Response to the consultation on the draft Executive Budget
and departmental spending plans.
Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA)
16 February 2011
1
NICVA has compiled a response to the NI budget and spending plans as a
whole. This response will be submitted to all departments as well as the
Executive via the Department of Finance and Personnel
Contents.
1. Introduction.
2. General Comments
2.1 Programme for Government
2.2 Consultation Process
2.3 Salami Slicing
2.4 The voluntary and community sector as a resource
2.5 Increasing revenue from the European Union
2.6 Saving Money by cutting bureaucracy
2.7 Investing to save
3. Comments on the draft budget from the NI Executive
3.1 Social and economic context
3.2 Domestic regional rates
3.3 Public Sector Pay
3.4 Protection for health
3.5 Revenue Raising
3.6 Social Investment Fund
3.7 Social Protection Fund
3.8 Presbyterian Mutual Society
3.9 Green New Deal
4. Individual departmental spending plans
4.1 Department of Finance and Personnel
4.2 Department of the Environment
4.3 Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment
4.4 Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
4.5 Department of Justice
4.6 Department of Employment and Learning
4.7 Department of Education
4.8 Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety
4.9 Department of Social Development
4.10 Department of Regional Development
4.11 Office of the First and deputy First Minister
4.12 Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
5 Conclusion
2
1. Introduction
NICVA is pleased to respond to the consultation on the Northern Ireland
Executive‘s draft budget. As the representative body for voluntary and
community organisations in Northern Ireland we have just over one thousand
member organisations whose interests range across all departments.
NICVA‘s own work on the draft budget has been guided by an approach that
focuses on three areas or priorities in the following order:
The likely impact on society as a whole in Northern Ireland;
The likely impact on people who are disadvantaged in Northern Ireland;
and
The likely impact on the health and well-being of voluntary and
community organisations and the role they play in a good society.
NICVA recognises the constraints that the Northern Ireland Executive is
working within and over which it has no control, most obviously the budget
settlement from Treasury.
The recession has had an impact on the voluntary and community sector in
Northern Ireland in terms of increased demands for services and in some
cases reducing income streams from fundraising since 2008. NICVA has
been working with our member organisations to help them come to terms with
the financial squeeze and has concentrated on public expenditure sources
since the June 2010 UK budget announcement.
Analysis of the Chancellor‘s budget, carried out in July 2010 by Oxford
Economics and ERINI on NICVA‘s behalf, helped us assess the likely impact
of the spending squeeze on Northern Ireland. This work ensured that
voluntary and community organisations have been under no illusion as to the
scale of the problem facing the Finance Minister and the Executive as a
whole.
NICVA has organised an extensive programme of engagement with
government and our sector, inviting departments to brief voluntary and
community organisations on the likely impact during August and September
as part of the Finance Minister‘s pre-consultation process. Consultation
meetings have also been carried out by representatives of each department
and stakeholders in our sector on the draft budget and spending plans during
January and February 2011.
NICVA commissioned PwC to review the draft budget and spending plans and
provide an analysis to help NICVA and its member organisations respond in a
meaningful way to the consultation.
3
Key Points on the Northern Ireland Budget
Unity of Purpose
―Unity of purpose‖ in the Northern Ireland Executive over the four-year
spending plan is the essential ingredient that will deliver success or failure.
Failure will mean public services in retreat, economic stagnation and a
bleaker, wasted future for many of our people, particularly those on low
incomes. An Executive that operates in a divided way almost guarantees
failure. An Executive with unity of purpose will have a tough struggle and will
face enormous challenges, but it has the possibility of success.
The Executive should make all big public policy and spending decisions
together in a collegiate way and be jointly responsible for them. In our view,
the public would like to see a plan in place that is likely to deliver the most
beneficial results to them; their confidence will be dented by an Executive that
appears divided. Quite simply, Ministers will need the support of their cross
party colleagues to have the space to deal with difficult issues.
A compact with stakeholders
The Executive should put in place a compact with outside stakeholders across
the voluntary and community, private, and trades union sectors. The purpose
of the compact would be to get agreement on the actions necessary to
reshape the economy and deliver good public services, the focus of which is
the needs of individual citizens. This compact would spread unity of purpose
outside government encouraging all those who have a part to play to see that
their efforts are part of a bigger plan.
2. General comments
2.1 Programme for Government
In normal circumstances a Programme for Government would be put in place
before a budget but we recognise again that circumstances are against us
and that it is difficult to agree a PfG before the election in May 2011. Whilst
Northern Ireland may have a mandatory coalition of parties in the Executive,
the Executive itself should still aspire to have a detailed PfG to which the
Executive is committed. Without this Northern Ireland could drift to a
dysfunctional democracy were departments are party fiefdoms and MLAs
defend their own Ministers and attack all the others.
2.2 Consultation process
The consultation on the draft budget itself has not been well served by the late
publication of spending plans, some detailed and some not, with no
coherence to the approach taken. Indeed, NICVA had to publically call for the
immediate publication of outstanding spending plans on 4 January 2011,
three weeks into the consultation, for at that stage only three departments had
published.
4
As the plans have been produced individually, the type of information and
level of detail in each plan is different, making it very difficult to compare them.
The result is a budget which looks fragmented and disjointed. It is practically
impossible to get an overall picture of the impact of this budget and that is
deeply concerning for two main reasons:
issues which are not the clear domain of one department, such as
childcare, will 'fall between the stools' and no department will pick them up.
people and communities will suffer the danger of 'death by a thousand
cuts' as the officials making cuts to funding in one department may not
consider cuts being made in another department, which impact on the
same people and communities.
