RDC learned from its earlier activities and how are these being applied in the new strategy?

Your views on the remaining three Terms of Reference will also be welcomed, particularly on the whole process of project appraisal and the use of consultants for appraisal. This is important, given the PAC's criticisms and the RDC's involvement in supporting regeneration projects. Has the Department provided guidance on the appraisal requirements in the new programme? Is there an operating manual in place within the RDC for the new programmes? Are staff from the RDC trained in appraisal requirements? How will marketing and management requirements be taken into account when appraising project applications?

The PAC's conclusion 4.23 referred to the Accounting Officer's comments about rationalising programme structures, in the hope that confusion, waste and overlap would be reduced. Assuming you are aware of the contents of the draft strategy, it would be helpful for you to give the RDC's views on this. Are there too many component parts of the strategy? Will the strategy's customers understand what is on offer? Will the RDC be 'competing' with other agencies for projects?

In following up the PAC conclusions, the Committee wishes to assess the resources which are to be allocated in the new strategy. Have you assessed the financial and human resource requirements for the RDC in implementing the new Strategy? If you have, how do these compare to the resources used in the last programme and those currently available to you? If there are shortcomings in resource availability what effect will these have on the programme's implementation if they are not addressed?

I would be grateful if you could arrange to have your submission forwarded to the Committee Clerk by Friday 4 May. Members have agreed that an Inquiry evidence session involving the Department should take place on Friday 25 May. It is entirely possible that the RDC will be called to give evidence on that date, but a formal invitation would be issued separately.

Yours sincerely,

IAN R K PAISLEY
Chairman

ANNEX B2

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

3 May 2001

Thank you for your letter dated 20 March inviting the Council to give evidence to the Committee on the 25 May 2001. I am forwarding by E-mail a written submission by the Council which includes the documents referred to in this submission and addresses the questions raised in Dr Paisley's letter.

The Rural Development Council welcomes the opportunity to meet with the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. We are happy to discuss both the issues raised following the recent PAC Report and to examine how, within the context of the Rural Development Programme, we can help rural communities make a balanced and valuable contribution to the development of the regional economy over the coming years.

Rural Northern Ireland has faced many problems over the last decade and the agricultural sector in particular will need special attention from a broad range of agencies both inside and outside DARD if we are to recover from the current crisis. The Rural Development Council is ready to assist this process.

The Chair of Council, Mrs Joanna McVey, as well as The Director of Operations, Catherine Taggart, and Director of Programmes, Shaun Henry, will accompany me at the hearing and we look forward to entering into discussions with the Committee on these particular issues.

Yours sincerely,

MARTIN MCDONALD
Chief Executive

1 INTRODUCTION:

1.1 Attached to this submission is the Rural Development Council's Draft Strategy and Executive Summary for the period 2001-2006. The draft document was released as an issues paper in December 2000 at a conference addressed by the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development. Extensive consultations and bi-lateral meetings with a broad range of interest groups have taken place over the last few months (copy of consultation replies and meeting attached). The Strategy is currently with the Department for approval.

1.1 The Council's TSN Action Plan and draft Equality Scheme are also attached. These documents are all awaiting formal departmental or agency clearance and approval.

1.2 Operational Manuals are currently being prepared and are expected to be finalised over the coming months when budgets and procedures are approved by the Department. Drafts may be available for the hearing on the 25 May and if so will be circulated to the Committee.

1.3 Also attached is an organisational chart for the RDC that outlines a new staff structure developed following an independent review of the organisation carried out by independent consultants.

1.4 The Council is currently reviewing its Articles of Association and DARD Financial Memorandum to ensure systems and processes are updated for the new programme period. In particular Departmental approval is being sought to extend the Council's membership from 16 to 20 in order to fill some perceived competency gaps at a corporate level. A list of Council members, their nominating authority and areas of expertise and interest is attached.

2 CHANGES

2.1 Since January 2000 RDC has gone through a major change process in order to prepare for the new Programme period. This began in February 2000 when a major Progress Review was published (copy attached) as an in-house analysis of the Council's previous interventions. This document in many instances highlighted many of the areas of concern and opportunities detailed in the NIAO Report and subsequent PAC Report. The Council therefore has spent the last 18 months refocusing its efforts in an attempt to meet the needs of new programmes and to address the concerns raised by audit considerations and client needs.

3 QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE AGRICULTURE
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:

3.1 How will participation be encouraged?

The RDC will encourage socially excluded groups to play a full part within the context of new programmes. There will however be intense competition for limited funds among a range of groups such as farmers, women, young people, disabled, families with low incomes, ethnic minorities, victims and ex-prisoners. The participation of all relevant interest groups within a particular community will be the key target for RDC and those considered relevant for inclusion (within a particular project) will be identified by a community audit at the start of the process.

The focus for RDC programmes will be the community and collective 'not for profit taking' sector. Farmers therefore will need to focus on collective and integrated action rather than individual actions under RDC Programmes. At Departmental level farmers will of course be more appropriately targeted for individual support by The Agri-Food Development Service and at a programme level by Rural Development Division directly or through LEADER groups.

We will target the representative bodies of relevant socially excluded groups and request their assistance in informing their constituency about the availability of the programme. This will be in addition to the general publicity (media and mail shots) which will accompany the launch of the programmes. RDC intends to host a number of sub-regional information evenings to illustrate the opportunities for support. There are likely to be at least two calls for proposals and if any group is under represented in the first call particular emphasis could be given to targeting that group in subsequent grant rounds.

We have already met with representatives of The UFU to discuss farmers' interests. In addition, the consultation exercise carried out for the draft strategy has seen RDC interface with a broad range of rural interests.

The make-up of Council at a Corporate level also ensures that a diverse range of rural expertise is fed into the targeting of socially excluded groups.

3.2 What is participation?

Participation is not just about the number of socially excluded groups submitting proposals or receiving grant aid. It is about:

Information:	People are told what is happening
Consultation:	People are presented with options and their views taken into account before decisions are made
Deciding Together:	Agencies and the community working together to decide and identify what is needed and decisions are made together

Most importantly RDC's understanding about what participation is focuses on situations where as an Agency we step back and allow the community to take the lead in selecting and implementing projects or programmes that are important to them and provide them with the necessary technical support to function.

3.3 What help will RDC give to groups?

Applications will go through a two-stage process. Those applicants approved at Stage 1 will be offered development assistance to further advance their projects and the capacity of the group. In many instances many groups will have already received early community development or capacity building support from organisations such as RCN or in the case of farmers from AFDS.

On approval of grant aid the development needs of all grant recipients will be assessed and a training programme agreed with the group. The training will be modelled on the RDC's previous experience, including the Planet Programme and the workbooks developed under the Peace 1 Programme.

3.4 How will RDC assess whether groups are participating?

The application form will ask the group to identify which (if any) of the above named socially excluded groups are involved in the project. This information will be compiled on a database. The number of applications received and the number of approved applications will be monitored. In addition where project specific targets have been identified to increase the participation of socially excluded groups these will be monitored. This information will be publicly available and reported against regularly.

Ideally, social inclusion should start with strong, cohesive and inclusive rural communities. As an Agency our goal will be to encourage and monitor community projects which demonstrate broad inclusion in their inception, design, implementation and impact.

3.5 Has the RDC set any targets for participation?

At a Programme level DARD will set targets which RDC will be obliged to fulfil. These will focus attention on disadvantaged rural areas and specific target groups. In addition RDC's own Strategy, TSN Action Plan and Equality Scheme will provide a more detailed framework for grant allocation where the fullest participation of all the socially excluded groups within a particular community is the focus rather than the needs of any one constituency.

3.6 Are the selection criteria set? Is there weighting for socially excluded groups?

The selection criteria have been identified in broad terms (Outlined within Strategy). The detailed criteria have not yet been developed. As with previous programmes there will be significant weighting towards socially excluded groups.

3.7 What lessons has the RDC learnt in this regard, and how will they be applied?

Socially excluded groups need extra support during implementation - this is resource intensive. Previous methods of involving socially excluded groups have been effective, e.g. Peace 1 Programme. Our experience in the management of such global grant schemes has demonstrated the opportunities to develop trusting relationships and confidence within and between socially excluded groups, the potential to replace skills deficits and the opportunity to learn from best practice.

In order to maximise outputs it is however crucial that delivery bodies are adequately resourced to provide this added value.

3.8 Project Appraisal and the use of Consultants.

It is important that appraisal procedures are rigorous and presented in a user friendly manner that does not deter socially excluded groups from applying for funding. As with previous programmes, RDC will ensure an open and transparent appraisal process through Council committees and the use of key local informants external to Council. Decisions will be taken with reference to local strategies and plans at a District Council level.

The appraisal system will be fully documented within Operational manuals currently being prepared. These will ensure project appraisal and business plans effectively address marketing issues in economic projects. Staff members have already had some initial DARD training on economic appraisals and this will be augmented with focused training agreed through personal development and training plans for all RDC staff. RDC projects supported under new programmes will be of a much smaller scale than those previously supported under the first programme. Maximum grant allocation is likely to be £150k leading to total project costs of around £0.5m maximum. Most projects are likely to be much smaller scale.

The RDC, rather than the community group, will commission and manage consultants in the new programme. This will take on board the PAC concerns about the quality and management of consultants in the early programme period. We intend to introduce quality review procedures for consultants preparing economic appraisals, business plans and mentoring services to community clients.

3.9 Strategy Questions:

The Rural Development Programme targets a range of different clients (not for profit groups, for profit groups, individuals) to meet a range of social environmental and economic objectives. Support is also provided on a local or regional basis. This has resulted in a matrix of support provided by a range of delivery agents:

RCN

RDC

Rural Area Co-ordinators

Local Action Groups

Area based partnerships

Natural Resource Tourism Partnerships

The broad nature of the RDP objectives reflects the complexity of the issues facing rural areas. The range of delivery structures therefore promotes a high level of involvement in programme management from a wide range of stakeholders. The delivery structures assist in reaching the widest possible number of socially excluded groups and build upon the institutional capacity that has already been developed in the Programme.

The RDC believes its role within the new programme as the key support agency for local community projects and its policy role in developing a rural baseline will make a significant contribution to the rationalisation called for by the PAC and to the need to create clarity between programme delivery agents.

3.10 Will customers understand what is on offer?

There is need for a very clear communication strategy - there is a DARD team developing such a strategy, in which the RDC participates. The RDC, as part of its new staff structure, has also introduced a communications post in recognition of this need.

3.11 Will the RDC be competing with other agencies for projects?

It is the understanding of the RDC that we will be the only RDP fund managing agent for the 'not for profit' community organisations developing projects or programmes with a local impact. We are currently meeting with local district and sectoral partnerships to ensure complimentarity and clarity for the implementation period 2001-2006. RDC procedures will contain formal mechanisms for seeking local input to the decision making process for all applications.

