Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We welcome Dr Mark Browne, the undersecretary of finance, strategic planning and social change; Joe Reynolds, the acting director of Programme for Government (PFG) and Delivering Social Change (DSC); Margaret Rose McNaughton, director of the equality and reform directorate; and Ricky Irwin, the director of finance, strategic planning and social —

Mr Ricky Irwin (Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): No.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): No?

Mr R Irwin: That is Mark; I am the director of social investment and victims.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): The director of social investment and victims?

Mr R Irwin: Correct.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Right. That information came from your Department, by the way. Mark, are you leading?

Dr Mark Browne (Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): Yes, Chair. Thanks very much for the opportunity to come to the Committee. I am conscious that you have already had a very long session with the main event. We feel like the supporting event coming after that, but we are very pleased to be here and have sent the Committee a summary of progress on each of the commitments. I will make very brief comments because I am sure that you want to move to questions as quickly as possible.

OFMDFM has 14 commitments in the Programme for Government. Of those, at the end of the original PFG period of 31 March, nine were assessed as complete. They include the One Plan; the City of Culture; the competitive EU funding drawdown target; the childcare strategy target; the Delivering Social Change commitment, including the social protection fund; the commitment relating to the advisory committee on hardship; Together: Building a United Community, or the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy commitment; and the commitment on the structures of government.

In addition, the targets for two commitments relating to the social investment fund were not met, but there has been significant progress. A number of commitments that have not been met, and which were touched on in the earlier session, relate to, for example, Maze/Long Kesh, the child poverty strategy and age discrimination legislation.

Since March 2015, we have continued to make progress across a range of those areas. There has, for example, been progress in drawing down additional EU funds; increasing the commitment of resources under the social investment fund; the childcare strategy; taking forward the implementation and evaluation of Delivering Social Change programmes; and continuing the development and implementation of Together: Building a United Community programmes. In addition, a key focus of the work in the Department has been on supporting work on a new outcomes-focused Programme for Government. We have been working on a collaborative basis with permanent secretaries, special advisers and a range of others to draw up, and help to take forward, work on the new Programme for Government. That will set out a framework that meets the aspirations that people have and want the Executive to support; ensures that we have the evidence available to us on what works best in addressing those aspirations; and sets out the different ways in which we will work to deliver against an outcomes-focused Programme for Government. That work is intended to put in place an evidence base for political parties to work from in the development process following the election.

That is all that I want to say at this point, Chair. I am happy to take questions on any of the commitments.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Thank you. I appreciate the brevity, Mark. The Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation had a revised business plan for 2014-15, but it was not approved by Ministers until 1 April 2015. Has a 2015-16 business plan been agreed?

Dr Browne: The 2015-16 business plan is with the Ministers.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): With a couple of weeks of the financial year to go.

Dr Browne: There are a couple of weeks to go. My recollection is that it has been approved. I will have to check, but I think that it has been approved.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Are there any priorities for the site, beyond keeping it safe?

Dr Browne: The lack of political agreement on the way forward, as referred to in the previous session, means that the key role for the board has concerned the health and safety and maintenance of the site and the various retained and listed buildings on it, and, almost as importantly, facilitating the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society (RUAS) show each year and ensuring that it is a success. It has been a growing success each year. An important development is the movement of the new pavilion to the Maze from the previous site, which has improved the facilities available for the hosting of the show. There has been some development, but it has been limited by the lack of political agreement.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): The RUAS is pushing ahead.

Dr Browne: The RUAS has been able to make some steps forward, particularly the moving of the pavilion.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): The road structure has not been progressed.

Dr Browne: Without agreement on the site and appropriate budgets, it has not been possible to take forward that sort of infrastructural development.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We are way beyond the target for the drawdown of competitive EU funds. What advice are you giving to Ministers about potential targets for the next Programme for Government?

Dr Browne: First, we want to ensure that we are well positioned and maintain our current position. Competitive funds are an important source of additional funding, and accessing them requires proper organisation and collaboration across Departments. This is not money that falls easily into your lap. You have to ensure that good, strong applications are properly made; you have to develop networks; and you have to be aware of and influential in calls. We have a network in place that facilitates that through the coordinators in the universities and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI).

We have exceeded the target, but you and I discussed this before, Chair, and we are aware that the first target was set somewhat blindly, to be fair. We were not really sure what was possible. We have a better idea now of what is possible and hope to build on that, so we will want to look carefully at this to ensure that we continue to make progress and draw down funds in this important area.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): You will have heard me ask the Ministers about the play and leisure programme in Delivering Social Change, Mark. I got the impression from them that it does not exist any more and that its objectives are being met through other activities. Can you confirm that? I am just seeking clarity; I am not being critical.