We have already seen examples of this in the voluntary and community
sector, with organisations receiving European Social Fund (ESF) support from
the Department of Employment and Learning being asked to find a 25% cut.
ESF will only fund 65% of the total cost of a project and many organisations
use funding from Neighbourhood Renewal (NR) from DSD as the 35% match
funding. Some NR funded groups have also been asked to find a 10% saving
in their programme costs. NICVA is seeking assurances that the NI Executive
is fully aware of the cumulative impact of the decisions they are now making.
NICVA would have liked to have seen the formation of a Budget Committee in
the Assembly to take an overview of the implications of the budget as a
whole. However, in the absence of such a group we are asking the NI
Executive to ensure they take a holistic approach to the budget they will
agree.
2.3 ‘Salami slicing’
The voluntary and community sector has always been aware that it will not be
immune from the implications of the reduction in the block grant. However, we
have argued that the sector should be treated fairly and not seen as an easy
option for cuts. The ESF and NR examples, above at 2.3, are also examples
of the development of a trend in the ‗salami slicing‘ of budgets to the sector.
Simply cutting the same amount from each organisation receiving support
from a particular funding stream, with no analysis of the effectiveness and
efficiency of the programme being cut, results in punishing those who are
already efficient and rewarding those with ‗slack‘ in their budgets which can
be cut more easily. This is a worrying trend that NICVA would like to draw
attention to.
2.4 The voluntary and community sector as a resource
An emerging theme in the discussions NICVA members are having with
departments is the fact that voluntary and community organisations can offer
some effective solutions to the tough financial decisions facing departments.
Voluntary and community sector organisations can respond quickly to an
emerging problem and are experts in cost saving early intervention measures.
Where the aims and desired outcomes of a voluntary/community organisation
converge with government the sector can bring expertise, user engagement
and often additional resources.
5
There are numerous examples of voluntary and community organisations
offering to bring their own money to the table and work with government to
deliver a joint programme only to have their offer turned down because it
would involve government working in a new way. No offer or idea should be
rejected because it does not fit with existing bureaucratic arrangements or
presents a challenge to how things have ‗always been done.‘ These seriously
constrained financial times call for creativity and a mindset which looks to find
ways to make things happen, rather than list reasons why something cannot
be done. NICVA wants to encourage departments to think creatively
about how they invest in and work with the voluntary and community
sector rather than viewing the sector as a drain on resources.
2.5 Increasing revenue from the European Union
NICVA has long advocated that NI should make the most of its membership of
the EU. The Executive should explore the possibility of a further peace
programme (though this is unlikely) and also seek to influence the next round
of structural funds. However, there are many more funds available from
Europe which NI could tap into. NICVA understands that all EU funds are now
additional to the block grant and with no financial penalties to face the
Executive should challenge the prevailing opinion among some officials that
EU funds are too difficult to manage and hard to understand.
In many cases the voluntary and community sector can provide the key for
unlocking some of these funds. Where the objectives and priorities of
government departments and agencies converge with those of the voluntary
and community sector, NICVA members can often respond quickly to meet
the criteria necessary to secure funds, such as finding a partner organisation
in another Member State. NICVA recommends the European Division in
OFMdFM convenes a Northern Ireland EU taskforce, which should
include members from the voluntary and community sector, in order to
develop a realistic and practical plan to make the most of our EU
membership.
2.6 Saving money by cutting bureaucracy
NICVA agrees with the principle that before any cuts to services are
implemented, all publicly funded bodies should ensure they are operating in
an effective and efficient way. Further to this, we strongly support the need for
financial probity and transparency in the spending of public money. With this
in mind, we support the finding of the September 2010 NI Audit Office report
Creating Effective Partnerships between Government and the Voluntary and
Community Sector, which recommended that in its funding relationship with
the sector government should have ―greater focus on avoiding unnecessary
bureaucracy, in all aspects of the funding mechanism (which can increase
costs for both funders and funded bodies) – in applications and renewals;
timeliness of payments; and monitoring and audit.” Significant additional
resources could be targeted at frontline activities if we can rationalise
monitoring and accounting processes that are guided by common
sense.
6
2.7 Investing to save.
In our engagement with OFMdFM in the run up to the CSR announcement,
NICVA was encouraged by the fact that the Northern Ireland Executive was
focusing on tackling disadvantage, delivering quality public services and
building the economy. NICVA read the recently released McKinsey report
Reshaping the System, and noted with interest the assertion that “we estimate the
2010/15 funding requirement could be reduced by £0.1billion by optimising the
quantity and type of care provided (for instance, through better management of
long-term conditions to improve overall health and reduce the need for costly
treatment)”. NICVA and our members in the voluntary and community sector
have argued that investing to save in early intervention and prevention can deliver
the preferred outcome for people, families and communities, eg keeping people out of
care, while at the same time saving the cost of more expensive and less effective
alternatives. In tough times the focus must be on finding more of these
win-win solutions.
Investing in preventing family breakdown.
Social services, schools and other agencies refer families to Home-Start for a
variety of reasons including child protection, mental health, disabilities, drug
and alcohol misuse, multiple births, deprivation and hardship, and domestic
violence. Home-Start‘s team of 900 dedicated volunteers work with over 3,000
children in Northern Ireland each year. These volunteers give more than
£2million pounds worth of work to the Northern Ireland economy each
year.
It costs £1,134 to provide Home-Start support to a family for a year and
Home-Start can support 40 children living at home for the cost of taking one
child into care.