The measures proposed under the RDC/RCN Peace 2 tender do include some retail measures that focus on the rural shop sector. The main emphasis here is on the collective actions of rural shops to achieve peace building outputs and of course improve their business outputs. This regional programme in association with the Wholesale and Retail Training Council NI should compliment local Leader 2 interventions across a range of Leader group areas.

3.12 Have you assessed the HR and financial resources required for the strategy?

Yes. RDC have carried out a full review of staff and has re-structured accordingly. Budgets have been prepared for the full programme period and await DARD approval.

3.13 How to they compare with resources in the last programme period?

In the Peace programme resources are broadly comparable with the previous programme. There is a slight increase in developmental support reflecting the increased emphasises on achieving peace and reconciliation outputs with the most socially excluded groups.

Within Objective 1 Programme, while there is no direct comparison given the significant change in RDC activities, we're content that if the bid submitted is approved then we can deliver the programme outputs

3.14 If there are short coming in resource allocation and how will this affect the programme implementation?

The resources planned to be allocated to rural development within DARD appear to be around 2-3% of departmental resources. This is a very small proportion of overall funds and just about keeps pace with the previous programme spend.

The problems and opportunities faced by rural communities across Northern Ireland will require interventions by a range of government departments working in a joined up way if we are to deal with the issues adequately.

RDC is satisfied that it can achieve programme targets if its current budget bids are approved by DARD. This however will need to be supplemented by co-ordinated action by the rest of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and indeed across all Departments in the years ahead.

MARTIN MCDONALD
Chief Executive

ANNEX B3

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE TO:
RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

4 June 2001

I would like to thank you and your colleagues on behalf of the Committee, for appearing before them on Friday 25 May 2001 as part of their Inquiry into preparation for the next phase of the Department's Rural Development Programme. The session was very useful and will help the Committee considerably when they come to consider their final report.

At the end of the meeting the Deputy Chairperson informed you that due to time constraints the Committee was unable to put to you and your colleagues all the questions that they had hoped and he suggested that these questions should be sent to you for a reply. Please see below a list of those questions, some of which were touched on at the meeting, and contain references to your written submission to the Inquiry.

Terms of Reference 1: How DARD and the Rural Development Council will encourage full participation in the new strategy by under-represented groups; particularly the farming community.

1. Once farmers are on board it will be necessary, as with any participant, to maintain their commitment. This may depend on the pressures on the farming industry at any time. Will there be sufficient specific support from the RDC for farming groups involved in the Programme, particularly in times of hardship, in order that their initiatives will be successful in the long term?

2. You have indicated that training for grant recipients will be modelled on the RDC's previous experience. How has the training changed? Will there be a focus on training for new applicants?

Terms of Reference 2: How DARD will ensure full and proper appraisal of all projects developed through the new strategy, including an assessment of staff training in appraisal, the use of consultants in appraisal and inclusion of marketing and management requirements in appraisal.

3. The RDC has positioned itself between the consultant and the community group for the new Programme taking responsibility for commissioning consultants rather than the community group. What is the reasoning behind this? Does it reflect an over-reliance on consultants by community groups in past programmes?

Terms of Reference 3: How DARD will rationalise programme structures within the new strategy, to avoid duplication of roles and responsibilities and competition with other agencies, and to ensure clarity for the strategy's customers

4. One of the basic foundations of the Rural Development Programme is that there should be an integrated approach that treats rural development as a process rather than a series of individual projects and programmes. Do the mechanisms of delivery established by the Department, the RDC and the RCN for example adequately facilitate rural development as a process rather than a series of individual projects?

5. As the key support agency for local community projects you have recognised the need for a clear communication strategy and created a communications post that reflects this. In practice how will this new post facilitate effective communication between the diverse agents involved in delivery of projects?

Terms of Reference 4: What resources (financial, people and other) DARD will assign to the strategy's delivery and how they will be assigned.

6. You appear to be broadly happy with HR and financial resources allocated to the RDC. Within your remit where will most resources be deployed?

7. While you are satisfied that you can meet your targets if current bids for funding are approved by DARD you call for a more co-ordinated approach by the rest of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development as well as across all Departments in the years ahead. Where in the Department do you see more room for better co-ordination?

ANNEX B4

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME.

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM:
RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

26 June 2001

Thank you for your letter dated 04 June 2001 raising additional questions. While I will provide responses on behalf of the Rural Development Council, I would however point out that many of the issues queried are within the responsibility of DARD. I am therefore copying this reply directly to them for information and the Committee may wish to raise relevant points directly with them.

Question 1:

Support for individual farmers will come from other parts of the RDP. Support to farmers acting under the auspices of "collective non-profit taking groups" will be from the RDC. Developmental support will focus on financial assistance to assist project appraisal, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The Rural Community Network will provide early project planning support to all groups, in terms of generic capacity building. DARD in general and AFDS in particular may provide project-planning support to farm groups through its Rural Enterprise Division and this issue needs to be raised directly with them.

Question 2:

Training will change, with the RCN focusing upon early generic capacity building (similar to the existing Planet 1 and 2 modules currently being delivered by the RDC, with RDC's focus as outlined in the response to question 1) and the RDC upon specific project and programme support.

The RDC will assess successful project promoters on their group skills and project implementation abilities against an agreed competency framework. The results of this

Development Needs Analysis will form the basis of a contract of support for delivery to the group. Once identified, support will be delivered through in-house developed training sessions, (eg Finance Matters, Community Building and others to be developed), mentoring support and the brokerage of both formal and informal training. It is anticipated that a pool of quality assured professionals will be available to organisations involved in RDP delivery from which to suit needs to providers. A sub-committee of RDP delivery organisations is currently investigating this provision.

Question 3:

The RDC's positioning between community groups and consultants delivering project appraisal will allow better management of resources and improved consistency of approach. It will also allow the community group to focus more on project delivery and less on managing consultants.

Before moving to full appraisal documentation (economic appraisal and business plan) through the use of consultants, summary "statement of need" reports will be prepared by the group with assistance from RDC's staff. Following assessment of these, and only where need can be demonstrated, consultants will be invited to move to full appraisal stage. While the RDC will of course operate within government guidelines on project assessment, given the size of projects targeted under the new RDC programmes, it is likely that fewer externally commissioned reports will be required.

Question 4:

While this is the primary responsibility of DARD, the RDC is proactively encouraging and contributing to the integration of rural development as a process. DARD has established a number of co-ordinating groups to look at the new programme and the RDC and RCN are closely involved in a number of calendared, quarterly, sub-regional network meetings of key partners to improve communication and co-ordination.

Question 5:

Each programme being delivered by the RDC will need to communicate effectively with its target audience. This postholder is preparing a coherent corporate communications strategy and action plan that will be in place before the summer. She is also a member of a Communications Liaison Group involving DARD, RCN and other delivery agents involved in the RDP. An integrated promotional programme will be launched in September, which includes common branding, simplified application forms and single entry points for information.

Question 6:

Our written submission already outlines the new staff structure for the RDC following a comprehensive organisational review. In general, our aim is to minimise administration costs (a centralised finance and administration section has been created to do just that) while maximising grant aid and development support directly to the clients we intend to serve. The RDC's role in policy and baselining as a contribution to effective rural proofing has also been given high priority in resource allocation.

Question 7:

In general, the RDC sees merit in more cross-departmental support for rural development as well as improved intra-departmental co-ordination. DARD could perhaps look at how Rural Development Division ands its delivery agents like RDC and RCN might be further integrated with the Agri-Food Service in general and Rural Enterprise Division in particular. Some additional early capacity building support to farmers from this area might increase the number of collective proposals coming to the RDC from farm groups.

MARTIN MCDONALD
Chief Executive

ANNEX B5

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

REQUEST FOR UPDATE FROM THE COMMITTEE TO:
RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

18 January 2002

You will recall that the Committee embarked on an Inquiry, in March 2001, into the preparation for the next phase of the Rural Development Programme (RDP), as a follow-up to the report on the Programme published by the Public Accounts Committee. Written and oral evidence was taken from the Rural Development Council, (RDC) and other organisations, and this process was completed in late June 2001. The Committee decided to concentrate on bringing another Inquiry to a conclusion and has only now been able to return to the RDP.

Members are content that the Inquiry remains relevant and important, but agreed that they must seek updates on a number of matters raised in evidence, in order to take account of the period since June 2001, prior to reaching their conclusions. Issues relevant to the RDC are set out as questions which are attached, and I would be grateful if you could arrange for your response to be forwarded to the Clerk. In view of the nature of the questions, I feel it would be appropriate to seek a response within two weeks of the date of this letter.

I believe it is important that the Committee ensures that its findings are current and that the RDC is given the opportunity to demonstrate that it has met commitments given to the Committee. I trust that you will be happy to co-operate fully in this regard.

Yours sincerely

IAN R K PAISLEY
Chairperson

QUESTIONS TO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ARISING FROM EVIDENCE GIVEN TO THE INQUIRY

Terms of Reference One - How DARD and the RDC will encourage full participation in the new strategy by under-represented groups, particularly the farming community.

1. In the RDC's submission of 3 May, you clearly stated your intention to monitor participation in the programme of socially excluded groups. Given the programme's recent launch, the Committee would ask the RDC to provide assurances that such monitoring procedures are actually in place and operational.

2. The Committee has noted the list of information seminars that were to be held, at a number of venues throughout Northern Ireland, as part of the launch of the RDP. The RDC was involved in these seminars. When giving oral evidence, the RDC stated its intention to have information evenings and road-shows, targeting representative bodies, including the farming unions and women's networks. Can you confirm whether or not the RDC intends to supplement the information seminars with any additional meetings?

Terms of Reference Two - how DARD will ensure full and proper appraisal of all projects developed through the new strategy, including an assessment of staff training in appraisal, the use of consultants in appraisal and inclusion of marketing and management requirements in appraisal

3. The Committee received assurances from the RDC in May that Operations Manuals, which would set out the requirements for economic appraisals, will be available "over the coming months". Can the RDC provide evidence that these manuals are in place for those elements of the Rural Development Programme for which it has delivery responsibility? The Committee would not intend to publish the manuals but submission of copies (preferably electronically) would provide the clearest indication to the Committee that the RDC's assurances had been met.

Terms of Reference Four - what resources (financial, people and other) DARD will assign to the Strategy's delivery and how they will be assigned

4. In the RDC's submission to the Inquiry (3 May) you advised that you had prepared budgets for the full programme period and awaited DARD's approval. The RDC went on to state that it was content that it could deliver its aspects of the Rural Development Programme if the submitted bid was approved. Can you confirm whether or not approval has been secured, and, if not, what you consider the consequences to be regarding the programme's delivery?

