Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): I welcome Frank Duffy, head of the European Union division in the Department of Finance and Personnel; Dominic McCullough, head of the North/South policy and programmes unit in the Department; Pat Colgan, chief executive of the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB); and Shaun Henry, director of SEUPB's managing authority. Does anybody want to kick us off with a few comments?

Mr Frank Duffy (Department of Finance and Personnel): I will, if you do not mind. First, thanks for the opportunity to attend and brief the Committee. With your permission, I will focus on providing an update on the key areas of interest, which I assume are the Peace and INTERREG programmes, and on issues that were raised before in Committee, which are the administrative simplification of the new programme and the implementation of the existing programmes, from 2007 to 2013.

My team, in conjunction with colleagues in SEUPB and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER) in Ireland have undertaken considerable work to develop the Peace IV and INTERREG V programmes to move the process forward. I am pleased to say that the INTERREG programme was formally adopted by the EU on 13 February. That was a Friday the thirteenth, which I hope does not cause any issues.

Peace IV has not progressed as quickly through the Commission's inter-service consultations, and DFP officials, in partnership with SEUPB, participated in a very constructive meeting with the Commission on 4 February. We are liaising with Departments on some of the final points of detail that the Commission has raised on programme content. We are working to realign the financial allocations on that basis to meet the expectations of the Commission and the Executive.

The final Peace programme documents will be issued to the Executive for formal consideration and approval before final submission to the Commission. It is anticipated that the Peace IV programme will be informally agreed, subject to formal adoption by the Commission following its agreement of its multi-annual financial framework — Budget — which is expected in July.

Discussions are also under way with the Commission about a possible visit by the EU Commissioner for Regional Policy, Corina Cretu, to Northern Ireland. She is the new commissioner, and it would be her first visit. Discussions are at an early stage, but it is hoped that we will provide the opportunity for her to launch formally all the Northern Ireland structural programmes during that visit.

At the previous Committee meeting in April, members raised concerns about the application process for the cross-border programmes, in particular work being undertaken to reduce the time taken for a decision on funding applications, and the perceived bureaucracy that went along with that. At the time, I identified that our aim was to reduce considerably the application process time, and I undertook to do so by at least one third. Therefore, to update the Committee on that, thanks to some very engaged and constructive discussions that DFP has had with DPER and SEUPB, we have reached agreement for a process to be undertaken from start to finish in 36 weeks. That is a substantial decrease from the oft-quoted 56 weeks under the previous programme, and it meets the promise that I made to you to reduce the target time by at least one third. That will be a challenging target for all involved, but we are committed to achieving it.

On top of that, we are working towards additional administrative simplifications for the programme beneficiaries, including simplified cost options, such as unit costs where appropriate and flat-rate costs for overheads.

Concerning the closure of the previous programmes, we are now in the final year of expenditure for Peace III and INTERREG IV. The projects that are still operating should be at the stage of ensuring final delivery of outputs and in the process of planning to close. It is vital that, in that process, we ensure that the full allocation is spent. I am pleased to report that both programmes are currently on target to achieve their objectives.

Before I finish, Chairman and Committee, with your indulgence, I would like to say a few words about my colleague Pat. I take the opportunity to place formally on record my thanks to Pat, who has announced his retirement. He officially retired at the end of January but has very kindly agreed to stay on while we find a replacement. For the past 10 years, Pat has been a tremendous ambassador and a tireless and fervent advocate of cross-border EU funding programmes, not only in the eligible area but with the Commission, which regards SEUPB as an exemplar and where it enjoys a very high reputation. That is due in no small measure to the work that Pat and his team have put in. Programmes under his stewardship have met all their expenditure targets, and Pat has successfully overseen expenditure of over €1 billion on thousands of very worthwhile projects. The impact of Peace and INTERREG funding on people and communities within and across these islands has been hugely positive, again due in no small measure to SEUPB's efforts. I wish Pat every success in the future.