3. Comments on the draft budget from the NI Executive
3.1 Social and economic context
The useful ‗Introduction‘ and the ‗Social and Economic Context‘ sections of
the draft budget make it clear that Northern Ireland is facing considerable
challenges. While some of these challenges are new, such as the alarming
real term cut to the block grant, others such as high rates of economic
inactivity, have been plaguing Northern Ireland for decades. We agree that
―improving skills, promoting enterprise, innovation and research and
development, and investing in economic infrastructure will all be vitally
important”, however, rebuilding the economy will take more than simply
focusing on enterprise and innovation. We also need to deal with the pressing
social and environmental issues that hold us back and hamper development.
Leading economic expert Richard Florida asserts that there are three
necessary factors for developing a vibrant and creative economy - tolerance,
talent and technology. NICVA strongly agrees that only by dealing with issues
such as sectarianism, racism, inequalities and division, investing in the
regeneration of disadvantaged communities, providing strong protection for
7
our most vulnerable citizens, making the most of our arts, creative industries,
tourism and environment and ensuring the inclusion of even the most hard to
reach people can Northern Ireland develop a world class economy that
delivers for all. The voluntary and community sector has a clear and strong
role to play in helping the Executive realise this vision.
3.2 Domestic regional rates
NICVA agrees with the decision to lift the freeze on the domestic rates and
welcomes the estimated £146million it will generate. However, we feel the
Executive could have gone further and lifted the cap on the rates. It is unfair
that owners of multi-million pound properties pay the same rates as those with
property valued at £400,000. In 2008 DFP estimated that some £4.7million
per annum was lost by setting the cap on rates at £400,000. Protections
should be put in place to ensure that those who are ―asset rich but cash poor‖,
particularly older people, are not adversely affected.
3.3 Public Sector Pay
NICVA is keen to learn more on the thinking behind the decision to mirror the
UK position to impose a pay restraint on public service workers earning over
£21,000. We are interested to learn why the pay freeze was set at this rate.
This figure is just over the average wage for Northern Ireland and only £50
per week more than the minimum income the Joseph Rowntree Foundation
estimates is the bare minimum necessary for a family with two children to stay
above the poverty line. This figure excludes childcare and housing costs.
NICVA has no doubt that there are cost savings to be made in the civil
service. Pay restraint may well play a part in this, but we are deeply
concerned about the impact of further reducing the income of families who are
already struggling.
Many voluntary and community organisations use public service payscales as
a guide to setting salaries for staff. If the pay freeze in the public sector
becomes the bench mark for a similar action in the voluntary and community
sector, the voluntary sector workforce will be at a greater disadvantage as it
does not enjoy the benefits associated with public sector employment, such
as final salary pension schemes.
3.4 Protection for health
NICVA is fully supportive of the NHS and is against any erosion of the
principle of health and social services that are free at the point of need, from
the cradle to the grave. With health spending per capita in NI lagging behind
that of the UK it is easy to understand the NI Executive‘s decision to offer
some protection to the health budget. Northern Ireland‘s integrated health and
social service system is envied by other regions of the UK and we are
concerned that this decision to protect only the ‗health‘ element could be seen
as an erosion of this integrated system. The recently published McKinsey
report has some interesting proposals in this area.
The danger is that if ‗health‘ is protected all of the cuts will have to be found in
the social services and public safety elements of the DHSSPS budget. This is
8
extremely concerning when considered in light of the shocking health
inequalities that persist in Northern Ireland. That we should have such wide
variants in areas such as life expectancy, infant mortality, mental health and
suicide between the rich and the poor is completely unacceptable. Speaking
in July 2010 the Minister for Health said ― Dealing with health inequalities
involves all of us working together to break the cycle of inequality. I am
determined to continue to address health inequalities – both through the
current Investing for Health Strategy, with its particular focus on the most
disadvantaged neighbourhoods and population groups, and through the work
of the Public Health Agency which I established last year.” Much of the work
on tackling health inequalities is carried out by voluntary and
community organisations supported by the DHSSPS and NICVA is
concerned that this funding will suffer disproportionate cuts as it is
viewed as peripheral and outside the system.
Investing in helping older people remain independent
Belfast Central Mission’s LITE 60+ project enables vulnerable older people to
continue to live independently in their own homes by providing a range of support
services in areas such as benefits, budgeting and banking, home security cleaning,
personal appearance/hygiene and shopping, food preparation and healthy eating.
BCM provides a handyperson service which can help with the upkeep of older
people’s properties.
LITE 60+ costs approximately £50 per service user per week compared to
£430 for residential care and £570 for nursing care. Postponing entry into
residential care by just one year through adapting people’s homes saves £28,080
per person. Housing adaptations reduce the need for daily
visits and reduce or remove costs of homecare - savings range from £1,200 to
£29,000 per year.
3.5 Revenue Raising
NICVA is aware that almost £1.6billion in additional revenue raising options
has been identified by the Executive. We commend the Executive for taking
this approach and not simply focusing on cuts and efficiencies. We also agree
with the prudent approach adopted by the Executive to only include the most
robust proposals (amounting to some £800million) in the budget while
committing to further explore the plans to raise the remaining amount and
incorporating it as it passes the robustness test.
Belfast Port
The idea of the NI Executive securing a regular dividend from the Port of
Belfast is not without merit. We understand that if this were possible it would
require changes to legislation. We assume this is why the £15million per
annum from these proposals has been allocated for years three and four of
the budget cycle. However, the figure for total possible revenue from the Port
9
of Belfast has been cited as £120million and we would be keen to discover
how the remaining £90m would be raised.