Annex B6

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

WRITTEN UPDATE FROM:
RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

30 January 2002

I refer to your letter dated 18 January 2002.

Terms of Reference One:

The monitoring of the participation of socially excluded groups within RDC's element of the RDP will be ongoing over the lifetime of the programme. The RDC is preparing to put in place a computerised MIS (Management Information Service) for both financial and non-financial aspects of the programme. This will ensure, in association with other monitoring mechanisms that the Department and the SEUPB may put in place, that proper information is collected and analysed to ensure programme outputs are met.

We are aware that our client base has been experiencing difficulties with the DFP web based application process. To assist them we have produced a detailed application pack with both form A and form B in manual format. These can be submitted manually and RDC staff members have been providing appropriate assistance. Attached at Annex A is the application pack, which provides clear and detailed instructions for submission of proposals to RDC programmes. This system has been welcomed by NICVA as the representative organisation for the community and voluntary sector. Attached at Annex B is a newsletter publication by NICVA, which accredits this process independently.

The Council has also, as part of a screening process under our Equality Scheme, commenced consultation on the selection criteria to be used for project selection. Attached at Annex C are the details of this.

The Minister launched the RDP in November 2001 and the RDC participated fully in programme roadshows for the BSP Programme. Prior to these, the RDC also participated in roadshows organised by SEUPB in relation to the Peace II Programme. These have been supplemented by a number of follow up and targeted events, which are listed in the attached Communications update at Annex D.

To date some 1800 application packs have been distributed across a range of interest groups. The RDC is obliged to meet EU and Departmental targets for spend and commitment and this has required us to have an early call for applications with a closing date of 01 February 2002. This will be followed by a second call around September 2002. Based upon the uptake in round 1 we will plot applications received/approved/refused on a geographical and sectoral basis. This will assist improved targeting for socially excluded groups within subsequent application rounds, starting in September. The feedback from equality consultation and screening will also assist improved targeting.

When combined with Departmental actions and proposals under other parts of the programme we feel that the RDC has done as much as it possibly could for its designated client base, within the given timeframe.

Terms of Reference Two:

I can confirm that the RDC has prepared detailed Operational Manuals for both the BSP and Peace Programmes. These are being forwarded electronically with this response.

Within the procedures provision has been made to ensure that responsibility for independent economic appraisal rests with the RDC rather than the project promoter. In addition, RDC staff members have undergone training on financial and economic appraisal techniques.

Terms of Reference Four:

The Minister approved the RDC's Strategy and Operational Plan on 15 November 2001. A copy of this approval is attached at Annex E.

I presume the questions raised require responses from both the Department and the RDC. This response relates solely to RDC's role in the new programme (namely the Local Regeneration Measure of BSP and a Rural IFB under Peace II - focusing upon the community and voluntary not-for-profit taking sector). I am therefore copying the response to the Department for information purposes.

I trust this clarifies the position in relation to the questions raised. The RDC will be happy to supply whatever additional information the Committee might require.

MARTIN MCDONALD
Chief Executive

Enc
cc Mr Gerry McWhinney, DARD

ANNEX C1

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

COMMITTEE LETTER SEEKING SUBMISSION TO:
RURAL COMMUNITY NETWORK

20 March 2001

You may be aware that the Committee has agreed to undertake an Inquiry into the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's preparation for the next phase of its Rural Development Programme. The Inquiry relates to the recent findings and recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and Terms of Reference adopted by the Committee during its meeting on Friday 9 March 2001 are attached.

The Committee agreed that it should place a public notice (in the three main regional newspapers) and issue a press release announcing this Inquiry, but that a number of organisations, including yours, should be approached directly to seek written submissions. The Committee is also seeking submissions from the Rural Development Council and the two farmers' representative bodies.

You will see from the Terms of Reference that the Committee is specifically interested in the encouragement of under-represented groups. This stems from the PAC conclusion 4.5:

"We look to both the Department and the Rural Development Council to ensure, as far as possible, that under represented groups such as the farming community, women, young persons and the long-term unemployed fully participate in the programme in future".

DARD's response was to state its intention to encourage participation of under-represented groups in the 2001-2006 programme and to say that there would be sectoral initiatives allowing support to be given to farm families, women and young persons.

Members will be interested in the views of the UFU and NIAPA in terms of the inclusion of farmers and their families. The Committee's main purpose for consulting with the Rural Community Network is in establishing best practice for the inclusion of the other under-represented groups mentioned and to ensure that this practice is adopted as the new Strategy is implemented.

The PAC's conclusion 4.23 referred to the Accounting Officer's comments about rationalising programme structures, in the hope that confusion, waste and overlap would be reduced. Assuming you are aware of the contents of the draft strategy, it would be helpful for you to give the RCN's views on this. Are there too many component parts of the strategy? Will the strategy's customers understand what is on offer? Will the Department and the Rural Development Council be 'competing' with other agencies for projects?

Your views on the remaining Terms of Reference will also be welcomed.

I would be grateful if you could arrange to have your submission forwarded to the Committee Clerk by Friday 4 May. A short guide to submitting written evidence is attached for your information. It is possible that the RCN will be called to give evidence on 11 May, but a formal invitation would be issued separately.

Yours sincerely,

IAN R K PAISLEY
Chairman

ANNEX C2

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
RURAL COMMUNITY NETWORK

4 May 2001

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This paper is the Rural Community Network's response to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development's request for submissions to the inquiry into the Rural Development Programme.

2. RURAL COMMUNITY NETWORK: BACKGROUND

2.1 The Rural Community Network is a voluntary organisation founded by local rural community organisations in 1991 to articulate the voice of rural communities on issues relating to poverty, disadvantage, equality and community development.

2.2 It is a membership organisation with over 500 members.

2.3 In the past 10 years RCN has worked to provide a voice for and capacity building support to local rural community groups and has also developed a rural community infrastructure of 12 Rural Support Networks across rural Northern Ireland.

2.4 RCN therefore has developed the networking and community base from which the voluntary and community sector can play an equal and well informed role in the partnership process with others in the Rural Development Programme.

2.5 The RCN Mission Statement

Our mission is to provide an effective voice for and support to rural communities, particularly those who are most disadvantaged.

2.6 RCN is active in responding to the following challenges:

• The challenge of putting forward and effective voice for rural communities that would be heard and acted on by policy makers so that rural poverty is addressed and that there is equity for rural communities.
• The challenge of low community infrastructure in many rural communities, and the need for local accessible capacity building support for community groups.
• The challenge of sectarian divisions, the "rural walls of silence" (Morrow. D et al, Reconciliation and Social Inclusion in Rural Communities, published by RCN 2000) and the negative consequences of 30 years of conflict in rural communities.
• The challenge of sustainability of rural communities, the rural environment, and the desire for a good quality of life in rural areas.

3. RCN ACTIVITIES

3.1 RCN prioritises action to support the full participation of under represented groups in rural community development and therefore welcomes this inquiry. RCN has experience of the challenges involved in achieving greater participation in community development by under-represented groups such as young people, women, members of the Protestant community, people with disabilities and the farming community.

3.2 This is currently addressed in activities throughout the organisation.

3.2.1 Publications Research and Information

Examples include

• Successfully targeting under represented groups (such as young people and people from farms) when recruiting for training courses in community consultation
• Finding creative approaches to community consultation to involve more women and young people than would normally get involved in traditional public meetings
• Involving people from under represented groups in the development of programmes that are aimed at them
• Developing training on equity, diversity and interdependence to assist groups and organisations to identify underrepresented groups and work towards greater inclusion
• Poverty Action Research to explore perceptions and experiences of under represented groups (such as women and farmers) and perceived barriers to participation
• Proofing publications, conferences, training and events to ensure under represented groups such as young people and women are consistently included

3.2.2 Programmes

3.2.2.1 Planning for new Programmes has been ongoing for several months and submissions have been made to the Department and other funders for financial support to deliver these Programmes. Applications have been made under both Transitional Objective 1 and Peace 2. Much of the thought behind the new measures has been informed by our experience of the Peace and Reconciliation Programme (Peace 1). We have been particularly keen to build upon the most successful elements of Peace 1 while recognising that improvements could be made both in inclusion of disadvantaged communities and in the delivery of the programme to certain sections of the rural community.

Following a review of participation in Peace 1 we identified a number of groups/communities that were less well represented in the Programme and have begun (or will begin the process during this year) to work with these groups/communities, encouraging them to identify their own needs and - more importantly - how we might support them in meeting these needs.

• Protestant communities living in border communities, with financial support from VAU we are working with four communities to look at the issues of 'social inclusion' and 'active communities'
• Rural women, especially those living in North Armagh, Down and Antrim, there is concern that women's groups from these areas are not participating in significant numbers. Together with DARD, WRDA and the Rural Women's Network we are part of a steering group managing an Economic Appraisal into the needs of Rural Women.
• People with disabilities living in rural communities. The lack of self-help organisations/activities for this sector of the rural community is a key concern and to this end we have included a project within our Peace 2 application.
• Young people living in rural areas. The lack of involvement of young people in the decision making process, and their drift into urban areas threatens the sustainability of 'traditional' rural communities. We intend to work with Youth Action and support their approach to work with rural youth.
• Farm families - low levels of participation in non-farming activities. We intend to review the issue of low levels of participation of farm families within non-farm activities - and would hope to deliver a Programme targeting this particular community.

3.2.2.2 Proposed Transitional Objective 1 Programme

• Networking Support. Developmental support to 12 Rural Support Networks (RSNs). The Networks cover all of rural Northern Ireland providing a range of services to their member bodies, currently in excess of 600 local groups
• Practice to Policy. Moving identified community needs onto policy makers' agenda, and ensuring that funders are aware of these needs when allocating resources. Work undertaken in this area to date includes the Low Infrastructure Programme and the Rural Housing Estates Programme. Future work will concentrate on issues of poverty, social exclusion and disadvantage.
• Community Education and Training. Building on the ethos of 'life long learning' we are working with community groups and educational providers to look at meeting the needs of rural communities within a community setting. We hope to encourage providers to negotiate directly with communities to identify needs and then use community centres/halls as learning centres. Other work in this area will include capacity building with new community groups, skills development for management committees, and reflective forums for community workers working in rural areas.