With that, I thank the Committee and look forward to the discussion. If you are agreeable, I will hand over to Pat.

Mr Pat Colgan (Special EU Programmes Body): Thank you very much, Frank, for those very kind words. It was very unexpected. I had no idea that you were going to say that. I was perhaps going to have a word with one or two of the members afterwards, just to say that I will be retiring.

I am very pleased to be here this morning. It will probably be my last appearance before the Committee. I have always enjoyed participating. I will be here for as long as it takes to find my successor.

I compliment Frank's succinct summary of the issues, which are all laid out in the paper that you have before you. I emphasise that, in this year — 2015 — we have still to spend €112 million between INTERREG and Peace. That is a very substantial amount of expenditure that is going into the economies of Northern Ireland, the border regions and — with INTERREG — western Scotland. A huge amount of work is associated with the closure of those programmes during this year, 2016 and leading up to the final sign-off in 2017. There is a lot to be done. At the moment, all the attention is shifting towards new programmes, which is right and proper, but the Committee should be aware that a substantial body of work is involved in bringing the other programmes to a proper conclusion.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): A good time to retire, then, is it?

Mr Colgan: I will not elaborate on that, but, yes, it is time for me to hand over to the new person, whoever that will be.

The new programmes, as Frank said, will hopefully be up and running soon. The new INTERREG has already been formally adopted, and we are hopeful that, over the coming weeks and months, we can get Peace to the stage at which it can be adopted. Let me also mention that there are quite a number of technical issues between us and the member states that we are discussing at the moment. Those are the details of the implementation of the programme that still have to be agreed, and, most notably, the practicalities of making sure that we can achieve the target of 36 weeks for processing applications. I am confident that we will have a good outcome, but there is still a lot of work to be done there, and I know that Frank agrees that we still need to put that to bed. That is really it. I am happy to take any questions that you may have.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): What kind of timeline is there for Peace IV? I am thinking of the many groups in the community that have seen the new Peace IV funding opened and are perhaps in discussion with other bodies, such as the councils, to try to line up match funding. Is there a danger, with a bit of slippage, that some of the proposals may not go ahead?

Mr Duffy: I will touch on that first and then hand over to Pat.

We have discussed that with the Commission. It is looking at the current draft programme and at the regulations that the Commission itself has. The inter-service consultation is essentially where the various departmental bits of the Commission — regions, employment and so on — look at that from their narrow perspectives. The Commission has provided us with some comments on particular areas of the Peace programme on which they want more detail.

The current programmes are very outcome-focused. It wants to see the outcomes and targets that we intend to achieve and how we intend to achieve them. The Commission interrogates that in some detail and depth.

Peace itself has been caught up in the round of negotiations that takes place in the European Parliament on the Budget. Money that was allocated from the Budget for programmes last year has to be carried over into this year if a programme has not been adopted. Peace was not adopted, so the Parliament and the Council have to agree that the money for it that was voted for last year will be in this year's Budget. There are increasing signs that the Parliament itself is taking a greater interest in the level of spend and may take the opportunity to try to renegotiate some aspects, and that could delay the process.

We are hoping, and certainly our conversations with officials were indicating, that, if possible, the Commission would seek to offer a letter of comfort. That would happen where we had agreed the principles of the programme with the Commission and it was broadly content with it. There might be some finer detail to work through, and the multi-annual financial framework — the Budget — has to be agreed, but, in principle, it would be saying to us that we could go ahead with the programme. In those circumstances, we may be able to go for calls. Our expectation is that, with a fair wind, that might be achievable before the end of March, but into April is perhaps more likely. If that were to happen, there would be a call shortly afterwards, but issues with gap funding may be raised. As we pointed out at previous Committee meetings, these are essentially self-contained programmes. The programme that finishes — Pat was talking about closure — is obviously coming to an end. It will not carry on into the next programme. The programme that we are currently negotiating on with the Commission is a new programme and, as such, is about new projects and themes that come forward. It is not about continuation of funding. There is no expectation in the Commission that there is continuation of funding.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): How does the 36-week target for both programmes compare with that in other jurisdictions? If there is difficulty in meeting the targets, what flexibility is there for you?