Housing Associations
NICVA was concerned about the assertion that Housing Associations could
contribute £80million from their reserves towards new housing starts. This
was presented to the Assembly as a fait accompli and created the real worry
there was to be a so-called ―government grab‖ of the resources of a group of
independent chartable organisations. However, we have since learned that
the proposal was in fact that government support to Housing Associations
would be cut with the assumption that these organisations would make up the
short fall from their reserves. With housing waiting lists already at a critical
level and set to increase as the impact of the recession really bites, NICVA
believes that this is a dangerous assumption to make as these reserves may
already be earmarked for existing contingencies. That being said NICVA and
our members are keen to explore realistic and workable ways in which the
asset base of the sector can be better utilised.
3.6 Social Investment Fund
NICVA warmly welcomes the announcement of £20million per annum to
“tackle the problem of disadvantage within Northern Ireland‖. We strongly
urge OFMdFM to engage in an open consultation with the voluntary and
community sector and beneficiary communities about the aims, objectives and
delivery mechanisms of the new fund. In particular we are keen to learn how
this fund will complement existing programmes to tackle disadvantage such
as Neighbourhood Renewal.
We also seek clarity on the information on the fund that has been made
public. In the Executive budget the reference to the fund mentions that ―this
disadvantage is most acute in those interface communities where the
problems are many and complex”. However, the reference to interfaces does
not appear in the OFMdFM draft spending and savings plan document.
3.7 Social Protection Fund
While our comments on the draft budget have been confined to the DEL
element of public expenditure we cannot ignore the looming threat to Annually
Managed Expenditure. The current draconian cuts being proposed by the
Coalition government under the ‗Welfare Reform‘ proposals threaten to take a
further £1billion from the NI economy by reducing the spending power of
those in receipt of social security benefits. NICVA and our members are
concerned about the implications of welfare reform in Northern Ireland. We
believe the reforms will increase poverty, social exclusion and deprivation, all
of which will undermine the economic recovery that the NI Executive has
focused this budget on.
The inevitable outcomes of these ‗reforms‘ will also put greater pressure on
the DEL elements of the NI block which are already stretched to the limit.
Rising levels of poverty will result in increased social problems such as poor
mental health, depression, suicide, drug and alcoholic misuse, family
breakdown, debt, homelessness, domestic violence and crime.
10
NICVA welcomes the £20million Social Protection Fund created in the budget
and we look forward to more details on how the fund will operate in practice.
However, it is a matter of concern that the fund has only been allocated for
one year, with the other three years depending on departments generating
additional revenue in order to meet the costs. NICVA believes that this fund
is much too important to leave in such a vulnerable financial position.
3.8 Presbyterian Mutual Society
NICVA appreciates that many ordinary people saw their savings and financial
security wiped out when the PMS collapsed. We support the right of the
Executive to lobby hard for and agree a package to help alleviate the impact
of the fall of the PMS. However, we cannot escape that fact that this ‗bail out‘
package has come at a cost to all tax payers in Northern Ireland. This
amounts to some £25m from block grant and a £175million loan from HMT
which needs to be serviced. NICVA therefore recommends that the public
money used to bail out the PMS should be directed towards easing the
financial burden of those genuine savers who trusted the PMS with their
financial security and are now suffering the most. Repayments to those
who took the risk of speculating and investing in PMS to make a profit
should come further down the list of priorities.
3.9 Green New Deal
NICVA is an active and enthusiastic member of the Green New Deal group
and we welcome the allocation of £16million towards the Green New Deal
over the life of the budget. We have sought and received assurances that this
is just the beginning of the Executive‘s commitment to implementing the much
more ambitious plans from Green New Deal and we look forward to working
with Executive members on this.
However, we are concerned that the funding for Green New Deal has been so
closely tied with the potential income from the plastic bag levy. One concern is
purely practical in that the legislation to introduce the levy is extremely unlikely
to be in place in time to generate the £4million expected in year one. This
means that DOE will have to find this £4million from other sources – thus
turning what began as a revenue source designed to have a positive
environmental impact into one which will divert funds from other essential
environmental projects such as waste repatriation and marine protection.
Our other concern is that DOE is now facing a situation in which a fund
designed to prevent the use of plastic bags now needs to generate £16million
from the sale of plastic bags in order to protect against cuts to other
environmental projects. The Green New Deal is a project which will have
benefits which will impact on the objectives of many more departments than
DoE. DETI, DEL and DSD in particular will benefit from the
implementation of Green New Deal, and NICVA would like to see a
cross-departmental fund established to fund Green New Deal beginning
with the current £16million allocation.
11
4. Individual departmental plans.
4.1. Department of Finance and Personnel
NICVA supports the plan in the DFP budget to continue with the roll out of the
101 number as a single point of contact for all government services.
There are a number of key questions we would like to raise about the draft
DFP budget.
Extra spending in Land and Property Services (LPS) is justified by
pointing to a projected increase in rates revenue collection (i.e. from
£960m in 2009-10 to a planned level of £980+m in 2010-11). However,
is the £20m increase realistic or is it too modest in light of the £157m of
arrears declared by LPS as of 31ST March 2010?
Has the planned level of current and capital spending on NICS
buildings fallen below the critical level whereby essential maintenance
is not actually being undertaken and large (and expensive) problems
may follow in the future?
Are there opportunity costs associated with ending capital funding for
the Central Energy Efficiency Fund (which tried to incentivise public
sector bodies to become more energy efficient)?