3.2.2.3 Proposed Peace 2 Programme

• Broadening the FrameworkEnabling community groups to 'take the next step' towards a more inclusive society. The objective of this measure is to support community groups previously funded to undertake capacity building activities within the framework of a single identity community to actively participate in and make a positive contribution to cross community work.
• Developing Civic Society - Tackling Social Exclusion. The level of social exclusion for some rural communities remains depressingly high, and for many the concepts of social inclusion, representation and civic democracy remain unrealised. One particular sector of rural society has been subject to exclusion for many reasons are people with disabilities. The objective of this measure is to increase the participation of people with disabilities through user led actions, thereby contributing towards making rural Northern Ireland a more inclusive society.
• Rural Mediation Service. This programme will build a Northern Ireland wide network of rural-based volunteers who will be trained by Mediation Network and supported by skilled mediators working for RCN. In excess of 100 volunteers have undertaken a two-day introductory course, and 45 have progressed to completing a six-day training course that explores further concepts and practices of mediation as a means of resolving conflict.
• Community Safety. Feeling safe within your own community is one of the key factors influencing your 'quality of life', and therefore community safety has become a major issue for many rural communities. It is proposed that a small number of 'community safety programmes' be established, jointly with the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO), to develop models of good practice for wider dissemination.
• Community Halls Advisory Service. Historically rural Northern Ireland has a large number of community halls, and this number has increased dramatically over the past five years. Unfortunately many venues are unable to cater for wider community use because of poor design, health and safety considerations, lack of management expertise or financial constraints. The programme will allow the Rural Community Halls Advisory Service to provide specialist support, advice and training to voluntary Management Committees enabling them to manage, maintain and provide a service to local communities. The areas of support, advice and training will include health and safety legislation, building maintenance, disability access and use, child-care legislation, identifying and meeting community needs and fundraising.
• North/South Voice. This is a Cross Border network that will be jointly established with Irish Rural Link (IRL) our 'sister' organisation in the Republic of Ireland. The programme will provide a 'bridge' for rural communities most affected by the 'troubles' of the last 30 years, those who live on or near the border and whose natural community is divided by the border.

4. RESPONSE TO THE COMMITTEE'S QUESTIONS

4.1.1 Background

22% of the people of Northern Ireland live in the open countryside. Over 40% can be considered rural. Agriculture is extremely important in Northern Ireland and as the Foot and Mouth Disease has ably demonstrated touches the lives of the vast majority of the population. However, the majority of people living in the countryside are not involved in agriculture. Through the 'Shaping our Future' consultations RCN established the desire for rural people to have a living and working countryside and lobbied for equality of opportunity and equity across the region.

4.1.2 Given the ongoing crisis in agriculture and stresses within rural society it is logical to pursue any future for the countryside which is framed within the concept of a total resource, envisaging rural communities and rural areas as an asset to the whole society encompassing social, cultural, economic and environmental integration.

4.1.3 The proposals set out within the new Rural Development Programme will represent approximately 3% of the spend on agriculture. While criticisms of the past Rural Development Programmes have been highlighted, comments on the positive aspects of the Programme such as networking have received little publicity. Insofar as the details of the next Rural Development Programme are known RCN endorses the integrated approach now envisaged within this Programme across social, cultural, economic and environmental initiatives.

4.2 The Programme (Q1)

4.2.1 The Programme sets out initiatives relating to capacity building, projects and programmes and sectoral themes. This paper has already set out some of the initiatives that RCN will undertake under the theme of capacity building. Central to this is the further support for the infrastructure of sub-regional Rural Support Networks which will further develop the capacity of community groups in rural areas, encourage the inclusion of marginalized groups as those mentioned - farming community, women, young people and long term unemployed and in addition many other groupings not mentioned such as those with disability and other groupings under the Equality Legislation.

4.2.2 It is envisaged that 12 Rural Support Networks will cover all rural areas in Northern Ireland and that these networks will play an active role in partnerships. This networking infrastructure will provide support to community groups at local level. It is our understanding that if the programmes are approved the RDC will deliver support to programmes and projects entering the social economy. These will be delivered under the Social, Economic and Environmental themes.

4.3 Appraisal (Q2)

4.3.1 We understand that such projects and programmes will be assessed in a transparent manner against criteria and technical assistance and training will be available to assist with the more technical aspects of project development. The Department itself will work with profit taking groups. The programme, if approved, will allow for a wide range of groups including those already mentioned to become involved.

4.3.2 The issue of sectoral initiatives that allows a more targeted and dedicated approach to particular groupings is of key importance over the lifetime of the programme as yet the details of these sectoral areas have yet to be confirmed.

4.3.3 A number of initiatives are currently under consideration, for example, a rural housing estates programme, a strategy for the women's sector, a young person's initiative, and training and education.

4.3.4 We would like to welcome the commitment by the Department to New TSN and Equality considerations and the longer-term commitment to community development as a means to ensuring greater involvement of marginalized groups. There will be the opportunity to address communities of low community infrastructure within the programme and to work on a cross border initiative.

4.3.5 RCN would like to draw the Committee's attention to the urgent need for a long-term commitment to address the inclusion of women and further the need to address other section 75 categories within the Rural Development Programme. While an aspect of inclusion for those with disability is identified within the Peace Programme clearly such an issue will require mainstream funding and long term commitment. Older people, for example, do not sit easily with European Funding support and lose out as a result with the rural development context.

4.3.6 RCN would welcome further investment in training and education and research in the field of rural development and in this regard would want the Committee to note the excellent work being carried out by the Rural College.

4.4 Rationalisation of Structures (Q.3)

4.4.1 There is no doubt that considerable time has been spent during the planning stages of the new programmes to get a good strategic fit between the different components which make up the new Rural Development Programme, for example, LEADER will link in with the new District Strategies and can fund individuals in the development of micro-businesses.

4.4.2 RCN, through the Rural Support Networks, will undertake capacity building programmes for individual community groups and will build on the community 'networking' infrastructure.

4.4.3 RDC will handle projects and programmes undertaken by non-profit taking collectives. The Department will be responsible for profit taking collectives and will initiate sectoral programmes in response to identified need within rural areas.

4.4.4 A number of mechanisms have been established to deal with the coordination across the programme. If these mechanisms are operated in an open and transparent manner we will be able to address many of the issues of confusion that have been raised as a result of earlier programmes.

4.4.5 RCN understands that the programme will be well publicised and made available to the rural community in a way which should ensure clarity for all with all parts of the Programme being able to signpost those who need information as to where best to access support and resources.

4.5 Resources (Q.4)

4.5.1 RCN considers that the resources available to the Programme are reasonable within the current remit of the Programme. However as new needs are identified and the consequences of the crisis within rural communities begins to be addressed in a more substantive manner more substantial resources will be required.

4.6 Weaknesses

4.6.1 RCN regards the interdepartmental aspect of the Rural Development Programme as a point of weakness. Macro-planning for the future of rural society in Northern Ireland must be a key objective of the next six years. While the Minister's taskforce and 'rural proofing' have been two major steps in this direction the latest crisis of Foot and Mouth Disease has highlighted the enormity of the debate which needs to take place. This debate must be open to all those in rural society and indeed recognise the important linkages with urban areas in order to determine a new direction for the countryside. In this regard the objective of a Rural White Paper should be given serious consideration. There is also the opportunity during this Programme period for greater dialogue and integration within DARD itself to maximise the opportunities in relation to the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the further development of the second pillar of CAP.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

5.1 Finally we would like to take the opportunity on behalf of RCN to thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide this information to you in support of a new Rural Development Programme. The interest you have shown will be much appreciated in rural communities.

5.2 Further RCN would like to take this opportunity to let you know that a significant difference has been made to the accessibility of institutions of Government since the appointment of a local Minister through this Committee which has shown undoubted passion and commitment to rural issues. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this paper and we will look forward to the opportunity to speak to the Committee when required.

ANNEX C3

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE TO:
RURAL COMMUNITY NETWORK

22 May 2001

Thank you for your very useful submission in relation to this Inquiry. The Committee considered your paper at its meeting on 18 May 2001 and asked me to write to you with further questions to assist members' deliberations.

Terms of Reference 1: How DARD and the Rural Development Council will encourage full participation in the new strategy by under represented groups; particularly the farming community.

1. The Committee is concerned that all marginalized groups are encouraged to participate in the new strategy. Are you fully satisfied that the mechanisms are in place that will allow you to maximise the opportunity presented by the Rural Support Networks to specifically encourage participation by marginalized groups?

2. You make reference to a low level of participation of farm families within non-farm activities. How do you intend to target the farming community so that participation from this sector is increased?

Terms of Reference 2: How DARD will ensure full and proper appraisal of all projects developed through the new strategy, including an assessment of staff training in appraisal, the use of consultants in appraisal and inclusion of marketing and management requirements in appraisal.

3. Are you confident that you have enough detail on the appraisal procedure for projects under your proposed work programme to move forward? Do you believe there have been improvements in the appraisal procedure?

4. What measures do you intend to take to ensure that participants are aware of the objectives of the projects and the requirements the appraisal procedure places on the projects?

5. You refer to technical assistance and training being available to assist with the more technical aspects of project development. Could you give an example of this? What other assistance or training is given to ensure the efficient day-to-day running of a project?

6. You have specifically indicated the type of training envisaged for Rural Mediation Services. However, your training and assistance for other programmes is less well detailed e.g. for Community Safety, Community Halls Advisory Service and the Programme for Tackling Social Exclusion. Is there adequate provision for training and assistance for these and other of your programmes? It would be helpful if you would outline these.

7. The RDP states that all programmes will be monitored on a regular basis. Are you confident that the relevant Programme Monitoring Committees will have enough expertise to give a balanced judgement on a programme?

8. What role do you see for consultants in giving training or assistance to groups?

Terms of Reference 3: How DARD will rationalise programme structures within the new strategy, to avoid duplication of roles and responsibilities and competition with other agencies, and to ensure clarity for the strategy's customers

9. One of the basic foundations of the Rural Development Programme is that there should be an integrated approach that treats rural development as a process rather than a series of individual projects and programmes. Do the mechanisms of delivery established by the Department, the RDC and your own organisation adequately facilitate rural development as a process rather than a series of individual projects?

10. Are you confident that the demarcation in responsibility between your organisation, the RDC and the Department is explicit? Do you believe that people availing of the RDP-sponsored initiatives are also aware of where the responsibility lies for the delivery of a particular project or programme? If not what can be improved to achieve this? In particular what will be done to encourage people who have had no previous involvement in the RDP?

11. Within the Agri-Food Development Service of DARD is a team of 13 Rural Enterprise Advisers whose role is to develop farmers such that they will be in a position to establish new initiatives and business opportunities under the Rural Development Programme. Acknowledging that your focus is not on business development have you liaised with this group in order to encourage participation by farmers and farm families in aspects of the RDP?

12. Have you had any feedback, formal or otherwise, from members of Local Action Groups on the extent and quality of help they have received from the RDC or Rural Enterprise Division?

13. One aspect of the RDP is Micro-Business Development that aims to target women, young people, farmers and farm families and the long-term unemployed. In your review of Peace 1 you have also broadly identified these groups, as well as people with disabilities, as requiring a special focus. Is the Programme flexible enough to allow organisations with responsibility for delivering different aspects of it to consult with each other to ensure a more holistic rather than piecemeal approach?