Mr Colgan: Perhaps I can take that, Chair. I have been on record here before as saying that the average for those kinds of cross-border programmes is between 20 and 26 weeks, and sometimes a little bit more. A target of 36 weeks compares very favourably generally. It is on the margins of the longer side. If we can achieve 36 weeks, it will be a significant improvement on the past. The great thing that it does is that it brings predictability to the process, because we will publish, in advance, the dates for the calls for proposals and the dates on which the meetings of the steering committees on those calls for proposals will be held. People will know when they put in their application that the decision will be taken on such-and-such a date. Therefore, they will have those dates in advance for quite a number of the calls.

There is quite a bit a detail involved, though, in ensuring that we do not create any additional complexity for ourselves in those 36 weeks. At the moment, we are discussing the finer points of that with Departments. We are looking at a situation here in which the final decision according to the regulations on allocations of moneys to project applications is taken by the steering committee. The steering committee is set up by the monitoring committee and includes representatives of accountable Departments, other Departments, member states and other necessary players. That final decision should be taken by the steering committee, and there should also be just one assessment process, not two different assessment processes. Those are the principles that we are bringing to the table.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): It would be good if predictability were brought to the process. I suppose that the flip side of that is that, if things are tight and there is slippage with the 36 weeks, there is not that predictability. How did you come to the figure of 36 weeks? How big a challenge is it?

Mr Duffy: It is a two-stage process, Chairman. The first one is a nought-to-12-week process, which is essentially an initial assessment of applications that come in to see whether they meet the criteria.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): Is that separate?

Mr Duffy: No, it is part and parcel of the 36-week process to look at that and make a quick decision on whether someone is eligible to go forward so that people will know with a degree of certainty quite early on whether there is a likelihood that their application will be taken forward. They are then given a period in which to work up in more detail the application itself. It is probably akin to outline planning permission versus full planning permission, if you want to use that analogy. The idea is that, within that 12-week period, you know whether there is a likelihood of the application going forward. Applicants have a period in which to work up their programme in more detail. The next stage is a full-blown application. A decision will be reached within 24 weeks on that. It is a bit of a hybrid, but I think that that is in recognition of the fact that there is quite a bit of interest in Peace and INTERREG projects. You get quite a volume of applications, and it is about trying to sift those applications in order to give more detailed consideration to those that are considered runners.

Mr Colgan: There are provisions in the programme for the monitoring of the process. The Commission will monitor it very carefully through the monitoring committee. Any deviation from the targets will have to be published on our website, with a clear explanation as to why those deviations have happened. They will have to be signed off by the steering committee.

We were working on the assumption that we would be talking about a very significant exception to the rule. Thirty-six weeks is something that we should be sticking to. That is why it is very important to get right the detail of the templates that we use and the procedures, processes and guidance that we give to applicants, and so on, because, if we do not get it right, there is room for slippage.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): If we get the letter of comfort —

Mr Colgan: Technically, what will happen is that we would issue a call for applications. That call would go out on a certain date. We would leave that call open for, say, 30 days. Once we had set a date for the receipt of applications —

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): The end of the 30 days is the start of the 12 weeks.

Mr Colgan: That is it. When we receive the application is the start of the 36 weeks.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): Therefore, by the end of the summer, the 12-week period should be finished?

Mr Colgan: Yes, for the stage 1 application. People will know by then whether they are still in the frame. We then move on to stage 2, where applicants will be invited to submit a much more detailed business case or proposal. We will have templates for and guidance on what exactly that consists of, any information that people have to provide and the level of detail that they have to go into. That will then be subject to assessment. It is that assessment that will go to the steering committee at the end of the 36 weeks — the predefined steering committee date for a decision.