Dr Browne: The play and leisure programme was announced as the seventh signature project. The intention at that point was that it would have a budget of £1·6 million, subject to that money being available. I do not need to tell the Committee how difficult times have been and what pressures there have been on resource. The anticipated budget to take forward that programme was not there, but we have looked at how we can take forward its aims and objectives through existing departmental programmes: how we can work with Departments to ensure that they take any opportunities to progress work in play and leisure. Also, some of our programmes are taking this forward. Some SIF programmes relate to the development of leisure programmes through the 3G pitches and so forth, but we have been working mainly with other Departments.

Ms Margaret Rose McNaughton (Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): Junior Minister McCann mentioned that there was an element of play and leisure in the summer camp programme. As Mark said, when no money was available for the programme, we started to look at other ways in which we could deliver aspects of it.

At a play symposium tonight and tomorrow, experts from England, Scotland and Wales will share their experiences and explain how they are managing, with very little funding, to introduce really good initiatives.

As Mark said, a number of SIF projects relate specifically to play and leisure. I do not have the costings associated with those, but there is a substantial investment in play and leisure as a result.
We have identified three outcomes and worked with stakeholders to develop those a little further. Part of the purpose of the symposium tomorrow is to make sure that we engage with our stakeholders and get our plan on target again. There certainly is a programme of work for play and leisure, and we will want to progress it and continue to seek funding in other areas, as well as through the normal, traditional route.

Mr Attwood: I apologise because, when the question that I am about to ask has been answered, I will have to leave to attend another meeting.

I want to take you back to your previous answer, which I find hard to accept. You said that the target drawdown for discretionary funds was worked out "somewhat blindly". I cannot accept that because discretionary funds in Europe have been available, and Northern Ireland Departments have been able to access them, for a long time. It is nearly 10 years since the restoration of the institutions, so there has been plenty of time to set a target by means other than "blindly". I do not accept that assessment of where the target was and where it has ended up. That target was set deliberately low because we have been weak in drawing down discretionary funds. That is the right answer, I suggest, rather than, "Well, it was a suck-it-and-see approach". That does not bear interrogation.

Dr Browne: I do not accept that interpretation. Departments have been drawing down funding for a long time.

When I say that it was done blindly, I mean that there was not the centralised collation of information on the funds that were drawn down. There were differences in the way the funding was recorded by Departments, such as whether it had to be purely departmental or whether a third party could score. We did not know the base that we were starting from. Indeed, over the time when the information was collected, a number of adjustments were made to try to get it on a sound and consistent basis. In that sense, we did not have clarity on where we were at that point.

The second thing that we did not have clarity on was the potential to do more. Because there had not been a concerted focus in this area, there had not been a full sharing of best practice. Some Departments were very good at this; others had not really focused on it very much and were not aware of best practice. We were not aware of the potential.

When I say, then, that it was set blindly, I do not mean that we had absolutely no information. I mean that the information we had was not consistent or complete and that we were not fully aware of the potential because of the differential in participation by Departments. By bringing all Departments in, putting the focus on this and encouraging them all to participate, the target has been enhanced significantly. I do not think that anyone could have set a target that they could say was absolutely correct. We are in a much better position for the next period. You may think that "blindly" is slightly overstating it, but I still think that the full information to set a clear target was not there.

Mr Attwood: Your answer is fuller and reflects systemic failures within Government and within Departments on what the baseline was and what the craft should be to access funds. On the far side of all that, do you not agree that, for example, when you compare the drawdown of FP7 in Dublin and Belfast or the anticipated drawdown of Horizon 2020 in Belfast and Dublin, we are still not at the races?

Dr Browne: Both Belfast and Dublin?

Mr Attwood: No, Dublin demonstrates clearly. It has an aggregate of €1·4 billion drawdown from Horizon 2020 and, as we learnt, its drawdown of €900 million from FP7 was beyond by a half what it anticipated. When we compare what is happening 100 miles away in Dublin with what we are doing to draw down from that sort of discretionary fund, we are not at the races yet, are we?

Dr Browne: Certainly, Dublin is ahead of us by some distance. There are a number of reasons for that, and we are trying to learn. We have had contact with our southern counterparts to try to learn from their experience. For example, it has a much more significant university sector. It is a member state. It has access to all the committees; indeed, it is on the committees. It can influence the shape of the calls. It has links and influence that we, as a region, do not have. It plays that hand very effectively. The South is a very effective operator in Europe; there is no question about that. It uses that to its advantage in this area. It also has a much more significant private sector. On a lot of these calls, quite often you have to be able to draw in private sector expertise, and we suffer from that. We have a number of disadvantages, but we have exceeded the target. It may not have been set as high as it could have been, but this is a measure of success; it cannot be viewed in any other way. This has been a success, and we want to build on it.

