Annex D
Memorandum on PEACE II (HC 653)
The Committee Clerk has asked for a memorandum
updating the Committee on matters covered in its Peace II Report.
The following memorandum aims to meet this request and endeavours
to answer the various questions posed by the Committee in the
order in which they appear in the letter dated 29 November 2004.
Question 1
What progress has been made in applying the nine
recommendations set out in paragraph 10 of the Government's response
to the Committee's report? (HC 1077, page 3)
Recommendation 1: 60 Day Action Team
Following receipt of the PWC report on the reviewing
of PEACE II implementation systems and processes in July 2003,
the Minister established a "60 Day" Action Team to oversee
delivery of the nine areas of simplification. The Action Team
completed its work in November 2003 and a copy of their final
report making 47 recommendations on simplifications was issued
to NIAC on 8 December 2003. The Minister asked that implementation
of these simplifications is taken forward by the SEUPB in 2004.
45 of the 47 recommendations have been implemented. The two not
yet fully implemented were numbers 15 and 40. Number 15 was to
create a consultancy call off list and is no longer considered
necessary. Number 40 was for a full review of accountability arrangements
that is partially completed. A new financial memorandum reflecting
this work is expected to be agreed before March 2005.
Recommendation 2: Application Process
A new registration process, grant application
form and small grant application form became operational in December
2003. Application forms were redesigned with the objective of
simplification. The new registration process strongly highlights
"Distinctiveness criteria" to avoid unnecessary work
by applicants and implementing bodies in considering projects
which fail to meet these essential criteria. The aim is to ensure
that information requested from the applicant is commensurate
to the stage achieved in the process. The SEUPB held management
workshops in early 2004 to introduce the changes.
Recommendation 3: Assessment Process
The SEUPB has introduced minimum service delivery
standards for project applicants established for all implementing
bodies in relation to processing and assessing applications. The
establishment of formal complaints and suggestions procedures
for project applicants/promoters, with minimum service delivery
standards for the SEUPB and implementing bodies.
SEUPB held workshops for all implementing bodies
in early 2004 on guidance to and best practice of Assessment Panels.
SEUPB issued a Service Delivery Standards Paper to all implementing
bodies in December 2003.
Recommendation 4: Support for Decision Making
Process
SEUPB revised procedures in respect of economic
appraisals and issued updated guidance on value for money assessments,
also devised step-by-step guidance, proformas and flow charts/checklist
to clarify and ensure principles of appraisals are applied with
appropriate and proportionate effort. A simple flowchart was developed
to provide an overview of the appraisal process. A checklist which
standardises the requirements accompanies this. The checklist
provides a standard programme-wide pro-forma for use on economic
appraisals which has been extended to all the EU funds operating
in Northern Ireland.
Recommendation 5: Standardisation on Letters of
Offer
SEUPB issued a standard model Letter of Offer
and associated guidance in all implementing bodies in December
2003. A management workshop was held in January 2004.
Recommendation 6: Agreed approach to audit and
verification
SEUPB issued guidance on financial controls
for the PEACE II Programme to all implementing bodies. This states
clearly the financial control requirements of the EU and represents
the minimum financial control requirements for the Programme consistent
with EU regulations and proper management of public money. Project
organisations with multiple projects (funded from the same EC
fund) will not normally receive more than one Article 4 audit
check in a 12-month period. Implementing Bodies are now permitted
to apply the principle of materiality to expenditure claims. This
revised guidance has been incorporated into the EU Structural
Funds Manual and is used across all four EU programme funds operational
in Northern Ireland.
Recommendation 7: Clarification of Monitoring
Requirements
SEUPB issued guidance on monitoring and reporting
requirements in December 2003 and a workshop was held in early
2004. Equality monitoring requirements reduced to one form per
year. Monitoring information now collated from projects on a six
monthly basis rather than quarterly. Projects not now required
making formal return with respect to PEACE II distinctiveness
monitoring. Other aspects of monitoring reviewed and clarified.
Recommendation 8: Development of the Interface
between SEUPB and Government Departments
Accountability arrangements between SEUPB and
Departments as specified in Terms and Conditions of Payments of
Grant documents have been simplified and clarified to allow scope
for SEUPB to seek cash from Departments to measures based on projected
need rather than solely on the basis of payments to a pre(set
limit as previously. Virement procedures have also been put in
place. This reduces the number of payment claims from SEUPB to
Departments that are necessary and ensures cash balances are minimised.