Mr Duffy: I have talked to all the finance directors across all the different Departments. The aim is to try to ensure that the application form itself sets out sufficient headlines and detail about what is required so that the information is captured on that and so that they do not have to go off, for example, and produce 20 or 30 different regional strategies that may have been published and have to refer to those. It is about keeping the information very succinct, very detailed and commensurate with the amount of money that they are looking for.

Mr Colgan: The calls will be very focused this time. There will be a different look and feel to the programmes because of what Frank referred to earlier as the results orientation of the programmes. The calls will be going out saying, "We are inviting applications from people who feel that they can contribute to the achievements of the following results, and we would like you to demonstrate to us in your application how you will contribute to the achievement of those results". We are looking not for a generic setting-out of strategies, visions and objectives but for something that is very focused on the achievement of predefined results. The payments will be made based on the achievement of those results, as the programme itself will be held to account based on the achievement of those results.

Mr McCallister: Following on from your points, Chair, I wish to raise an issue that has been a great bugbear of mine. I think that this was a commitment that you gave, Frank, in response to a question from me — I will need to check Hansard — where you said, I think, that you would try to get it below 40 weeks. Congratulations on coming down to 36 weeks. I am encouraged to hear that that target is set and that you will stick to it, or endeavour to so do where possible, by using things such as pre-application and standardisation much more, because there seemed at times to be a slight tension between SEUPB and DFP, and also when you brought in other Departments or funding bodies and different levels of economic appraisal. Pat, when you were here before, I think, you said that, in other parts of the EU, economic appraisals were not used for sums below €1 million.

Mr Colgan: I have brought this up many times.

Mr McCallister: — and different levels of spend. In moving towards the 36-week target, are you content that we have ironed out most of those problems?

Mr Colgan: The big challenge is to meet the programme regulatory requirements. Those are quite clear, and we have defined them. Secondly, we must make sure that we meet the requirements of the member states or regions within member states. There will be Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland INTERREG, so we must adhere to whatever the national rules are. It is a question of interpreting those rules and what we need to do to satisfy them.

In Northern Ireland, specific issues are outlined in the Northern Ireland guide to expenditure appraisal and evaluation (NIGAE). It is a question of looking at how we address those needs. That is what I am referring to as the detail of getting this agreed.

We have some clear proposals on the table, which we are discussing. We are just making sure that there are no loose ends and that we have clarity. You are right that the question of economic appraisals is important, and it is an important part of our discussions with the Department about how we satisfy Northern Ireland's need in relation to that.

Mr McCallister: From my perspective of being on the Committee, it always seemed that it started in Brussels, got a bit of gold on it in London and the final polish here in Belfast. It tended to look as though we were over-complicating the matter. How on earth did we get from the European average of 26 weeks to 56 weeks?

Mr Duffy: Let me set that in context, John. The previous programme ran from 2007 to 2013. When it was launched, in the Administration here, new Departments were set up, new Ministers were involved, and civil servants were coming to terms with the policies in Departments.

In the early stages, the figure of 56 weeks was often quoted. I have done quite a bit of analysis on that, and it occurred in the early stages of the programme in particular. Issues arose, the application process was going through, details were coming in, and people were uncertain about strategies as well as the views of Ministers and Departments in certain areas.

So, in that early stage, a long time was certainly taken to make decisions, but there were a couple of calls subsequent to that. The most recent was in 2011. A NISRA study of that found that the figure was closer to 40 weeks, so it was already coming down, and this is but an extension of that.

It is important to point out that our aim is that 36 weeks should be the maximum. As Pat said, where there is to be an exception — it may well happen that you get a particularly complicated or sensitive project — we will publish the reason for that. Indeed, the Commission expects that. We will have to report to the Commission on our performance, and I am sure that the Committee will take a close interest, too.

Mr McCallister: I will have an interest in those targets being met and getting programmes out, as, I am sure, will colleagues. The programmes need to be scrutinised robustly, but we must get them out into communities.