Terms of Reference 4: What resources (financial, people and other) DARD will assign to the strategy's delivery and how they will be assigned.

14. You say the resources available to the Programme are reasonable given its current remit e.g. approximately £14m has been earmarked for that aspect of the programme that you are involved with - strengthening rural communities. What proportion of this will be applied to RCN-supported programmes?

15. Do you have sufficient personnel to successfully deliver your programmes? How closely will you work with the RDC to maximise the effective use of resources including personnel?

Your responses will be very useful and will help the Committee greatly when they come to consider their final report.

ANNEX C4

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME.

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM:
RURAL COMMUNITY NETWORK

2 July 2001

Thank you for the opportunity to give additional comment to our earlier submission and I would also like to thank you for the extension of time which you afforded for this reply.

Terms of Reference 1: Full participation of under-represented groups

1.1 RCN has a commitment to include all marginalized groups in the new Strategy however such a statement must be qualified. Each of the Rural Support Networks will set specific goals to include areas of weak community infrastructure i.e. areas or groups which have not benefited from community organisation and participation or have not benefited from funding programmes in the past. Centrally RCN, through Peace II, will give modest support to people with disabilities in rural areas. Mainstreaming of such support will be essential in the long run. While RCN will analyse the needs of women, young people and farmers such programmes will depend on the sectoral funds to be operated through the Rural Development Programme. The specific allocations under the Sectoral Programmes are unknown at this stage.

However, we would support the concept of meeting particular needs as they are identified throughout the life of the Programme through these Sectoral Programmes.

RCN would also dedicate part of its staff resource to identify the needs of particular marginalized groups covered under Section 75 of the Equality legislation. A rural housing estates programme has been developed in partnership with NIVT, DARD, NIHE and RCN to focus on twelve rural housing estate areas. As mentioned previously the full funding package is not yet in place in relation to this programme but it is anticipated that the Rural Development Programme may contribute up to 50% to such a Programme.

1.2 Farm families

We understand that farm families may become a Sectoral Programme within the Rural Development Programme. RCN will therefore not be operating a grant programme for farm families. However, we will undertake to build on the work carried out under the Active Participation Grants Scheme run under Peace I where we funded a range of farming initiatives in the context of peace building and local collective initiatives. Reports of this programme have been published in 'Telling it like it is' a new RCN publication documenting the engagement of marginalized groups under Peace I. RCN has developed strong linkages with the farm organisations undertaking research into gender proofing CAP reform and developed a broad partnership of stakeholders across farming and rural development interests. Increasingly farmers are playing a role in local community activity. Initiatives undertaken by the Rural Support Networks after Foot and Mouth Disease have encouraged greater participation by the farming community. RCN will also play an active role in the EU Rural Monitoring Group as set up to assist representatives on the Monitoring Committees.

Conclusion

It would be wrong to overstate RCN's role or ability to engage all marginalized groups in the new Strategy. We will, however, within the limits of a small organisation strive to achieve that end and highlight the shortcomings where need is not being met.

Terms of Reference 2: Appraisal of projects

2.3 Appraisals for Rural Support Networks have been conducted within the Peace I Programme through a standardised procedure. The availability of clear strategic and operational plans will now facilitate a more detailed appraisal being carried out. These appraisals will be conducted by RCN staff who have experience in working in many areas of rural community development. Approval and decisions will be taken by RCN Grants Committee under the authority of the RCN Board. This co-ordinated approach, which will allow for a more in-depth analysis of the strategic and operational plans of each of the RSNs, should ensure a more meaningful appraisal programme being conducted.

Our view is that if the proposals we have put forward for expression of interest, information workshops followed by full application is followed then there will be improvements in the system. We have also taken care to keep a clear distinction between development work and project assessment. A draft operational manual is being developed within RCN.

2.4 RCN has joined with other elements of the Rural Development Programme to ensure that there is the widest possible publicity for the programme. Publications, conferences and seminars will further disseminate the procedures and criteria under which projects will be expected to apply. Training of the Grants Committee within RCN will be undertaken and where appropriate this will be co-ordinated with training available across the Rural Development Programme and beyond. All management committees will be required to undertake further awareness training on the responsibilities relating to the funding process. As we assess the funding package available to RSNs, each management committee will be taken through a process which will raise issues relating to the objectives of projects and the requirements that the appraisal procedures will place on these projects. Committees have already been made aware of the proposed training and information workshops which they will be expected to engage in during the summer and autumn months and they realise that these are necessary requirements given the level of funding being made available.

2.5 Within the Rural Support Network Programme there is dedicated support from Rural Community Network through a Network Support Officer who as part of her role will look at generic and individual training needs both for management and staff. Already this dedicated support has levered in training in computer, financial and personnel skills. A further programme which will address issues of tackling social inclusion, peace building, equity, diversity and interdependence, finances, equal opportunities and employment practices have been planned for the next twelve months again with participation from committees and staff employed. RCN see the continued learning of Rural Support Network committees and staff as a vital component in ensuring that that capacity is built to maximise the output through the Rural Support Network Programme.

As part of the Peace Programme it is our intention to run a Community Halls Advisory Service which will deal with more technical aspects of project development. Such projects may then apply to other parts of the programme, e.g. RDC for project implementation. Other more technical aspects of project development may relate to disability access, health and safety, etc.

2.6 It is understandable that the training envisaged for the Rural Mediation Service was more detailed as this has emanated from a pilot programme which has just been completed. Training and assistance for the other programmes detailed will be developed as the programmes roll out. However, RCN will, as part of each programme, be developing advisory panels which will have as its members key players in each of the measures identified. Through these panels it is anticipated that expertise will be able to assist in the identification of the skills and support required and will be able to signpost to relevant agencies. To complement these advisory panels, RCN will be commissioning scoping exercises in the areas of disability, single identity work and through workshops the key components of a Community Halls Advisory Service.

In the case of Community Safety with the assistance of NIACRO, community groups will be helped to conduct community safety audits and from these audits develop integrated community safety plans. It is envisaged that a considerable range of need will be identified through this process. However, RCN is confident that our programme partner, NIACRO, has the ability to deliver many of the training and support functions either directly through their staff or by signposting to relevant agencies.

The Community Halls Advisory Service was identified as a priority need by management committees managing community facilities in rural areas. RCN having delivered a £4 million capital programme on behalf of the Millennium Commission throughout rural Northern Ireland, funding 56 community halls over the past 4 years, has gained much staff experience in identifying issues around the development and maintenance of community halls. A number of pilot programmes are currently being conducted to add to this knowledge and a series of workshops have been completed which add further to the picture of what a good service would look like. It is envisaged that RCN staff, both those involved in the Halls Advisory Service and other staff across the organization, may be able to assist with some technical assistance, community audits, developing constitutions, and community relations. A draft outline of what this service can provide is attached to this paper.

Tackling Social Exclusion

As originally conceived this programme would have included support to women's groups and networks, young people and farmers. It is now envisaged that these groups will be dealt with under Sectoral Programmes yet to be determined through the Rural Development Programme. While RCN will undertake work with each of these groupings within its core work the programmes on each of these themes will be determined at a later date. Our programme for tackling social inclusion under Peace relates to a specific programme aimed at tackling social exclusion among and between people with disabilities. RCN is aware of the limitations of the programme given the budget available but want to explore how people with disabilities can, through user led initiatives, play a more participative role in their communities. Given the wide range of disabilities and therefore applications which could arrive with RCN the availability of a flexible programme which can allow innovative ideas to develop is very important. It is hoped that the Advisory Panel will play an important part in assisting with the identification of proper training and support needs. RCN staff is currently engaging in an Equity, Diversity and Interdependence Programme and equality training. This programme involves both development and grant giving components as set out in the programme complement of Peace II. It will be essential that the issue of disability in rural areas be considered as a mainstream issue. RCN is clear that this modest programme can only contribute at the margins of such an important issue.

2.7 Monitoring will be a key component of each programme undertaken. During information seminars for Peace II all perspective applicants will be given clear guidelines for the monitoring and evaluation procedures involved if a group's application is successful. This monitoring will involve quarterly financial reports requiring original invoices and copy bank statements, six monthly evaluation reports and attendance at monitoring and evaluation workshops during the lifetime of the grant.

The Rural Support Network programme will have quarterly financial and project management procedures put in place, each handled by a staff member responsible for this part of the programme. This will not be the Network Support Officer. The staff member will ensure that financial returns and project reports are forwarded on standard formats to allow cross checking to be carried out. During the gap fund phase of the programme we are piloting the process through which reports and drawdowns will be implemented and monitored.

When issues of concern are identified as part of the monitoring process, Programme Development Co-ordinator will visit the group or RSN to meet with and discuss the issues with management and staff if appropriate. Reports on such visits will be forwarded to the relevant sub-group of RCN. RCN is confident that we have the expertise within the Board and sub-committees to consider the detailed monitoring of our grants.

On the wider level of the Monitoring Committees, an EU Rural Monitoring Group has been established which includes farm organisations, fisheries and rural development organisations. This group has representation on the CSF, Building Sustainable Prosperity and Peace II Programmes and is well placed to provide relevant information to the Monitoring Committees. It is essential that the Monitoring Committees receive the reports for these committees in sufficient time to consult with the various interests in order to give a balanced judgement on the programme.

2.8 While there will be a need for consultants to assist groups in training and economic appraisal and project development RCN is committed to a development process throughout all its programmes including Peace II. This process will see groups receiving more assistance on the ground through a range of methods, RCN staff, staff of other agencies and community facilitators. Where RCN is taking on consultants in any of these roles this will be done through an open tender process or from a select list constructed through a transparent and open registry. In other cases RCN may assist the group in drawing up Terms of Reference for using facilitators. It is important that the group will ultimately make the decision about who to use. In this way the group will develop skills which facilitate local decision-making and accountability.

Terms of Reference 3:

3.9 As set out the Rural Development Programme has attempted to present greater cohesion across the whole programme and indeed there is a clear logic from capacity building through not-for-profit projects and programmes to co-operatives and profit taking groups with the opportunity for sectoral programmes to be developed throughout the lifetime of the programme. The structural arrangements are clearer than in the last round but so too is the complexity of rural development. Arrangements have been put in place to bring together the Rural Support Networks and Area Co-ordinators from DARD on a quarterly basis. Regular meetings have also been agreed between DARD, Rural Development Council and Rural Community Network. A PR strategy for the programme is being developed by DARD in co-operation with the various players. These arrangements will facilitate rural development to move in the direction of being a process rather than a series of individual projects. This is the concept which RCN strongly supports in the light of the structural changes which are required to address the crisis in rural areas.