4.2 Department of the Environment
NICVA appreciates that the DoE is facing a very tough budget situation. The
department is outside of the four largest spenders that make up 80% of total
current spend and yet its work is responsible for helping Northern Ireland
meet numerous EU and international obligations and avoiding the associated
fines and infractions. The voluntary and community organisations supported
by DoE play a considerable role in this.
NICVA‘s concerns about the impact of the Green New Deal on the budget of
the DOE are expressed in para (3.9) above. In a meeting with NICVA
members DoE officials listed the programmes at risk if the expected revenue
from GND does not materialise as waste repatriation, river quality restoration,
and noise pollution. However, no detail was provided on why these particular
areas of work have been selected. There is a considerable concern that any
rolling back on progress in these areas in order to make savings is a false
economy as it leaves NI open to considerable fines and infractions. NICVA
would like more information on the rationale behind placing this work at
risk and the implications if planned work in these areas does not go
ahead.
Other questions we would like to raise on the DoE budget are:
12
In the proposed reform of Planning Service fees, how far will the
outcomes be sensitive to environmental objectives?
Could the NI Environment Agency raise more through fees? Are there
plans to increase fines for polluters and will these fines be made
available to the DoE?
A number of the DOE proposals will have implications for the District
Councils, e.g. the Planning and Local Government Group. Are some of
central government‘s budget difficulties being devolved down to local
government level?
What are the implications of the slowdown in ASSIs (Areas of Special
Scientific Interest)?
Are there plans to introduce a charge for third parties to view plans?
Investing in avoiding expensive fines and infraction costs
In Northern Ireland, the RSPB spends at least £1.5million a year on
delivering government commitments, primarily around the global target to
halt biodiversity loss. This includes managing protected sites, working with
farmers to manage and restore the countryside and monitoring species and
habitats. All of these things are responsibilities of government as required
under European directives.
Despite the value of this work, RPSB receives only £170,000 per annum
from central government, raising the rest of the money from supporters and
other grant-making bodies.
4. 3 Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment
NICVA commends DETI and its Minister in its work to promote Northern
Ireland as an attractive place to visit and to do business. We recognise that
changes to State Aid and the impact of a global economic downturn have
compounded the difficult financial position facing the department.
We support the department‘s commitment to lead on the development of the
Social Economy through the Executive‘s Social Economy Enterprise Strategy.
However, we are concerned at the lack of clarity around the resources
allocated to supporting this work and seek urgent clarification on this.
NICVA is pleased that the department is in a position to continue with
signature projects such as the Titanic Quarter. However, we are keen to
ensure that these large scale projects, which subsume such a high level of
public funds, are designed and implemented in a way that maximises their
social and environmental impact, as well the obvious economic benefits.
Paragraph 2.1 sets out NICVA‘s view on how social, economic and
environmental issues are intertwined and the work of DETI plays a crucial role
13
in this. For example, it is entirely conceivable that an exciting project such as
the Titanic Signature Building could be built and functioning without having
any positive impact on the disadvantaged communities surrounding it. NICVA
recommends that DETI works closely with local communities and other
stakeholders to ensure these innovative and inspiring developments
deliver their maximum potential.
DETI should also use social clauses and local labour clauses to ensure that
disadvantaged people and communities have the opportunity to benefit from
these investments. Where social clauses are included in tendering and form
part of a successful bid CPD should ensure they are treated as seriously as
all other parts of the project and the contractor should be required to fully
report on their implementation.
NICVA is encouraged by the new £19million programme aimed at creating
5,000 new jobs. We agree that social enterprises and voluntary and
community organisations could play a part in helping deliver these objectives
and look forward to engaging with the department on this issue.
However, we are keen to ensure that the jobs created are ‗real jobs‘ which will
provide the opportunity for fulfilling and useful employment and lead to a
salary which will lift people out of poverty.
Para 3.7 sets out the concerns of the voluntary and community sector in
relation to cuts to social security and the impact of the recession. Advice
Services are already recording a sharp increase in number of people facing
serious financial difficulty and requesting their independent help and
expertise. No one can be in any doubt that the need for these services can
only increase in coming months and years. Independent advice agencies
employ expert staff and have an impressive pool of highly trained volunteers.
Funding for advice services from DETI has been secured for the next 12
months. NICVA recommends that the Minister extends this to cover the life of
this budget in order to provide stability and continuity of a high quality service.
Other questions on the DETI draft budget we would like to raise are:
The ―bow wave‖ effect in INI‘s investments means that it will be
constrained in its ability to support new Foreign Direct Investment
projects; what might the implications be for employment and wealth
creation in Northern Ireland?
Given the proposed allocations will DETI struggle to meet NI objectives
regarding sustainability and the promotion of the renewables sector?
Does it make sense in the longer term that monies for tourism
promotion are substantially reduced?
Does it matter than INI will be constrained regarding land purchases,
as the organisation has previously been vocal in articulating the
necessity of acquiring industrial development land.
14
Investing in helping lone parents find employment that works for them.
Recent research commissioned by CFNI reveals that, of all groups in NI, one
parent families will be hardest hit by planned changes to the benefit system.
Marks & Start is an employability programme specially designed for lone
parents who want to get back to work. It is a partnership between
Gingerbread – the lone parent‘s organisation — and Marks & Spencer.
Following a three week programme, which is delivered during school hours
and tailored to suit parents, each participant is guaranteed an interview. Of
the 24 people who have completed the programme this year 21 have
secured employment
4. 4 Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
In real terms DCAL is facing a 17% cut in its budget by the end of the four
year period. For such a small department this is an incredibly difficult position
to face. We have already seen the department admit that several planned
elite sporting facilities cannot now go ahead and NICVA believes that while
this is regrettable it was a sensible step for the Minister to take. However, it is
difficult to comment on any other proposals in the draft plan provided by
DCAL as it is very light on detail.