Finally, I wish you well, Pat. Any dealings that I have had with you on the Committee or as a Member of the Assembly have been professional and courteous. I wish you well in your retirement.

Mr Colgan: If I may, Chair, I would like to add briefly to what Frank said. I mentioned that we have €112 million to spend this year on the two old programmes that are closing out. That is a direct result of the time it has taken us to get approval for those projects because they are being back-ended. We really should not be allowing that to happen.

We need to get this right and not have a backlog of projects to spend on at the end of the programme period. I take your point about the 2007 pace as well.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): What were the turnaround times for INTERREG and Peace?

Mr Colgan: There was no major difference between the two.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): There were problems with both.

Mr Colgan: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): Why were they so similar?

Mr Duffy: It was simply the process that was followed. The issue was, as Pat said, that economic appraisals were being done by Departments. That information was being gathered from the project, and often — Pat, you can keep me right, because it was before my time — the consultants were asked to do an appraisal of a particular project. They produced that and submitted it to the Department for consideration. In some cases, even on quite small projects, consultants went for a very detailed assessment that could be hundreds of pages long. When these assessments went to departmental economists, they raised all sorts of questions. The process then went into what I often refer to as an iterative loop: one question asked gave rise to other questions, and it went back and forth.

We are trying to cut that out and have aimed to do that in this process. We focused on the key strategic elements that need to be addressed up front: why are you doing that project? In many ways, it comes down to common sense. We are looking for projects that are value for money; have a demonstrated need, show that they meet what they are required to do by the EU regulations, fit within the strategy of the Departments overall; and will produce results. In essence, that is it.

In some cases, it is about cutting out the guff, if I may use that terminology. In the past, the consultants, who were perhaps not familiar with the programme or departmental attitudes, lumped together all the strategies they could find that might possibly be relevant to a particular project. We know now that that is not necessary. If you are going for a project in a particular locality, you justify it on the basis of why you have chosen that particular option and how it fits with the programme that the Commission has agreed and the broader departmental strategy. An assessment does not have to go into the nth detail of every strategy ever written.

Mr Colgan: The key thing is to eliminate the need for, or the tendency towards, two different assessment processes. There should be a single assessment process designed by the programme in consultation with the member states, accountable Departments and the Commission. That process should be robust enough to satisfy the needs of everybody who needs to be satisfied. That is where the problem arose in the previous programme. The Joint Technical Secretariat and SEUPB did their assessments in line with agreed procedures, but, when it went to an accountable Department, a new assessment was started, and, frequently, went back to the very beginning and considered why it had a particular locus or objective. That is what took an awful lot of time.

The integrity of the decision-making structures that are designed and included in a programme agreed by the two member states and the Commission needs to be respected, and it needs to be given the robustness and strength that it needs to be able to get on with the business of doing this. It also needs to account for and be responsible for it afterwards. It is important that accountable Departments are an integral part of that process, but it should not be separate and different.

Mr Duffy: Earlier, Chairman, you asked why there are differential delegation limits. Ministers from different Departments use match funding and, because they are accountable for that, they have determined what level of risk their Department is prepared to take. We have to respect that. In our case, we have different delegation limits within DFP and we operate to those. However, policy-competent Departments for particular areas will have their own means of deciding what projects they are prepared to fund and how they are prepared to fund them. We need to respect that.

Mr Shaun Henry (Special EU Programmes Body): Pat referred to the result and output focus of the new programmes, and that should greatly help us in expediting the assessment of projects. The programmes that are approved contain very explicit results and outputs with quantified targets set against them. Those with the corresponding budget allocations have been agreed by the relevant Departments, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government, so the SEUPB will assess applications in that context. Therefore, when a project assessment is forwarded to the relevant Department, it is in the context of predefined budget allocations and result and output targets. That should, we think, greatly assist the accountable Departments in making very speedy decisions on the merit or otherwise of any particular project.