Recommendation 9: Communications and Publicity
A PEACE Programme communication strategy has
been put in place which establishes clear and consistent objectives
and set of actions to redress the balance between the positive
and negative image of the Programme. SEUPB held conferences in
December 2003 and December 2004 to communicate the success of
the Programme to date via projects and to announce the "60
Day" Action Team changes. The PEACE Programme was presented
in Brussels in September as part of a wider Commission/Committee
of the Regions event.
Question 2
What further steps have been taken to simplify
the application forms? (Government's response, HC 1077, paragraphs
12-18)
Part A of application form significantly shortened
and redesigned to become more user friendly. SEUPB introduced
a mandatory registration process for all applicants prior to completing
full application form. Registration process strongly highlights
"Distinctiveness criteria" to avoid unnecessary work
by applicants. The Part B has been shortened and redesigned to
simplify completion Additionally a Small Grants application form
was shortened and simplified in terms of presentation and language,
and on basis of minimum core information necessary to assess an
application. In the extension period the reduced number of Measures
and Implementing Bodies will allow further simplification of the
application process and make it simpler for potential applicants
to access relevant Measures.
Question 3
What is the average time currently taken to process
application forms? (Government response, HC 1077, paragraph 20)
On 1 January 2004 the SEUPB introduced minimum
service delivery standards for project applicants established
for all implementing bodies including minimum processing times
for assessing applications. Since this date the average processing
time for approved PEACE II applications in Northern Ireland has
been reduced from an average of 93 working days to 58 working
days. The table below provides a more detailed analysis for both
approved and rejected applications is received on or after 1 January
2004.
APPROVED APPLICATIONS
| | Number of
applications
| Total working
days processing
time
| Average working
days processing
time
|
| Type of funding body | NI Govt Dept
| 401 | 26,020 | 65
|
| NI IFB | 118
| 6,669 | 57 |
| LSPs | 482
| 25,384 | 53 |
| All NI Ibs | 1,001
| 58,073 | 58 |
| Note: Processing time for approved projects is the difference between the date the signed Part B is received and the date the LOO is issued.
| | | |
|
| |
| | |
REJECTED APPLICATIONS
| | Number of
applications
| Total working
days processing
time
| Average working
days processing
time
|
| Type of funding body | NI Govt Dept
| 196 | 11,932 | 61
|
| NI IFB | 36
| 2,495 | 69 |
| LSPs | 172
| 4,813 | 28 |
| All NI IBs | 404
| 19,240 | 48 |
| Note: Processing time for approved projects is the difference between the date the signed Part B is received and the date the application is rejected.
| | | |
|
| Source: CSF Central Database, 10 December 2004 (NB Central Database is reliant on funding bodies to provide information. In addition it is live and dynamic and subject to change.
| | | |
|
| |
| | |
Question 4
What success has the Government had in pressing for "simplification"
of audit procedures in the context of Northern Ireland? (Government
response, HC 1077, paragraph 22)
Following the PEACE II Programme's "60 Day" Action
Team simplifications DFP has issued revised guidance on audit
and verification. The revised guidance ensures consistent and
streamlined procedures are applied by all Departments and Implementing
Bodies.
DFP in consultation with other Departments has provided comments
and views to DTI and has attended EU technical seminars to help
develop the UK position on audit matters for the post 2006 Structural
Funds Regulations. It is hoped that these simplification proposals
will be reflected in the new regulations that are expected to
be agreed in mid-2005.
Question 5
Progress on N+2 spending targets. How much was spent at 31
December 2003? (Recommendations 18-22; Government response, HC
1077, paragraphs 23, 24)
At the end of December 2003 the PEACE II Programme met and
exceeded all of its N+2 target. In 2004 N+2 targets for the PEACE
II Programme in Northern Ireland will be met with total expenditure
to the end of November 2004 of
346 million.
Question 6
Peace II Extension (The Committee has asked for an update on
the arrangements and timetable for the proposed extension of Peace
II and has asked specifically what risk is there that there will
be a funding gap between the current and any extension programmes)
Good progress has been made to secure the necessary National
and EU agreements to extend PEACE II but final European Parliamentary
Ratification is not expected until mid/late January. Agreement
by the European Council on the budget was delayed until early
December and is now less than that first proposed and its composition
in terms of National and EU money is also different. The proposals
that we made to the Commission at the end of September to allocate
these resources now need amendment to reflect these changes. It
is hoped that these can be finalised by end January 2005 and Commission
approval obtained before end March 2005. Contracts to Implementing
Bodies can issue after that. We hope that first expenditure allocations
can begin before summer 2005. As projects with current offers
can claim expenditure until 2006 there is only limited risk of
any funding gap period.
| 