3.10 RCN is confident that the demarcation arrangements between DARD, the RDC and RCN are explicit and while it is inevitable that there may be occasional overlap, the structural arrangements for the programme should be able to deal with clarity on these different issues. RCN has now got an extensive database based on previous experience from Peace I, Millennium Halls programme and our current membership of over 500. This network will be used to disseminate information on the programme. RCN will use our magazine - Network News, newssheet - Rural Brief and our website as well as a series of workshops and meetings advertised in the press as a means to communicate with the maximum number of people living in rural areas with the possibilities contained within the Programme.

3.11 Our linkage with AFDS has not been as strong as it might in the past. However, through recent meetings we have developed better linkages centrally and although not all 13 Enterprise Advisers have been contacted those that have, have been very positive in making the linkages between farmers and local community development groups. Our relationship with Family Farm Development has also provided a useful basis to develop better relationships with the farming community. A number of the Rural Support Networks have been particularly active in this area of work and their practice will be shared throughout the twelve Rural Support Network areas during the Programme.

3.12 This is not an area that RCN has evaluated. However, in speaking to a number of Local Action Groups it became clear that these partners did work together but because of the high degree of skills and expertise now developed within Local Action Groups there appeared to be less need for direct help other than signposting where this became appropriate. RCN is a partner in the delivery of the UK wide networking of LEADER II and has worked closely with all the LAGs.

3.13 The engagement of women, young people, farmers and farm families and the long term unemployed justifiably should be a component part of each element of the Rural Development Programme as each part of the Programme will deliver something different. To avoid a piecemeal approach it will be important that a coherence is brought to each of the targeted groups perhaps under the Sectoral Programmes. In addition, networking across the programme through conferences and seminars would indeed be helpful in this respect.

Terms of Reference 4:

4.14 Resources

It is expected that RCN will receive the following funds under Peace II and Building Sustainable Prosperity.

1.3 m under Peace II Programmes and Grants over 4 years

1.7 m under BSP over 6 years

4 m earmarked for the Rural Support Network Programme over 6 years under BSP

These figures are approximate and confirmation is still subject to negotiation. These figures do not include the Rural Housing Estates Programme.

4.15 A small number of extra staff will be required to deliver our programmes. We are committed to work closely with RDC both on Peace II and Building Sustainable Prosperity funded programmes. However, our roles and responsibilities within each programme is quite different if complementary. We are working with the RDC in order to maximise our co-operation in relation to research and policy information work. Early indications are that we will put forward a proposal to work co-operatively on areas which might otherwise overlap on the area of research.

Conclusion

While the information in this response gives the best picture possible at this point in time and should be seen as a work in progress rather than an end point. In this regard, it would be extremely important that DARD hold in reserve funding which will meet any shortfalls which should emerge during the course of further needs assessment.

NIALL FITZDUFF
Director

Annex D1

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

COMMITTEE LETTER SEEKING SUBMISSION TO:
ULSTER FARMERS' UNION

20 March 2001

You may be aware that the Committee has agreed to undertake an Inquiry into the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's preparation for the next phase of its Rural Development Programme. The Inquiry relates to the recent findings and recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and Terms of Reference adopted by the Committee during its meeting on Friday 9 March 2001 are attached.

The Committee agreed that it should place a public notice (in the three main regional newspapers) and issue a press release announcing this Inquiry, but that a number of organisations, including yours, should be approached directly to seek written submissions. The Committee is also seeking submissions from the Rural Development Council, the Rural Community Network and NIAPA.

You will see from the Terms of Reference that the Committee is specifically interested in the encouragement of under-represented groups. This stems from the PAC conclusion 4.5:

"We look to both the Department and the Rural Development Council to ensure, as far as possible, that under represented groups such as the farming community, women, young persons and the long-term unemployed fully participate in the programme in future".

DARD's response was to state its intention to encourage participation of under-represented groups in the 2001-2006 programme and to say that there would be sectoral initiatives allowing support to be given to farm families, women and young persons.

Members will be interested in the views of the Rural Community Network in terms of the inclusion of the unemployed, women and young people. The Committee's main purpose for consulting with the UFU is in establishing best practice for the inclusion of farmers and their families and to ensure that this practice is adopted as the new Strategy is implemented.

Your views on the remaining Terms of Reference will, of course, also be welcomed.

I would be grateful if you could arrange to have your submission forwarded to the Committee Clerk by Friday 4 May. A short guide to submitting written evidence is attached for your information. It is possible that the UFU will be called to give evidence on 11 May, but a formal invitation would be issued separately.

Yours sincerely,

Ian R K Paisley
Chairman

ANNEX D2

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
ULSTER FARMERS' UNION

10 May 2001

Issues for Consideration by the Agriculture Committee on the Rural Development Programme

For the past decade rural development has been an area which has not involved farmers and their families as well as might have been hoped, for a variety of reasons.

Not least of these is that farmers and their families, despite being the most important economic engine in the rural areas in the province, have not been encouraged to participate and benefit from the rural development programmes that have been in place.

A problem does exist in how to get farmers to become involved in rural development, and how to ensure they continue to be involved. The Union strongly believes that rural areas cannot develop without farmer and farm family involvement.

Farmers, and their families, are now becoming more interested in rural development and what it can mean for them. This is due to their changing personal circumstances. However, it can in fact be these circumstances that can prevent some farmers being involved.

Rural development involvement necessarily requires time, which will naturally impinge on their own work time on the farm, especially as more farmers are seeking work off the farm to provide financial support for their families. It is essential that this practical problem is recognised and mechanisms are put in place to help farmers to become involved.

Commitment to be involved in local projects or in Leader groups, or in larger groups is essential from farmers, but again as farmers become more pressured for time this becomes more and more difficult.

Yet without the local involvement of the farming community these types of groups are not able to fully represent the entire local community nor will groups benefit from the expertise that local farmers, as businessmen, councillors, etc could bring.

At present there is a varying amount of awareness amongst farmers throughout the province as to what rural development means, whom it affects and how they can make use of it.

It will continue to be necessary to work at increasing the awareness of rural development amongst the farming community. This is a role not only for the Union, but also for DARD, and all its relevant divisions, established local rural development groups, RDC, RCN and other bodies established to handle rural development money.

Farmers can also be discouraged from participating in rural development programmes because of the complexity that exists in accessing funding for projects they would wish to be involved in. The Union would strongly recommend that all Government Departments and bodies involved in the administration of rural development funding provides support, advice and direction about how funding can be used for the benefit for projects to benefit communities across the province.

When consideration is taken of the money that will be available through the Community Structure Framework - Building Sustainable Prosperity Programme and Peace II Programme the complexity is further increased. The bodies involved in the distribution of this money to appropriate projects and groups must also recognise the need to include groups involving farmers if projects are forthcoming from this type of group.

Under the previous round of funding allocation of Peace and Objective 1, the local District Councils were heavily involved in the administration of these two programmes under the District Partnership Boards (DPB). Some DPBs had a significant farmer involvement, others had little, if any, inclusion of farmers.

The Community Structures Framework is going to play a significant role in helping local areas to develop such that when this type of large scale funding comes to an end they are well placed to be responsible for their continued sustainable development.

Therefore, it is crucial that the whole local community is represented in these local partnerships, which obviously means that local farming interests must be represented. The Union is of the opinion that when these new partnerships are established it must be a pre-requisite that at least two members on the board are farmers, and are there to put forward farming interests.

The Union does acknowledge that all members of a local rural community need to be involved to ensure that the best use is made of rural development monies to benefit the entire community.

In the Unions' opinion one vital aspect of encouraging and increasing the participation of farmers or family members in local rural development groups is that the members of local development groups themselves encourage farmers to participate.

The Union does understand that this will possibly necessitate change in opinion or attitude by many groups towards the inclusion of farmers in their local groups. However, farmers and their family members will have a considerable amount of expertise to offer development groups given their own experiences as business men which would make them valuable members to the work of the group.

TSN is a concept which is now pervading all policies of Government including those that affect the rural community. However, the Union feels that it is vital that this concept is defined in the context of agriculture so that we can all be clear exactly what it means and how it both relates to and affects policy decisions within the agricultural sector.

We have already highlighted that farmers are becoming more interested in rural development. Therefore, where farmers are making the effort to form groups to find ways of helping their local community, they must be encouraged and aided through the process in order to make best use of the funding that will become available.

In a previous consultation the Union has suggested that the RDC should consider the development of a PLANET programme specifically for Agriculture, as has been done in other areas of the rural need.

Such a programme could provide encouragement to farmers and their families to participate in rural development work for the good of their own position, the local area and the greater community, by providing them with the skills and confidence to participate in their local area.

Mentoring of groups from inception to the final delivery of projects will be necessary to also ensure that best value for money is achieved from the funding. This role is likely to be fulfilled by RCN, through the provision of capacity building for groups involved in community and rural development.

In the Northern Ireland Executive's document - 'Programme for Government' it is noted that there is a need for a new basis for the rural economy and it recognises that disadvantage that exists within rural areas.

The successful regeneration of rural areas for future economic and social prosperity will mean that the whole community must be involved and that has to involve the farming community, to achieve the best possible result.

CONCLUSION

Farmers must be involved in rural development at all levels in order to ensure that this section of the rural community can benefit just as well as other sections.

The practicalities of getting the farming community involved and to stay involved is an area which needs thorough consideration, possibly including ways which will enable farmers to take time to participate.

As an important part of local rural communities farming interests must be represented by right on groups handling rural development funds, along with all other interests in the local community development.

ANNEX E

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
PROFESSOR SIMON MILLER

2 May 2001

The following observations relate to DARD's objective to increase the participation of the farming community in the Rural Development Programme.

• Whilst it is clear that the RDP must engage with the immediate cycle of the next 7 years, there is a need to set the current situation within a longer-term context.
• The land, and therefore the farming community, remains fundamental to the future of the rural sector.
• The historical trend of economic development moves the focus of public esteem and wealth creation away from farming; these adverse terms of trade undermine farming communities at both economic and cultural levels - and are basic to the way in which farm households become marginalized and retreat into isolation.
• At the same time, these same trends carry forward a constant restructuring of the agrarian base with increases in unit scale and accentuated capitalisation. Such trends are necessary conditions for survival within an increasingly competitive and global market, but they also exact costs at the community level in terms of labour displacement, rural exodus, and the local dwindling of 'critical mass'. Probably more than half of the units in N.Ireland have already fallen below the sufficiency scale of viability and depend upon off-farm income for their survival.
• Despite advantages for consumers, the farmers' exposure to these market forces produces unpalatable outcomes for government and public alike. Reactive political intervention and fiscal redistribution stem the tide but do not reverse it. The CAP and the RDP are current instances of an historical series of attempts to mitigate the impact of the agrarian transition, but the political culture of legitimation becomes increasingly problematic: expressed crudely, farmers are "never seen on a bike" and have no automatic claim on the public purse.
• Public perceptions of the land and farming accentuate this gulf as a function of the emergence of an essentially urban culture that emphasises issues of animal welfare, food safety, environmental sustainability, and the countryside as public amenity and national heritage. As such concerns come to dominate the public mentality, the farming community and the public are less and less likely to see themselves as stakeholders in the same project - and the countryside and farming practices become contested areas. Marginalisation and alienation set in.
• The traditional model, set up after the 1947 Agriculture Act, of linking farms with ministry extension services worked well to secure the modernisation of a backward sector. Advice and education was limited to technical issues of machinery, bloodstock, seed hybrids, and chemical inputs. This 'productionist' paradigm is now challenged as carrying unacceptable 'external' costs, but has also left farm households with little experience of alternative perspectives on land-use.
• In the midst of converging crises of falling commodity prices and a public rhetoric in favour of less intensive systems, farm households can be compared to their animals caught in the glare of oncoming headlights: they do not know which way to turn. 'Paralysis' and 'panic' may be inappropriately extreme - 'demoralisation' and 'loss of confidence' are not. Furthermore, the capacity to change is directly commensurate with risk-taking and tolerance of ambiguity and the unknown: the mood in most farm households at the moment is at the other extreme.