We are working in an amended and changed EU regulatory environment. With goodwill from all the players on this side, there is no reason why we should not be able to meet the 36-week targets. It will depend on the commitment of all the players in the assessment process and on having a focus on achieving those targets, but it should be possible.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): Would it be possible for the Committee to see a process map or graph that shows how that has been reduced to a single process?

Mr Colgan: That is not a problem. As I said, some of the finer details are still being ironed out with the Departments, and I would prefer to have a clearer, signed-off position on some of those before we share it with you.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): So, can we get that as soon as it is signed off?

Mr Colgan: We would be happy to share that with you, and I think it important that we do so.

Mr Cree: Good morning, gentlemen. Moving on from the time frame, I wonder whether you would share with us the rationale or strategy that produces the various amounts and objectives for both programmes. How did you split them off?

Mr Colgan: Shaun has been taking the lead on that.

Mr Henry: We went through a very extensive public consultation process. We consulted on the programme twice: in 2012 and in 2014. Running alongside those public consultation events, we had in-depth discussions with all the relevant Departments in Northern Ireland, Ireland and Scotland. Through that process and within the context of the EU regulations, we distilled a set of specific objectives and allocated money to those.

Fundamental to the allocation of money is the Commission requirement that we achieve impact on the themes and sectors in which we invest, so we must have sufficient critical mass in any particular policy area to ensure that the level of our activity is sufficient to produce impact. Basically, that is the principle of concentration. The Commission insists that all EU programmes in this programming period are what they call concentrated. That means that there are a limited number of policy areas with corresponding budget allocations and a sufficient scale to produce impact. Through that type of iterative process of public consultation, and with the Departments intimately involved in the EU policy context, the budget allocations emerged.

Mr Cree: Do you have any papers that set out the working out of that strategy that we could have a look at?

Mr Colgan: The strategy is outlined in the operational programme.

Mr Cree: That is a broad-bush document; I want to know how we end up with specific amounts in specific areas.

Mr Henry: We went through an extended iterative process with numerous draft programmes and discussions with all the relevant players. Through that process, and mindful of the requirement of the concentration of allocating sufficient money in order to achieve impact, we came to a settled view on the budget allocations across the programme.

Mr Cree: How did you quantify the draft programmes?

Mr Henry: We identified the specific objectives within the regulatory framework. We also have to bear it in mind that the regulations gave us a field of 11 themes that we could operate within. The regulations were already quite focused, and, of those 11 themes for an INTERREG programme, we had to choose only four, so there was a regulatory imperative for immediate concentration. We went out to public consultation, and we asked the public and other interested stakeholders which themes were the most appropriate to address the needs on a cross-border basis.

That was the process. Mindful of the total budget allocated to the programme, we made a judgement on what would be the appropriate allocation to each theme —

Mr Cree: Will you explain that judgement?

Mr Henry: Those indicative figures were then subject to a second public consultation. So, we made those and our judgement available to the public. Those were the figures in the budget allocations that were then subject to a public consultation.

Mr Colgan: Let me add to what Shaun is saying —

Mr Cree: Sorry, but you are not answering my question. Can we go back to the indicative figures, please?

Mr Colgan: Answering your question is precisely what I want to do. The indicative figures in the operational programmes were arrived at, as Shaun said, after a process of thorough and exhaustive consultation. The process itself was overseen by a programme development steering group, which contained representatives of all the key stakeholders, and proposals were put forward. We also investigated and identified what kind of project pipeline would be out there for each of the specific themes of the particular investment objectives.

Based on an assessment of the capacity to absorb, we made recommendations to the programme development steering committee, and subsequently to two member states, for them to look at whether the balance was correct. It was only after consultation with the member states and the programme development steering group that we arrived at an outcome.

Mr Cree: There must be a rationale, but I cannot hear what that is. There is no document that shows the paper trail for how we ended up with the €50·4 million for specific objective 2 and €90 million for specific objective 3.