Mr Attwood: Just before I go, then, can you share at all the recommendation to DFP for drawdown in the next mandate of discretionary funds?

Dr Browne: We are not yet at that stage, Alex.

Mr Attwood: I do apologise.

Dr Browne: You are all right. We are at the high level of outcomes for the Programme for Government; we are not yet at the detailed series of actions. That is some way down the track.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I want to go back to this budget, Mark. I am just seeking clarity. Are you saying that one of the issues for the play and leisure signature project was a lack of funds?

Dr Browne: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Your website says that, in October 2013, junior Ministers:

It is not saying that junior Ministers "will see if they can source £1·6 million"; they announced the investment. Did that money exist when they announced it?

Dr Browne: The money did exist, in the sense that there are central funds that are available to cover a range of areas. That is the £14 million of resource and the £15 million of capital that we use for SIF, childcare and other signature projects. Money was being put into those signature projects; because of some of the delays that we have talked about before in getting SIF off the ground, money was becoming available. The assessment had to be made about whether funds were available to be put to other projects and, at the point at which that was announced, the intention and the expectation was that there would be sufficient scope in the budget to be able to do that. As it turned out, with the pressures in other areas, that funding was not available, and so the view was taken that we would have to take that forward in a different way.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Where on the website will I find the announcement that they are not investing £1·6 million in that programme?

Dr Browne: The junior Ministers have made it clear that we are taking that forward by working with other Departments. We have reported to the Committee that that is the way that we are taking that forward.

Mr Lyttle: Can I supplement that, Chair?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Sorry, I am still not clear. The last time that we had a briefing on DSC and signature projects, nobody mentioned play and leisure. We talked about the six original projects and the three Atlantic Philanthropies-funded projects.

Mr Lyttle: Maybe that is why, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Because it does not exist.

Mr Lyttle: How much of the £1·6 million that was announced was spent or allocated to play and leisure?

Dr Browne: That is the point that I am making. Within that broader budget pot, there are a number of competing demands. The planning assumption was that that money would be available, but when it came to looking at the actual allocations that were required and the competing priorities, the money was not available to put to the project in that time frame.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Was there ever a call for organisations to pitch for a chunk of that money?

Ms McNaughton: No. We did not get to that point. Can I say —

Mr Lyttle: So, zero.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): So it was an announcement that never took off.

Ms McNaughton: A number of projects have been developed through the SIF scheme that are specifically on play and leisure. There has been a significant investment in those. I do not have the figures with me, but I can —

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I am not contesting that. I am not contesting that the Department is doing things in that area. What I am saying is that that signature programme never actually existed. It was announced in October 2013 by Ministers in the Department. It was an investment of £1·6 million. Those are not my words; those are your words.

Dr Browne: I do not think that it is correct to say that the programme never existed. It was announced, and the intention was that there would be the budget that you have identified associated with it. Because of other pressures, that budget was not available, so the view was taken that the signature programme that had been announced would be taken forward in a range of different ways using existing funding.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): There was no call. There was no organisation that bid.

Dr Browne: If we were taking it forward, there would not be the need for the same kind of approach in terms of an open call when we are working with other Departments to influence their expenditure and policies to incorporate within them a greater degree of play and leisure. That is the way that we have taken this signature programme forward.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): It is a signature programme. It is a programme that nobody got to pitch for.

Ms McNaughton: I mentioned that we had developed three outcomes, one of which was every child playing more. One of the activities for that was the development and dissemination of guidance for teachers on how play could be utilised more in the curriculum. It is not necessarily that there would be a call or a grant scheme associated with a signature programme. There are other things like developing a charter for play to promote article 31, using health visitors and interactions with new mothers to promote and highlight the importance of play. Those are things that we hope to do and, indeed —

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I am not contesting that. I would just feel more comfortable and have more respect if the answer was that you made that announcement in October 2013 and then discovered better ways to deliver the same objective.

Dr Browne: I think that that is what I said. I said that the signature programme was announced. It was anticipated that there would be a certain budget. When there were financial pressures with that, we looked at other ways of delivering the objective of the programme, and Margaret Rose has set out a number of ways in which they were delivered. Many of those programmes can be delivered at low cost or no cost. I would have thought that it would be a benefit to be able to deliver the outcomes of a programme at low cost or no cost, rather than having to put substantial amounts of money into something.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): You are advising us that the nurture units, the family support hubs, parenting support, community family support and even the social enterprise hubs will continue after March through alternative funding sources coming forward from lead Departments. Have those lead Departments given solid commitments to funding these things?