So the trends and current conditions offer a daunting scenario for the Province's farming community. It is also clear that the community's traditional link with government's technical extension service has left farmers indisposed to connecting with anything to do with "rural development" - and indeed, to co-operating with people from beyond their immediate circle in farming.

The favoured solution to this current impasse, shared by most of the sector across the EU, is for farms to diversify into non-farming sources of income, to develop products for niche markets, and to cut out the middle-man through direct marketing. All such projected changes carry risks. In addition, and even more importantly, success in any one of them will be presupposed by a radical change in household culture. It is a somewhat poignant paradox to note that the human attributes essential to the traditional survival of farm units - such as stoical individualism and self-denying endurance - are hardly functional in the situation in which they now find themselves. New and very different skills will be called for.

How do these reflections bear on the Terms of Reference for the RDP?

• It is important to appreciate the scale of the problem of bringing the farming community into the loop of Rural Development.
• It is apparent that some process of inclusion and participation might be brought about by way of a systematic programme of 'place-marketing' that would transcend the limits of organization based on sectors.
• Locality would become the unit of operation - an identity so developed as to secure a sense of stake-holding for all local agents, including the farming community.
• Careful appraisal of comparative advantage would be necessary since any such project would need to be premised on the subsequent development of stand-alone and sustainable businesses based on the retention of added value at the farm-gate or community fence.
• Prospects for profitability would be directly related to an anticipated expansion in tourism in the Province. Feasibility projections would include some research done into direct marketing and the targeting of specific constituencies.
• Available resources might be best assigned to pump-priming operations, but only after in initial investments in retraining, up-skilling and processes of stakeholder animation.
• The key question thus confronting the project of wider participation, to include the farming community, will be how and with what should we replace the traditional model of technical extension to the farm household?

Submitted by

PROFESSOR SIMON MILLER
Director of the Gibson Institute for Land, Food & Environment

ANNEX F

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
EAST DOWN COMMUNITY NETWORK

23 April 2001

As the umbrella body for over 60 rural community organisations in Down and Ards area, we thank you for the opportunity to comment briefly on the next round of the Rural Development Programme.

After a long and broad ranging consultation, local communities in this area are enthusiastic about the opportunities in the next round of funding.

We have noticed a growing demand on our services from not only community groups, but the farming community in particular and a growing sense of anticipation regarding the implementation of the next round.

We are managed and run entirely by our member groups although we receive valuable guidance form Rural Community Network (NI) and DARD. Since our formation in 1995 we have raised all our own running costs with the assistance of RCN.

We anticipate that DARD will reward our efforts by contracting us to handle the 'Capacity Building programme', in the next round and part-fund us through their main transitional funding. We feel that for the first time locally owned Networks are being formally recognised as a key local Rural Development Agency.

We believe that the years of grass-roots contact and trust building, place us in an ideal position to encourage and motivate the rural community (and increasingly farming groups) and guide them quickly towards successful projects.

We understand that, for the first time, the DARD Rural Development Programme clearly defines the roles of all the key rural development agencies (including DARD, Agri-food division, RDC, Leader and the local Rural Support Networks). Already we have found that local people can grasp the concepts easier and know that they will not be left to flounder in the maze that was the last round of EU funding.

DARD are currently examining our strategic plan and they have been anxious to agree monitoring arrangements in advance of implementation. We enclose for your information just one objective from that strategic plan to give you a flavour of the sort of work we do and how we will monitor progress.

In conclusion, we anticipate that the next round of RDP offers greater opportunity and clarity and all models of Rural Development have been included with designated bodies assigned to each model.

Yours faithfully

NICHOLAS MCCRICKARD
Network Manager

Aim 4 Networking in East Down
Objective	Output	Target	Output Measure / Indicator	Outcomes
1. Promote information and experience exchanges	1. Maintain regular communication with groups	Minimum of 6 bi-monthly bulletins	- copy of bulletin issued	groups are better informed about rural development in general
	2. Facilitate regular networking meetings	Minimum of 3 general meetings (plus extra 'thematic' meetings)	- attendance sheets - cover letters / invites	groups develop a 'learning culture' and information is shared equally and widely among groups
	3. Ascertain the information needs of groups	Baseline survey	- audit of survey responses - list of information held	network is better informed and able to respond more effectively to the needs of groups
	4. Promote and develop the use of library, equipment & resource bases, web sites	Material provided to, or accessed by, up to 30 groups/individuals per year	- monitoring forms - e-mail requests - hire/loans of equipment	improved access to information for groups and individual rural residents
	5. Promote 'familiarisation' visits between similar groups on a Thematic basis.	Minimum of 2 visits	- copy of itinerary - attendance sheets - evaluation forms from attendees	groups learn how to use the experiences of others to improve their own group's performance

ANNEX G

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
MR JOHN A PAYNE

3 May 2001

INTRODUCTION

• Age - 44.
• I am a comparatively small beef and dairy farmer.
• I have represented the voluntary sector on the Peace & Reconciliation Board of Magherafelt Area Partnership from 1997.
• I am a member of Loughinsholin Tourism Association, a community group focusing on rural tourism.
• The areas of particular interest to me include:

 

• (a) impact on farming of the CAP reform and GATT

 

• (b) farm diversification

 

• (c) rural tourism

 

• (d) environmentally friendly/organic farming

 

• (e) environmentally friendly/'green' tourism

 

• (f) genuine (as opposed to cosmetic) cross-community interaction and co-operation

 

• (g) economic and social issues affecting the rural community

 

• (h) accountability at all levels of farming, from the farmer through to ministerial level.

As a result of my experiences as a farmer and membership of the above mentioned organisations, I would like to make the following suggestions in respect of the next phase of the Rural Development Programme.

1. Full Participation - The key word is 'full'. If under-represented groups, particularly the farming community, are to participate 'fully' in the next phase they must:

 

• (a) be involved at all stages of the process;

 

• (b) be given the opportunities to do;

 

• (c) made fully aware of those opportunities.

I believe that the majority of farmers are of the view that most initiatives and programmes are devised by bureaucrats with little to no practical experience of farming or understanding of the effect which their often well-intentioned, but ill-conceived policies will have. Hence the need to involve the people with grass-roots knowledge from think-tank stage onwards. The administrators and 'experts' need to bounce ideas off such people and vice versa and this needs to be done before policy implementation has gone so far down the line that it becomes too expensive and/or counterproductive to change it.

Inclusion of the farming community in the process has to be 'genuine', not cosmetic - they must be included not as a token gesture or to simply rubber-stamp pre-ordained policies, but to participate in genuine debates in the interests of effective policy making and implementation.

I believe that all too often the farming community is represented by officers or members of farming organisations who are out of touch with the day-to-day running of a farm. In addition to representation from them, I believe that the farming community should be given the opportunity to participate directly through the inclusion of people who are involved first hand - e.g. farmers themselves, their spouses/ partners etc, vets and accountants who deal mainly with farming clients.

In order to ensure that the individuals selected to represent the farming community are up to the job, I would suggest that there needs to be a selection process based on minimum criteria. For example, successful representatives - whatever their background - would need to be able to show that they have an adequate understanding of the main issues of the day - e.g. CAP reform, GATT, world prices, marketing, environmental issues.

If opportunities are made for the farming community to participate fully in the next phase of the Rural Development Programme, it needs to be made fully aware of those opportunities by effective publicity. All too often farmers in my own area have complained to me that they didn't find out about initiatives or schemes until it was too late, the publicity on them simply taking the form of advertisements in papers. Surely major initiatives and calls for representation from the farming community need high profile publicity through a variety of media, such as farming programmes on the television and radio and backed up with advertisements on the television and radio, feature length articles in the farming press and mailshots either from DARD direct to farmers or via organisations such as UFU or NIAPA.

2. Appraisal of Projects

I would suggest that a firm of consultants with appropriate experience and resources be appointed to devise assessment procedures and criteria in consultation with DARD and representatives from interested sectors. Bands of grant aid could be used to determine whether assessment takes place at local level or requires scrutiny by a special 'team' set up for the purpose. Appraisal needs to be carried out by people qualified to do so and their suitability needs to be the subject of appraisal too.

3. Duplication

Consideration should be given to the establishment of a cross-agency think-tank to discuss the ways in which duplication might be avoided. For example agencies could be asked to provide each other with details of funding awarded to projects. A joint assessment team could be set up to deal with the assessment of projects where the combined funding from two or more agencies will exceed a certain level or where funding by one agency depends on securing funding from another.

4. Assignment of Resources

The amount to be spent on delivery of the programme should be calculated as a proportion of the overall funding available for the strategy. A reasonable, but realistic proportion, needs to be arrived at in consultation with the Department's financial advisors and external advisors if appropriate. Having incorporated an appropriate safety margin, the most effective means of delivering the programme within the available budget can be determined.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these submissions. I hope they are of some assistance.

I have no objection to giving oral evidence if required.

JOHN A PAYNE

Annex H

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
NORTHERN IRELAND TOURIST BOARD

22 May 2001

Further to the announcement by the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development on 22nd March 2001 of its formal inquiry into the Rural Development Programme.

The NITB would like to take the opportunity to provide feedback to the above inquiry .

Yours sincerely

DAVID McAULEY
Acting Chief Executive

Background

The Northern Ireland Tourist Board is the agency within the Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment with responsibility for the development of tourism in Northern Ireland and for the marketing of the region as a tourist destination. The key objectives of the organisation are to attract the holiday visitor to Northern Ireland, enhance the business of tourism and to communicate openly and effectively with all of our tourism partners. Our stated aim is to ensure that tourism contributes to the creation of a competitive, dynamic economy. Our success will lie in our capacity to grow tourism to Northern Ireland.