Mr Colgan: Ultimately, Leslie, it comes down to the selection of investment priorities, within which are specific objectives. You need to tie that to specific potential projects that are capable of absorbing those. There are, for example, x number of young people in various categories. We worked with the various Departments and other key stakeholders in looking at the sort of engagement and scale needed.

Aiming to achieve an overall balance across the programme, we have come up with recommendations and suggestions. Those, too, are tested and critically evaluated by people in particular roles, and their advice to us is that the sums are right.

Mr Cree: Pat, what you are saying is that you extrapolated the notions that you had to make them into an exact science.

Mr Colgan: I do not know what you mean by "extrapolated".

Mr Cree: I did not understand a lot of what you said; it was all mumbo jumbo to me. There is no paper, and there is no way that we can check, for example, that those numbers are in the right ballpark.

Mr Colgan: The paper involved in the process is the huge amount of consultation paperwork that is all available on our website. The reports and minutes of our programme development steering group are on the record, as are our meetings with the various Departments and the two member states. It is a well-documented — hugely documented — process. We arrived at the numbers through a process, as I said, of asking, "What priorities are emerging in our consultation?", and then, "What capacity is there to engage and absorb this money?"

Mr Cree: That is subjective.

Mr Colgan: No, that is not subjective; it is based on research.

Mr Cree: Is it objective?

Mr Colgan: It is research that we have done for a project pipeline for each one of the themes.

Mr Cree: We cannot see that.

Mr Colgan: The research is fed in through our whole consultation process. You can see that in the minutes of our programme development steering group.

Mr Cree: There is no point in using a lot of words to fill up the space; we cannot scrutinise that process.

Mr Colgan: I have been involved in designing and developing EU programmes since 1978, and I cannot find any better way. I have been a long time at this.

Mr Cree: I am not asking, with respect, what you think; I am telling you what I think. We would like to be able to scrutinise that because it is the basis of the whole exercise, but that is as far as we are going to get, by the look of it.

Mr D Bradley: Good morning. You mentioned that a series of pre-application development workshops would be held in February and March of this year. Have they begun?

Mr Henry: No, they are due to start towards the end of next week.

Mr D Bradley: Have they been advertised?

Mr Henry: They are advertised on our website, and we have mailed thousands of people in different groups and organisations that previously expressed an interest in the programmes.

Mr D Bradley: How will groups that have never been involved in making an application know about it?

Mr Colgan: We will publicise the workshops very well. The information will be on our website and in the national media. We will make people aware that the events are on, and we would appreciate assistance from Members of the Assembly and members of the Committee. If you know of groups, individuals and communities that have not engaged with us, by all means, please approach us and tell us. We have been doing that for years and will continue to do that.

Mr D Bradley: For groups that have not been involved in the process before, is the first step attending one of these pre-application workshops?

Mr Colgan: I think that it would be very useful for them to do that, because they will get an overview. They will get a picture of what the programme structure is like and what the programme will expect from anybody making an application to it. I have done this many times in the past, and, if you know of any groups, I will be happy to meet with representatives to explain the process in more detail, if that would be helpful. We have done that many times before.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): Is there certainty about the additional €50 million from the European territorial cooperation budget for the United Youth programme under Peace?

Mr Duffy: As you know, Chair, the economic pact announced the additional €50 million from the UK's European territorial cooperation allocation. That was then placed into the Peace programme. The European territorial cooperation programme is all, like the ad said, in the name: it is about territorial cooperation. Therefore, we are expected to do cross-border work with our colleagues to ensure that we come up with a programme that satisfies the European Commission's views of what should be done.

The intention of that allocation was to support Together: Building a United Community and specifically, where appropriate, the United Youth strategy. That is exactly where we are. We are working very closely with DEL and our counterparts in the Republic to ensure that the United Youth strategy benefits people with no education, employment or training in Northern Ireland and in the Republic so that the programme will have definite outcomes that satisfy what the European Commission wants. The €50 million will be allocated, and we will show which targets it intends to meet on a shared basis. We are working with DEL to ensure that its detail satisfies the European Commission in that respect. That is one reason why we have been having the discussions with Europe recently.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): When will we see you again?