Dr Browne: No. I do not believe that the Departments are yet in a position to give solid commitments to those. Many of them are still working through the detail of their allocations for next year and will be working through their budgets. The information that we have got from them is that their intention, and what they plan to do, is to continue those on, but we await final decisions by Ministers.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Have you been able to do a risk assessment?

Dr Browne: Have we been able to do a risk assessment? That would be for the individual Departments to do around this. The programmes have been successful and the Departments are very supportive of them and they are now trying to look at whether, given the reductions in budgets that there are next year, it will be possible for them to continue and, if so, in what form.

Mr Lyttle: I want to follow up on the play and leisure policy. The outcomes that you have talked about, Margaret, are obviously really important, and it is a really important area. I suppose that when you consider how sedentary lifestyles are becoming in modern times, it is crucial that parents and community groups are equipped to know how to encourage and facilitate play and leisure. The chair has exposed a pretty startling development that a £1·6 million programme was advertised but there has been no information up to now to advise anybody that that had not happened or had happened in different ways. I am not sure how the Department can use SIF to deliver an issue when the concept of that fund is about bottom-up suggestions. I do not know how the Department uses that to deliver something through which other people are making the decisions on what gets delivered, to a certain extent.

Dr Browne: I will take the last point first. Particularly as we move forward into a Programme for Government that is outcomes-focused, how something is delivered and who delivers it are less important than actually delivering it and achieving the outcome. We were saying that, when it came to the play and leisure programme, what we were interested in was not that there would be a certain amount of money and a call and all the rest of it, but that the outcomes of the programme would be achieved. Faced with the financial pressures, we looked at other ways in which that could be done, and we have harnessed the programmes that are currently going on in other Departments to try to achieve those outcomes. If we can achieve the same outcomes by tweaking existing mainstream programmes at low cost or no cost, and at a saving in terms of funding that might otherwise have to be used, that is a positive point, albeit that it was not the way that we had originally intended to take the programme forward.

Mr Lyttle: At best, it has been really difficult to follow what has actually happened. It is a really important area of provision. I presume that that will transfer to the Department of Education anyway, so those people here who are elected and will sit on the Education Committee can try to ensure that it is adequately developed. It may lead me into another short question. It is good to have you here; I think I know, at this stage of the mandate, what everybody does. It has taken a while to get there, but it is interesting to have you all here on the various different issues.

I will start with Ricky, because I think I know that you deal with the social investment fund and with victims and survivors.

Mr R Irwin: That is correct.

Mr Lyttle: That is excellent. I will ask you the same thing that I asked the Ministers, just to seek further reassurance. I am a member of a steering group and of this Committee, and people have raised concerns with me about access to information and regular updates. I really just want to get your feedback in relation to that. Are you confident that improvements will be made in terms of access to information? Can you reassure me that appropriate processes for governance and funding allocations are being followed?

Mr R Irwin: Absolutely. We can provide that assurance that we are following procedures and adhering to all governance requirements. In terms of information sharing, if you are referring to the social investment fund, as a member of the steering group you will be aware of the level of communication and engagement that we have and will continue to have with those steering groups. We see that continuing for some time while the steering groups make some key decisions on the prioritisation of projects. As for sharing information with the Committee, we are very happy to provide any information or try to meet any information requests on specific projects or zones.

Mr Lyttle: Maybe this is something for me to follow up with you, because my point is that there is not good communication there. Margaret Rose, is it possible to get an update on the children and young people's strategy?

Ms McNaughton: Yes. There has been a significant amount of work done on the co-design process. Of course, that will transfer over to the Department of Education, as you know. We have had a number of meetings with different organisations. This time, we want to include something specifically about children with disabilities. A meeting was postponed, but I think that it is taking place next week. Indeed, I would like to build the play and leisure is there as well. You are right that that needs to be taken forward when it moves over to the Department of Education. So a lot of work has been done. Through the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, we need to have the strategy published and laid in the Assembly at, I think, the beginning of December. We really need to just keep moving at the pace we are moving. It is nine months from now, but it is certainly doable.

Mr Lyttle: Does the strategy go to the Department of Education as well?

Ms McNaughton: Yes.

Mr Lyttle: Mark, I will let you off; you have said enough. Joe, you are sitting there very quietly. My understanding is that you are working on preparation for the next Programme for Government. Can you give us any update on the type of work that is going in to engage with the public and organisations on the Programme for Government?