£30million has been allocated towards major regional sports stadiums which
we believe constitutes the upgrade of Casement, Windsor and Ravenhill
stadiums. The development of major, state of the art stadiums can have a
transformational effect in disadvantaged communities. In the United States
towns and cities actively compete to be the site of such developments, eg
creation of the Prudential Centre has been attributed to the on-going
economic transformation of the City of Newark in NJ.
The fact that two of the stadiums proposed for an upgrade are located in two
of the most disadvantaged areas of Northern Ireland (The Village and
Andersonstown) opens up a whole new range of possibilities that goes far
beyond new seating and pitches. The upgraded stadiums could also lead the
way when it comes to ecological sustainability and set a standard for all
similar developments at home and abroad. NICVA recommends that DCAL
works closely with local communities and other stakeholders to ensure
these developments deliver their maximum potential.
NICVA is concerned that DCAL has made the assumption that cuts to the
sport and arts budget will be compensated by increases in the amount of
funding that will become available via the Big Lottery. The Big Lottery is an
independent organisation which sets its own priorities and makes its own
funding decisions. It is fully additional to government money and NICVA
would strongly disagree with any attempt to compromise that
additionally.
15
With that in mind the voluntary and community arts sector is deeply
concerned that it will bear the brunt of the cuts facing its sponsoring bodies.
While voluntary and community organisations accept they cannot be immune
from the pain associated with the current funding situation it should not be the
case that they are treated unfairly, disproportionately or regarded as an
unaffordable luxury. Funding allocations from DCAL and the Arts Council
should be based on results, outcomes and effectiveness, and voluntary
and community organisations are happy to be judged on that basis.
Other questions we would like to raise are:
The DCAL document talks of some protection for libraries (some
libraries in north and west Belfast are to be refurbished) and National
Museums in terms of current spending, but what is the extent of this
protection and what is its rationale?
What is the rationale for the Invest to Save spending; £1m, £3m and
£5m over the first three years “…which will be transferred to capital in
due course”?
4.5 Department of Justice
NICVA recognises that the Department of Justice is in a slightly different
position to other departments as its budget has been somewhat ‗ring-fenced‘.
However, this is not to say that the department and its Minister is not facing a
challenging financial situation. While DOJ should be commended for being
one of the first departments to make its spending plans available the actual
plan is very light on details. The department does not list its inescapable
spending priorities but does commit itself to making substantial savings over
the course of the budget. However, it is impossible to comment on the impact
of the savings with the detail provided.
However, in our engagement with departmental officials and Minister Ford we
have been encouraged by his commitment to resist the ‗salami slicing‘ of
budgets and focus funding on early intervention and preventative measures.
In principle we welcome the commitment in the DOJ budget to protect
―frontline policing, protecting outcomes for the public and, as far as possible,
protecting the voluntary and community sector.‖ However, we look forward to
much more detail on what this will actually mean.
Investing in preventing re-offending
Jobtrack is a partnership between NIACRO, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland
(PBNI) and the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS), based on research that
demonstrates employment as a significant factor in reducing offending. In Northern
Ireland there are 1,453 individuals in prison,
the rate of re-offending stands at 42.8% and the cost of imprisonment is
£78,000 per prisoner per year.
The Jobtrack programme has a reoffending rate of 24% and works with an
average of 1,000 prisoners and ex-offenders each year — a potential saving of
£1.4million per year
16
4.6 Department of Employment and Learning
The Department of Employment and Learning‘s budget plans present a very
real concern. It clearly show a considerable hole in the DEL budget and
presents a series of things that might happen if that hole is not filled. While
this appears to be a genuine attempt to keep options open and seek opinions
it makes commenting on the plan very difficult. We do not know which of the
options are preferred by the Minister, what the impact of each option will be,
and which options are so called ‗bleeding stumps‘.
NICVA is strongly against any moves to constrict or abolish Educational
Maintenance Allowance. Given recent moves towards increasing the levels of
debt that students will incur due to increased fees, EMA is now crucially
important in ensuring children from disadvantaged backgrounds can afford to
stay at school or in training.
NICVA notes the spending for Further Education fares better than the
efficiency savings being asked of HE institutions. However, we are keen to
ensure that training and skills development provision provided by voluntary
and community organisations does not suffer disproportionate and unfair cuts.
NICVA is calling on DEL and ANIC to work with the voluntary and
community sector to develop an integrated plan to ensure that each
sector plays to its strengths and develops and delivers a plan which
really works for all learners – especially hard to reach people.
Investing in helping people with disabilities join the work force
2% of Northern Ireland’s population has some form of learning disability, amounting
to over 30,000 people. 35% of all adults with disability / limitation are economically
inactive and 25% of people with disabilities have no qualifications. The NOW project
delivers training and employment services for people with learning disabilities
helping them get the job they want and keep it.
By helping people into work in 2009-10 NOW’s programmes saved statutory
providers £573,832. This includes £10,768 in social security benefits,
£548,098 in day care places and £14,966 to Health and Social Care in the
year as participants were supported to travel more independently.
4.7 Department of Education
NICVA agrees with the Minister that in meeting the challenges of the budget
the key issues of raising standards and delivering services to the front line are
maintained. Voluntary and community sector organisations providing services
on behalf of government are also in the frontline of service delivery and
should be treated accordingly.