Mr Duffy: Me? Whenever the Committee wants to see me again.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): Could you brief us again before the summer as the process goes on?

Mr Duffy: Certainly.

Mr Weir: Forgive me, I was out of the room for a few minutes. I want to follow up on Dominic's point about groups that have not been involved before. When we were talking about the roll-out of workshops, concern was expressed about the spread of those. Have you expanded the number and location?

Mr Colgan: We started with eight venues, and our intention was to test demand. All eight are now full, so we have added a few extra locations. It was always our intention to do so. If there is additional demand, we will look at it.

Mr Weir: I want to expand and clarify. It is good to hear that you have added to the initial eight, but by how many? You mentioned information being on the SEUPB website, but I could not find any direct reference to the consultation or any details on the additional workshops.

Mr Colgan: It is a work in progress, Peter. It is developing as we work.

Mr Weir: I could not even find any reference to the original eight, let alone that bit. As we move into an age in which social media websites are a lot more important, there may be a degree of oversight, because it did not appear to be particularly user-friendly. I appreciate that you do not have the information to hand, but you could maybe send the Committee information on where —

Mr Colgan: I can tell you now. The additional locations are Belfast, Ballymena and Armagh, and they are in addition to Omagh, Enniskillen, Derry/Londonderry, Belturbet, Carlingford, Skainos in east Belfast, Corrymeela in Ballycastle and Glasgow. There are 11.

Mr Weir: There is nothing in for north Down or Strangford, for instance.

Mr Colgan: If there was a demand in north Down or Strangford, I would be happy to talk to people.

Mr Weir: With respect, people do not know that it is happening in the first place. Simply saying that you would cater for it, "if there was a demand", is not really good enough. You should, at least, be looking at somewhere there. I ask you to take that away with you.

Mr Colgan: Point taken. Thank you, Peter.

Ms Boyle: My question is very simple, but, first, I want to congratulate you on your work to date, Pat and wish you well in your retirement. I am meeting a group in my area, tomorrow morning. A small group of individuals got together to create childcare facilities such as a play group. The area, which I represent, is quite rural. Between Strabane and Sion Mills, it sits in the border region, and is very well placed. Until now, the group has been self-sufficient, but it is finding it very difficult because of the demands that they are trying to meet in a rural area, North and South. That group is looking for financial assistance. Can I tell them, tomorrow, that this is what they should be looking at, or would this be outside the remit of children and young people?

Mr Henry: Obviously, I cannot talk about an individual case without knowing all of the details. As the programmes are constituted, we do not envisage funding the direct provision of places in preschool activity. If the activity has peace and reconciliation-type outcomes, perhaps there may be potential for it within some strands of the programme. I emphasise again the important role that we see local authorities playing in the programme going forward. We will be asking the local authorities, North and South, to develop Peace action plans. We will publish details of those in the next number of weeks.

The easiest way to access the programme for many of the smaller groups will probably be through their local authority, rather than from us directly. We encourage smaller groups, in particular, to stay very, very close to the new councils and to become aware of the process that councils will be engaged in as they go about drafting their Peace action plans for their area.

Ms Boyle: Thank you, Shaun. I understand that. I am quite close to my local authority in this regard. However, you can understand why, if the group saw this document, which contains all the buzzwords and references to "children", "young people" and "areas of disadvantage", it would feel that it should be included.

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): Pat, I wish you all the best for the future and your retirement. If you are looking for employment, I know of a couple of community groups in my constituency.

Mr Colgan: I am no good at writing applications.

Mr Duffy: Chair, would you like me to liaise with the Committee Clerk about a reappearance?

The Chairperson (Mr McKay): That would be fantastic. Thanks, Frank.