01 April 2011

Theme 1.2 Acknowledging and Dealing with the Past Friday 1st April 2011

Meeting: 11.30am Friday 1^st April 2011

Venue: Pobal Offices, Monaghan

Present: Tony McCusker (Chairperson), Mary Cunningham, Brendan Mackin, Jim Deery, Lisa Jane McIlveen

In attendance: DFP: Martin Tyrell

SEUPB: John Cherry

Pobal:Paddy McGinn, Colette Nulty, Denis Leamy, Mary McConnell (Minutes)

Community Relations Council:Duncan Morrow, Frank Murphy, Gordon Walker, Patricia McShane

1. Apologies: Jacqueline Irwin, Stella McDermott, Jackie Witherow, Shaun Henry, Aidan O’Reilly

_______________________________________________________________________

2. Minutes: The Minutes of the previous meeting held on 30th September 2010 were recorded as a true and accurate account.

Proposed: Brendan Mackin

Seconded: Mary Cunningham

3. Matters Arising from the Minute:

There were no matters arising

4. Note of Written Procedure December 2010

Members were informed that the following decisions were here for noting and everyone agreed to the decisions that had been made.

Project Summary Grid Written Procedure December 2010 Noted Theme 1.2 Steering Committee 1^st April 2011

	Ref		Applicant		Project Title		Team Recommendation		STEERING COMMITTEE DECISION
							Net Commitment	Change Requested	DECISION		COMMENTS	NOTED	AMOUNT £/€
1	000714		Northwest Play Resource Centre:		Theatre of Witness		£327,670	The current project end date is extended by 6 months to the 30^th June 2011, subject to the following conditions: · NWPR to forward a copy of the Letter of Offer from the Department of Foreign Affairs as soon as possible. · Consortium staff to liaise with project promoter to confirm which elements of the Education Project will be funded under Measure 1.2 · Output table to be updated/revised · Project promoter to confirm which schools/community groups it intends to work with during the next 6mths · Under-spend in 2010 will be transferred to 2011	Agreed as presented				No change in grant aid awarded
		Ref		Applicant	Project Title	Team Recommendation				STEERING COMMITTEE DECISION
						Net Commitment		Change Requested		DECISION	COMMENTS	NOTED	AMOUNT £/€
2		000858		Relatives for Justice		£547,747		· The current project start date is changed from the 1/3/2009 to 21/2/2009 · The current project end date is extended for 4 months until the 31/5/2011 and £61,614.53 is transferred to 2011 from under-spends in 2010 and 2009 to facilitate the extension · The programme of activity, outputs and milestones presented for the extension period are recommended · De-commit £149.59 from the original grant aid awarded		Agreed as presented			Revised Total Grant Aid £479,465.40

5. Conflict of Interest

5.1 Conflict of Interest Statements for 2011

Paddy McGinn has completed a statement of Material Interest?????

5.2 Declaration of Conflict of Interest for meeting

Brendan Mackin informed everyone that he has a conflict of interest in point 8.4 of the agenda, De-committals and extension summary grid as Belfast Unemployed Resource Centre are included in this and he will need to leave the room when this is being discussed.

6. Financial Update

6.1 The Steering Committee was presented with an overview of the current allocations against budget as at the 24^th March 2011. The Committee was informed that half of the total budget had been allocated €25,645,374 and this amount reflects an adjustment representing three terminated contracts. This leaves a budget remaining of €24,354,626 with 2 projects totaling €3,434,842 still under appraisal. The total amount of potential budget remaining is therefore €20,919,784 but this figure is likely to increase to near €25/28million due to de-committals taking place.

7. Re-opening of Theme 1.2

7.1 Open Call

The Steering Committee was informed that a total of 113 applications had been received under the Open Call with a total value of £60m. Approximately half of all applications received are above the Economic Appraisal Threshold of £500,000. Due to the large response it was proposed to streamline the appraisal process. The first stage will incorporate an eligibility check and a programme and thematic criteria check with the applicants being scored on these. When the scoring at stage one is complete the applications recommended for rejection will be considered by the steering committee, who will make a final decision on the eligibility of the application and those applications recommended for Stage two assessment will also be decided by the Steering Committee. Stage two will consist of a full assessment of the application. This full assessment will then be brought to the Steering Committee for a final decision. After passing stage two a decision will then be made on whether the application needs to go for an economic appraisal or not. It is hoped that stage 1 will be completed by 30^th June and the earliest possible time for completion of stage two will be September. For those applications requiring an Economic Appraisal this will bring the time frame to the New Year before final decisions can be made.

A proposal was made to block book a few days for committee members to review assessments after stage II.

It was agreed that strict application of the selection criteria is applied when assessing and reviewing the applications.

It was agreed that those applications which may take the longest time to complete assessment should be prioritized in stage one.

The team was congratulated on publicising the open call and for the good response which was received.

It was noted that a more specific call was needed to identify the gaps in service provision.

Members were informed that the Consortium paper on Open Call and Funder Led Interventions was a draft and that on page 5 under Recommended Procedure it should read ‘Applications recommended for Stage 2 Assessment will be decided by the Consortium Steering Committee’ and not ‘noted by the Consortium Steering Committee’.

7.2 Funder Led Interventions & Direct Commissioning

The Committee was informed that the critical technical questions for SEUPB and CPD from page four of the Consortium Briefing Paper on Funder Led Interventions had been discussed at the meeting with SEUPB last Friday, 25^th March.

Single Tender Actions – one to deliver and a statutory organization

A commemoration project could possibly be ran in conjunction with the museums

The committee was informed that the way forward would be a clear defined call to address specific gaps including thematic or geographic.

