| |
|
|
| |
| The Committee of Public Accounts has agreed to the following Report:
|
| |
| DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT: CONTROL OF BELFAST ACTION TEAMS' EXPENDITURE
|
| |
| INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
|
| |
| C&AG(NI)'s Report (HC 63 of Session 1996-97) paras 1, 3, 5 and 10
| 1. The Belfast Action Teams (BATs) initiative was launched in 1987 as part of a series of Government initiatives to help regenerate Belfast. It operated under the Social Need (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. Teams were established in nine areas of Belfast to work in partnership with local communities to promote a programme of economic and social projects. The aim was to bring about an improvement in the quality of life, and an enhancement of the opportunities and prospects of people living in Belfast city areas suffering from particularly severe problems. Total expenditure to 31 March 1996 was some £56 million.
|
| |
| 2. On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland we took evidence from the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (DOE) on the arrangements made for the administration of this initiative.
|
| |
| 3. Our main conclusions and recommendations are as follows:
|
| |
| On Administrative Weaknesses
|
| |
| (i) We are astonished that more was not done to learn from the experience gained in administering similar community development schemes elsewhere. Previous evaluations point up precisely the weaknesses identified in this report and we feel strongly that a lot of what has gone wrong could have been avoided by taking account of established best practice. We agree with the Comptroller and Auditor General that the lack of comprehensive guidance and training for staff is likely to have contributed to the poor control, bad practice and inconsistency in approach highlighted in the audit findings (paragraph 18).
|
| |
| (ii) We are concerned that investment appraisal procedures were ignored in such an alarming proportion of cases and note DOE's assurances that adequate arrangements are now in place to appraise all projects (paragraph 19).
|
| |
| (iii) We find it unsatisfactory that the Department did not address the con-sultants' recommendations in 1991 to establish proper management information and monitoring procedures. We understand the experimental nature of the programme and the need to allow staff to use their initiative but that is all the more reason why there should have been sufficient monitoring to ensure that public money was being handled properly (paragraph 20).
|
| |
| (iv) We find it disturbing that, in a scheme which was giving out public money to a wide range of innovative and risky projects, there was inadequate staffing for the task (paragraph 21).
|
| |
| (v) We note the Department's view that it was working with responsible community organisations and that there was no evidence to suggest that any money had leaked to paramilitary organisations. Nevertheless, we are concerned that the absence of proper controls over the issue and use of public money, has left the Department in no position to give us the degree of assurance that we would want on this point (paragraph 22).
|
| |
| (vi) We consider it essential that Letters of Offer for grant should provide full access rights for the Department and NIAO. We note that an appropriate clause is to be inserted in all future Letters of Offer and we expect to be informed if there are any problems in arranging this provision (paragraph 23).
|
| |
| (vii) We are very concerned that so many serious administrative deficiencies were found in a sample of 98 projects and consider that the Department should carry out a wider review of projects to assess the full extent of the problems (paragraph 24).
|
| |
| (viii) We recognise that Action Teams were dealing with some very disadvantaged communities in very tense security and political situations. Nevertheless, we must take the view that high standards of administration are required to safeguard public money and we expect the same high standards to apply in all parts of the United Kingdom (paragraph 25).
|
| |
| On Examples of Irregularities Found in Projects Examined
|
| |
| (ix) We regard it as an extravagant use of public money to send people abroad for basic training and work experience of this nature. We consider this could have been facilitated within the United Kingdom. We are particularly concerned that one member of the Action Team incurred a substantial part of the £40,000 spent by the Team on travelling expenses and note that this is under investigation (paragraph 31).
|
| |
| (x) We find it incomprehensible that an application for funding from the European Social Fund should have been made by the Action Team staff in the name of a voluntary group which had no involvement in the overseas projects. We are also disturbed that the Comptroller and Auditor General was incorrectly named on the application as the external auditor for the voluntary group without his knowledge (paragraph 32).
|
| |
| (xi) We take a very serious view on the provision of some £313,000 public money to a voluntary body without proper documentation to support the rationale for funding. It is clear that there was inadequate control over how these funds were used and we find it disturbing that there is little tangible evidence to show what was achieved (paragraph 33).
|
| |
| On Disciplinary Action
|
| |
| (xii) We expect to be kept informed of the outcome of the Department's internal enquiry and any subsequent disciplinary action taken (paragraph 36).
|