17
We are pleased that the Minister has selected a number of key areas to be
afforded special protection. The areas protected by the Minister; Special
Educational Needs, Extended Schools, Post-primary School Counselling and
Early Years, are crucial to ensuring equality of access to education and in
making sure children and young people are enabled to make the most of their
time in school.
NICVA supports the extension of Free Schools Meals Entitlement to include
Key Stage 2 pupils. We recommend that this change is widely advertised to
ensure parents and schools are fully aware of the change in order to
encourage maximum uptake.
NICVA supports the Education Minister in her call to ensure that schools are
allowed to continue to use accumulated resources and is deeply concerned
at the implications of recent Treasury changes to EYF.
The reduction in spending in home to school transport raise important
questions for all children and in particular children in rural areas. NICVA
believes there should be a radical rethink of how children and young
people travel to school. This should include the potential of schools –
regardless of their status as controlled or maintained, to share transport. It
should also include an analysis of all government funded transport services in
rural areas to avoid overlap and determine which services can be shared.
NICVA is concerned that youth services and in particular the voluntary youth
service is not mentioned in the document. At a recent meeting in NICVA
Department of Education officials gave an assurance that funding for the
youth service was ‗protected‘. NICVA is seeking clarity on what that
means in practice.
Additional questions we would like to raise on the DE budget are:
Where does the draft budget and spending plan leave the agenda of
rationalising the schools‘ estate and promoting greater shared use of
services? Given the Budget and delays in establishing ESA, how far can
area-based planning actually occur?
What might be the staffing and other practical implications of the DE
plans? DE allocates most of its funding to schools via a formula. So will
decisions be taken at the level of each individual school?
What do the DE spending plans imply for outcomes? Will the comparative
quality of Northern Ireland education as measured by, say, PISA and the
OECD13 increase or decrease and can we move closer towards ―every
school a good school‖?
18
Investing in raising levels of educational attainment
The Princes Trust XL programme is a two year programme which runs
throughout the last two years of compulsory education. It aims to re-engage
young people at risk of being excluded or under-achieving. The programme
has a 90% success rate. It costs £250 per person for the XL
programme. The cost per year of a young person excluded from school is
£15,000.
4.8 Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety
The Minister for Health has made it clear that he is unwilling to accept the
budget allocation given to his department. As a result the DHSSPS have
presented comprehensive, and it should be said, compelling, case for the
budget for health and social services to be increased rather than a spending
or savings plan. This makes it very difficult to compare with other departments
or make comments.
While the Executive has afforded some level of protection to the health budget
(and our concerns around this are listed at para 3.4 above) the way in which
the debate on the DHSSPS budget has progressed has been less than
productive. Whatever the outcome of the current debate one thing is clear –
the NI Executive needs to lead a level headed and wide-ranging debate on
how health and social services in Northern Ireland is funded, administered
and delivered. The recently released McKinsey report forms an interesting
basis for these discussions.
4.9 Department of Social Development
NICVA broadly agrees with the Department‘s proposed strategic objectives.
Contribute to tackling poverty and social need experienced by the most
vulnerable in society, bringing divided communities together and
encouraging social responsibility;
Create urban centres which are sustainable, welcoming and accessible to
all to live, work and relax in peace; and
Build the foundations for a shared future through access to decent,
affordable, sustainable homes and housing support services.
We would like some clarity on the use of the term ‗social responsibility‘.
Given the crucial role the DSD plays as the champion of the voluntary and
community sector we would like to see the first priority expanded to include a
reference encouraging participation and the creation of a strong and vibrant
civil society.
We agree with the Department‘s approach to funding ―that there must be no
reduction in vital programmes which target the most vulnerable households,
including revenue and capital programmes to address fuel poverty (Warm
19
Homes), supported housing (Supporting People), new build housing, and
disadvantaged communities (Neighbourhood Renewal”. We agree with the
principle that reduction in funding should be found in administration
expenditure. We also agree that voluntary and community organisations
should ensure they operate in the most cost effective way possible in order to
ensure maximum resources are expended on the organisations‘ aims and
objectives – this is a key cornerstone of good governance in the sector.
However, the current approach of ‘salami slicing’ that has been applied
to Neighbourhood Renewal and the Regional Infrastructure Programme
does nothing to encourage good practice in this regard.
The DSD budget makes an allowance for the cost of implementing Welfare
Reform. We agree that it is prudent to anticipate this expenditure and accept
that the total costs are not yet known. NICVA and our members are
concerned about the implications of welfare reform in Northern Ireland. We
believe the reforms will increase poverty, social exclusion and deprivation, all
of which will undermine the economic recovery that the NI Executive has
focused this budget on.
NICVA supports the department‘s determination to protect jobs and frontline
services. We welcome the intention that there will be no compulsory
redundancies. The same consideration must be given to the jobs and frontline
services provided by the voluntary and community sector. NICVA believes
there is further potential for savings to be made in identifying and addressing
systems failures across DSD. We are aware that the department has been
working with NICVA members on this issue and we look forward to the results
of that piece of work.
NICVA is concerned about the impact of cuts in the NIHE‘s budget. It is clear
that additional revenue is required. However, we have outlined our concerns
about the assumption that £80million can be found from the reserves of
Housing Associations at para 3.5. The other obvious option is an increase in
rents. However, NICVA is extremely concerned about affordability of this
option for tenants – especially in light of the changes to housing benefit
coming from the Coalition government. There should be a full impact analysis
on any proposals to raise rents and NICVA would not support any increase
above the rate of inflation.