Current Situation

During 2000, NITB undertook a comprehensive review of its activities. Core to this review were opportunities to explore the values and attributes of the Northern Ireland holiday experience. This exercise, which we referred to as 'Building the Proposition', established the significance of the people, the place and our way of life in providing a genuine and authentic experience for the visitor. Moreover, this work has recognised the complex nature of the cultural and creative experience of Northern Ireland that, together with the experience of the people and the natural environment will guide the future policy and strategy of NITB and our tourism partners in Northern Ireland.

NITB and DARD

NITB has committed itself to work strategically with our partners in government on issues that involve the development of Northern Ireland as a high quality, authentic tourism destination. Over the past year, we have been working closely with DARD, DoE (EHS) and DCAL on the development of a Natural Resource Rural Tourism (NRRT) initiative under the EU PEACE II Programme. Core to this programme was the need to evolve a relationship that would rationalise structures within the new initiative, to avoid duplication of roles and responsibilities and competition with other agencies, and to ensure clarity for our customers.

NITB has been concerned at all stages in our relationship with DARD to ensure that all decisions on funding initiatives and support for the development of tourism is based on sound market intelligence and need within the market place. We have made every effort to secure support for programmes that will be sustainable, both in terms of their economic and social impact and their environmental sustainability. We firmly believe that projects supported under the NRRT initiative will be more effective if based on market need than on 'perceived' needs of those living in the rural environment.

We have jointly committed ourselves to developing a high quality rural and natural resource tourism product that will capitalise on our regional strengths to bolster the economy of rural areas and to benefit local communities through the growth in tourism. We will also establish the most effective systems for distributing the resource and for monitoring the effectiveness of the programme. We will shortly be commissioning a baseline study to indicate the supply levels within the programme areas. This will be the basis on which we will measure the effectiveness of the initiative.

The Way Forward

NITB views the NRRT initiative as a model for joined up policy - in this case relating to the development of our natural and rural resources for tourism. We take the view that NITB is best placed to advise other agencies within government of the needs of our consumers and then to match those needs with appropriate, high quality tourism development. We would also assert that any tourism development that takes place in the absence of sound market intelligence and visitor demand is inviting failure. For that reason, we would advocate the delivery of the NRRT programme (and other programmes within the Rural Development Strategy with influence on tourism) via a formal, joint management team from NITB, DARD, DoE (EHS) and DCAL. This group would use as its basis intelligence about the tourism market place that is up to date, usable, relevant and reliable. It is only on this basis that we can anticipate the development of an economically viable and sustainable rural tourism product.

ANNEX I

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
THE HALF BRED HORSE BREEDERS SOCIETY

23 May 2001

We understand that the Assembly's Agriculture Committee is in the process of conducting an enquiry into the preparation of the next phase of the Rural Development Programme to be delivered by DARD and the Rural Development Council (RDC) and that DARD and the RDC are anxious to ensure full participation in the new strategy by under-represented groups, particularly the farming community. We also understand that calls are to be made in the near future for applications under the EU Structural Funds Operational Programmes, namely the "Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the Border Region of Ireland" (ie Peace II) and the "Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity".

As many of those involved in the horse industry in Northern Ireland - if not the majority - are from the farming community, the Half Bred Horse Breeders Society would like to take this opportunity to ask for full and proper consideration to be given to the introduction of schemes which will offer opportunities in Northern Ireland for diversification into thoroughbred and sport horse production and will create at least a level playing field with the South.

The progress made to date by those involved in the equine industry in Northern Ireland has been due to their own efforts and determination. Great strides have been made in the thoroughbred sector in particular. The potential revenue from "horse farming" and related activities appears to have been largely ignored here. This is in stark contrast to the Republic and to the various schemes and initiatives introduced over the years there, in response to the contribution which the horse industry can and does make to its revenue.

Moreover, it would seem from the grant of £15 million recently awarded by the European Community Structural Fund to the Irish Thoroughbred Breeders' Association (ITBA), that funders in the Republic believe the sector merits even further investment. We understand that this much talked about scheme is designed to help "one man breeding operations", with the grants being available to existing breeders and farmers considering diversification. Sadly, Northern members of the ITBA will not be able to avail of this assistance.

According to a recent report in the press, the bloodstock sector (presumably, the thoroughbred sector) "accounts for an estimated £100 million p.a. in exports, and has foreign earnings from the upkeep and servicing of foreign mares of approximately £10million p.a." (The author of the article did not specify if these figures related solely to the Republic or to the island of Ireland.) According to another article in the press "There are 80,000 sporthorses in Ireland with 5,000 foals born each year and export value being £15-20 million. There are 12,000 people employed overall in an industry worth £150m to the Exchequer."

The HBHBS believes the next round of funding offers DARD, the RDC and the various EU funding bodies opportunities to devise schemes which could help our beleaguered farming community diversity into horse breeding and related activities, schemes which could help realise their revenue potential. The HBHBS also believes it is essential that those involved in the industry, from breeder through to producer, rider, promoter, veterinarian, agent, etc are consulted at as early a stage as possible. Early consultation and participation in the decision making process is needed if funds invested in the equine industry are to be used as effectively as possible.

The HBHBS believes it imperative that DARD and the RDC are given the opportunity to take proper stock of the equine industry in Northern Ireland, its potential and the type and level of assistance required to realise that potential. We feel that this should be done through constructive consultation with those involved in the industry. We believe therefore that a forum needs to be set up as a matter of some urgency to which invited delegates can present the view and suggestions of their respective organisations and discuss areas of mutual interest. We would envisage representatives from a variety of sectors including the Sport horse, Thoroughbred and Native breed sectors and their respective administration bodies, including the N Ireland Horse Board, the Northern Regions of the Irish Thoroughbred Breeders' Association and the Irish Draught Society. The purpose would be to discuss untapped opportunities, how these can be developed through well thought out grant aid schemes, including diversification schemes, co-operation between the various sectors in the interest of the common good and correction of existing imbalances between N Ireland and the Republic. If deemed appropriate, this could lead to the establishment of a 'specialist' group, comprising elected representatives, to assist DARD and the various EU funding bodies on equine related projects.

Subject to the support of the Committee/DARD for such a forum, the HBHBS would be happy to organise such a meeting. We would like to ask the Committee to meet with us to discuss the matter in detail as soon as possible. We appreciate that the Committee's time is currently in much demand. However, we believe that it is imperative that steps are taken to ensure that this neglected sector of agriculture is given an opportunity for its voice to be heard before funding schemes are set in stone and that the horse industry be given the opportunity to do this in the interests of setting up schemes designed to be as effective as possible.

We would be grateful if you would please ensure that copies of this letter are circulated to all the members of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. We have written under separate cover to Ms Angela Kelly of DARD.

As time is of the essence we would be grateful if you could please contact our secretary, Sharon White, as soon as possible regarding an initial meeting. She can be contacted on 028 9044 8814.

DORINDA LADY DUNLEATH

ANNEX J

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INQUIRY INTO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME.

COMMITTEE LETTER SEEKING SUBMISSION TO:
NORTHERN IRELAND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION

20 March 2001

You may be aware that the Committee has agreed to undertake an Inquiry into the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's preparation for the next phase of its Rural Development Programme. The Inquiry relates to the recent findings and recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and Terms of Reference adopted by the Committee during its meeting on Friday 9 March 2001 are attached.

The Committee agreed that it should place a public notice (in the three main regional newspapers) and issue a press release announcing this Inquiry, but that a number of organisations, including yours, should be approached directly to seek written submissions. The Committee is also seeking submissions from the Rural Development Council, the Rural Community Network and the UFU.

You will see from the Terms of Reference that the Committee is specifically interested in the encouragement of under-represented groups. This stems from the PAC conclusion 4.5:

"We look to both the Department and the Rural Development Council to ensure, as far as possible, that under represented groups such as the farming community, women, young persons and the long-term unemployed fully participate in the programme in future".

DARD's response was to state its intention to encourage participation of under-represented groups in the 2001-2006 programme and to say that there would be sectoral initiatives allowing support to be given to farm families, women and young persons.

Members will be interested in the views of the Rural Community Network in terms of the inclusion of the unemployed, women and young people. The Committee's main purpose for consulting with NIAPA is in establishing best practice for the inclusion of farmers and their families and to ensure that this practice is adopted as the new Strategy is implemented.

Your views on the remaining Terms of Reference will, of course, also be welcomed.

I would be grateful if you could arrange to have your submission forwarded to the Committee Clerk by Friday 4 May. A short guide to submitting written evidence is attached for your information. It is possible that NIAPA will be called to give evidence on 11 May, but a formal invitation would be issued separately.

Yours sincerely,

IAN R K PAISLEY
Chairman

APPENDIX 4

LIST OF UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDA

THE FOLLOWING EXTRACTS WERE RECEIVED AS PART OF MEMORANDA WHICH ARE PUBLISHED AS ANNEXES TO THE REPORT. THE COMMITTEE AGREED THAT THEY NEED NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE REPORT.

THE EXTRACTS HAVE BEEN LODGED IN THE ASSEMBLY'S LIBRARY

Rural Development Council for Northern Ireland (RDC)

Rural Development Council for Northern Ireland - 3 May 2001 Annex B1

1. RDC's Draft Strategy and Executive Summary for 2001-2006

2. RDC's TSN Action Plan

3. RDC's draft Equality Scheme

4. RDC's organisational chart

5. RDC members, their nominating authority and areas of expertise

6. RDC's Progress Review

Response to questions from RDC - 26 June 2001 Annex B3

1. RDC publication on Community Based Actions

2. RDC/RCN Position Paper - The Need For A Rural Intermediary Funding Body - March 2000

Written update from RDC - 30 January 2002 Annex B5

1. RDC Grant Application Pack

2. Newsletter publication by NICVA - December 2001/January 2002

3. RDC Screening of Policies Exercise

4. Launch and Promotion of RDC Funding Programmes - Summary of the communications activity undertaken

5. Minister's letter of approval for RDC Strategy 2001-2006 and Operational Plan 2001-2002

6. List of RDC's Peace II Programme applicants (by District Councils) - 1 February 2002

7. List of RDC's Local Regeneration Programme applicants by (District Councils) - 1 February 2002

8. Building Sustainable Prosperity and Peace Programmes Operational Manuals

Rural Community Network (RCN)

Response to questions from Rural Community Network - 2 July 2001 ANNEX C3

1. "Telling It Like It Is" - Stories from the Active Participation Grants

2. Low Infrastructure Programme 1998-2001 Report - Book One - Policy

3. Low Infrastructure Programme 1998-2001 Report - Book Two - Practice

4. "Village Halls Advisory Service - RCN draft outline of what this service provides