Mr Joe Reynolds (Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): As we came to the end of the original programme that was set for 2011-15, we undertook a review of that programme. In conjunction with that, we also began a process of consultation with the public. That took a variety of different forms: face-to-face engagement, one-to-one interviews, focus groups and surveys through the facilities that we have available in government. A quarterly survey was done, and that was demographically reflective of the population to take on board what it was they wanted to do. In your earlier session with the Ministers, they made it very clear that they are here as public servants to deliver for the will of the public. We took the information we gathered from those various different channels of communication and compared that against statistical information and the various data, qualitative and quantitative, that we hold within government about the issues that were raised through that process. Having identified from that the issues that we want to see featured in the construction of the next Programme for Government, you had a process of consultation with senior officials across Departments as well as representatives of the parties in Government at the moment. That has taken us to a situation where we have reasonably advanced progress in identifying what outcomes we think an incoming Executive might want to look at and a structure around how we would measure progress towards the delivery of those.

Mr Lyttle: Will there be a consultation on the draft Programme for Government at some stage?

Mr Reynolds: Yes. At this stage, we are aiming to develop a Programme for Government framework. Again, as alluded to in the earlier session with Ministers, under the terms of the Stormont House Agreement, those who have an entitlement to sit on the incoming Executive will be asked to resolve within a fixed period of time after the next election. We expect that, that having been resolved and Ministers having taken their portfolios, they will bring it forward to the Assembly for debate, and then there will be a period of public consultation.

Mr Lyttle: As for this mandate, progress reporting has changed since the last mandate. If you are a taxpayer, as you are, how open and accessible is this end-of-mandate Programme for Government progress reporting, in your opinion? I will give you one supplement. As far as I can see, most of the updates on the strategic online report are for 2014. That seems pretty out of date. So I will ask this again: how open and accessible do you think the progress reporting is?

Mr Reynolds: The more recent progress reports should be on that to bring it up to the end of the original mandate in March 2015. Further reporting could be done on what we have done this year. Again, as I alluded to earlier, there were particular circumstances that underpinned the way in which we developed plans for last year. We would have wanted to see a different approach taken, but that was caught in the general political situation that we found ourselves in. Perhaps some of the reporting against what has been the extension to the programme and the work that the Departments have done across all of the commitments in the original programme has continued to be delivered and continued to be reported. We maintain the governance structures within, but perhaps the public face of that, especially over the last 12 months, has not been all that we would have wanted.

Mr Lyttle: I think that it is a real gap. In my recollection, in the last mandate there was a written statement from OFMDFM in relation to the end-of-mandate Programme for Government progress report. My understanding was that, prior to that, there was an oral statement in the House that you were able to ask questions on. This time, it seems like there is nothing other than the strategic online report. In my opinion, it seems to be getting worse rather than better, and that will be something for the next Assembly to consider, I guess.

Mr Reynolds: That is something that we will want to take account of when we look at the arrangements that we put in place for the next Programme for Government. We will take on board your comments.

Mr Lyttle: The online tool has its purpose in being there and accessible for people. I know that we have an end-of-mandate short session next week, but the public are entitled to a slightly more substantive session on the Floor of the Assembly in relation to whether the Executive did what they said they were going to do.

Dr Browne: Part of what we are looking at in looking at the next Programme for Government — Joe alluded to it — is how we give better access and greater clarity about progress. The structure of the next Programme for Government will be of high-level outcomes and, below that, a series of indicators that tell you whether you are moving towards those high-level outcomes. We will want to publish regularly the statistical information that tells us how those indicators are moving so that we know whether we are moving towards the high-level outcomes. Below that, there will also be specific actions that you can look at to see whether they have been achieved or not. That will be almost like a dial telling you whether we are moving towards these outcomes or not. That is the intention. That is something that Scotland do. We have been looking closely at how they have set out their systems, and we are hoping that we will be able to take that work forward.

Mr Lyttle: Finally, Chair, if memory serves me correctly, the last one was a traffic-light system in 2010. You noticed that there were a lot of green lights, and, even on this occasion, there may well be a lot of green lights. In addition to missing the opportunity to scrutinise where things have not gone well, you are potentially missing the opportunity to show the things that have been delivered, although Ministers rarely miss those opportunities. That is something to work on.

Mr Reynolds: That also reflects the broader principle that we are moving to in the development of the next Programme for Government. Having an outcomes focus means that those traffic lights have tended to relate to inputs and outputs, and we are moving away from that towards something that actually makes a difference to citizens in their lives. That should be more significant.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Members?

Dr Browne: Exhaustion, I think.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): You have picked a good day, Mark. Margaret Rose, Joe, Ricky and Mark, thank you very much indeed.