As the proposed capital allocation for new social housing falls well short of
what is needed it is logical that people in housing need will turn to the private
rented sector. It is now more urgent than ever that the Department of Social
Development should develop and implement a robust system of registration
and regulation for the private rented sector.
4. 10 Department of Regional Development
The Department of Regional Development should be commended for its frank
and detailed draft savings and spending plans. However, given the events of
the last months, we would like to see much more detail on how the
department plans to support water and sewerage infrastructure given the
20
shortfall in funding available for this. In particular DRD should outline its plans
for the future of NI Water and all options, including consideration of the
creation of a mutual company.
NICVA is concerned at plans to reduce the Rural Transport Fund which could
result in less economically viable rural routes ceasing to operate. With the
Transport Programme for People with Disabilities also being cut this will no
doubt add to isolation and exclusion of some of our most vulnerable people –
particularly in rural areas. NICVA recommends that DRD should a lead a
radical rethink and review of all government funded transport including
provision from other departments such as health and education, with a view to
creating a truly integrated transport system that maximises efficiency and
meets the needs of citizens. The important role played by community
transport providers should also form part of these discussions.
We note the proposal to generate revenue by increasing car parking charges
and it has been suggested this will also include charging for on street parking
in most towns and villages. We would be interested in more details on the
cost of enforcement of this and the impact it may have on SME‘s located in
town centres.
Other questions we would like to ask on the DRD budget are:
The A5 and A8 are being preferred compared to a list of other road
improvements; is this based on a robust analysis of relative social
return on the respective investments or did DRD in fact have no
discretion but to prefer those two roads?
Similarly, the Coleraine / Derry railway line is ―preferred‖ compared to
Lurgan / Knockmore, but what about relative passenger numbers?
Even if there was little discretion, it may be regrettable that the
upgraded line will not be in place for the 2013 City of Culture year?
DRD is proposing to reduce its maintenance activity (e.g. on roads or
car parks) but could such reductions have serious longer term
consequences?
It is unclear how far DRD is actually increasing the subsidy to railway
operations (the Public Service Obligation) and what are the
implications for fares?
The scale of adverse equality impacts of the cut backs to rural public
transport and transport for the disabled are unclear and can these be
mitigated?
Is the capital spending in NIW adequate (there appears to be a ―gap‖
of at least several £100m over the period of the Review)?
21
4.11 Office of the First and deputy First Minister
NICVA agrees with the key challenges outlined by the Office of the First and
deputy First Minister. We are fully supportive of the approach adopted by
OFMdFM that while we face an unprecedented financial challenge, it is not
good enough to simply accept we should only focus on ‗doing more with less‘
but consider options for ‗growing the economy, tackling disadvantage,
protecting the most vulnerable, promoting employment, delivering effective
and efficient services and investing in the future.‘
We agree that NI should continue to have a presence in both Washington and
Brussels. Para 2.5 outlines our recommendations for making the most of our
close ties with the European Union.
NICVA agrees that the focus of all departments should be on finding
efficiencies in bureaucracy. However, the ‗salami slicing‘ approach OFMdFM
have adopted by passing on 3% savings to all arms length bodies regardless
of their current levels of efficiency only serves to punish those who are
already operating at maximum efficiency.
We would be interested to learn in what areas of the work of SIB the
£1.9million savings will be made.
NICVA understands that the £0.3million per annum that is set aside annually
for the Civic Forum will no longer be included in the OFMdFM budget. Given
that the Forum has not met for almost ten years and this money could be
used to fund other things, this decision makes financial sense. However, does
this signal the end of the Civic Forum? Will OFMdFM be making a statement
to this effect and inform the people who are technically still Civic Forum
members? As the Civic Forum was created by the 1998 Northern Ireland Act,
have the implications of its dissolution been fully considered and has any
thought been given to a more effective, streamlined and dynamic way for the
Executive to formally consult with civil society?
4.12 Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
NICVA welcomes the continued investment in eliminating rural poverty from
DARD and the inclusion of provision for childcare in rural areas. We look
forward to more detail on this in the coming months.
In principle we welcome the relocation of DARD but question its financial
viability in the current climate and would prefer to see the funds directed into
more pressing frontline services.
NICVA would also like to see greater integration of DARD‘s priorities with
other departments to avoid the situation where only DARD becomes
responsible for rural issues.
NICVA is concerned that the cuts to the central policy group and the Rural
Policy Division will compromise the department‘s ability to act as a resource
and provide best practice advice to other departments on rural proofing and
the impact of their decisions on rural areas.
22
NICVA is concerned about the withdrawal of funding from the Young Farmers
Clubs of Ulster. We recommend that the Department consider the YFCU
situation in a similar vein as the recent announcement by the Minister on
Regional and local community development organisations.
13 Conclusion.
NICVA has compiled this document as a response to the whole Northern
Ireland budget. We have submitted it to all departments as we believe that
the comments should be of interest to each department.
Given the choice no-one would choose to be developing a budget in the face
of an election. And this budget was particularly difficult given the course of
action decided upon by the Coalition government and its implications for
Northern Ireland.
NICVA and our members sought to engage with the Executive in a way which
was open and constructive yet frank and realistic. Over the course of our
engagement on the budget we have asked for and received a high level of
contact with elected members, Ministers and officials. We appreciate the time
and expertise they shared with NICVA and our members and their willingness
to provide information and engage in debate.
For more information contact Lisa McElherron, Head of Public Affairs, NICVA.
028 90 877 777 or lisa.mcelherron@nicva.org
23