Direct Commissioning, Victims? Go back to the management authority SEUPB to ask how it could be best managed.

Standards – Comm. victims and survivors - Members were informed that OFMDFM have identified 8 categories of need and are looking into this with a timescale of 2011/2012. This new service will hopefully be operational in April.

It was stated that funder led initiatives for groups are not allowed.

8 Project Recommendations for Consideration

8.1 Strand 1 – National Museums N Ireland

The steering committee was informed that the assessment of this application has been a long process. A re-assessment report. The economic appraisal had a lot of concerns regarding the need and cost of the project, which the steering panel had rejected. A review was asked for, following this review it was recommended that the applicant submit more information and an economic appraisal and technical assessment completed. It was then recommended that the project was funded and asked that the project was decreased in size but all key elements are kept. The project is the most expensive to date and the economist looked at it as a flagship project. In the Economic Appraisal value for money section is was recommended that an economists view was sought. This information is included in page 47 of the re-assessment report. There will be a heavily managed resource around the project. There will be a parallel process to meet the promoters, if they sign up to the recommendations.

What did the economist specifically ask for? Cause over £1m. Critical review of Economic Appraisal takes 8 weeks.

It was noted that the technical review was intense and well done and it was proposed that if it goes to an economist a dual process sit with lead partner??? Any overrun will be the applicants responsibility.

8.2 Strand 2 – WAVE Trauma Centre

8.3 De-committal and Extension Process

8.4 De-committals and Extensions Summary Grid

9. Project Specific Issues

9.1 Summary Grid for Information

10. Dates for Meetings

10.1 Schedule of dates

3. Updates

3.1 Strand 1, Addressing Truth in Public Memory

3.1.1 Queen Mary University of London (Ref: 002590) further to approval from the Steering Committee has also received approval from the SEUPB. The Consortium is in the process of completing a pre-contract check prior to the issue of the Letter of Offer. The promoter has proceeded at risk to advertise the staff positions within the project. Due to the lengthy recruitment process within the university the promoter has decided to proceed in the interest of ensuring that project will achieve its aims and objectives within the agreed timeframe for project delivery.

3.1.2. All project requests for reviews are now completed as outlined above

3.2 Financial Update

3.2.1 The Steering Committee was presented with an overview of the current allocations against budget as at the 23 Sept 2010. The total amount of funding not allocated to date is €23,737,330. It was noted that this figure is likely to increase as the amount under appraisal for the WAVE project (€1.2m) is likely to decrease due to the timeframe now available for project implementation if all pre contract conditions are met. There will also be further slippage and a number of Letters of Offer have also now been terminated earlier than anticipated. The final available budget for re-allocation will be in excess of €25m.

3.2.2. The Steering Committee also noted amendments to de-committals presented at the February Steering Committee

4. Re-opening of Theme 1.2 Acknowledging and Dealing with the Past

4.1 Deloitte Review of Theme 1.2

· An overview of the key recommendations, background and context was provided to the members. Members had a detailed discussion on the report and were broadly in acceptance of the recommendations however further consideration would be required into how these recommendations would be effectively operationalized.

· The status of the report was clarified. The Report will be considered by the Peace III Monitoring Committee in October and post approval the Consortium and the Managing Authority will discuss and agree the implementation of the Deloitte recommendations.

· Members discussed the issue of the impact of the recommendations on the Consortium resources and the processes for delivery.

· It was clarified that both the SEUPB and the Deloitte consulted with the Consortium in the undertaking of the review and in relation to the final recommendations.

· Concerns were expressed about recommendation 8 in terms “undertaking a phased approach to addressing one or more peace walls and other, sometimes non physical, interface barriers.” The committee highlighted the need in terms of implementation that this work needed to complement current funded work on the ground in specific areas; to be realistic in what could be achieved and how to ensure that this work was compatible with the work undertaken under Theme 1.2 Building Positive Relationships being implemented by the Peace Partnerships.

4.2 Discussion on Re-opening Theme 1.2 Acknowledging and Dealing with the Past

A draft paper was presented to the Steering Committee giving a brief overview on the three recommended Deloitte approaches for delivery with associated timeframes and indicative budget bands. Taking into account the current unallocated global grant, expenditure slippage within current projects and the termination of a number of current Letters of Offer it is anticipated that a potential €28m will be available for allocation under the re-opening of Theme 1.2.

4.2.1 Funder Led Interventions €7m-€11m

· Strategic Project 1: Addressing the Past in Public Memory €2m-€3m

· Strategic Project 2: Dealing with the Past and Building Community Relations €5m-€8m

4.2.2 Direct Commissioning: Research and Piloting of Activities to Assist Victims and Survivors €2.5m -€5m(Deloitte recommendation 6)

The research recommended by Deloitte is on the current and potential collaboration for new and enhanced working relationships to effectively meet the needs of Victims and Survivors. Deloitte also recommend that specific proposals linked with the research are piloted as part of this approach.

4.2.3 Open Call for Applications €10m-€15m (Deloitte recommendation 9)

· Proposed timeframe for opening 18^th October 2010 – 31^st December 2010.

· Period of Funding for projects will be up to end of December 2013 subject to additional resources from the Managing Authority and an agreed extension to the current Consortium Contract (providing 24 – 30 months funding i.e. 2.5 years maximum

· Size of grant proposed per project will be within €300,000 to €650,000.

· The theme of the open call as recommended by Deloitte will be on supporting “creative, innovative and boundary pushing projects in relation to peace building and reconciliation which meets the needs of Victims and Survivors.”

· A desk based assessment approach will be used due to the limited resources and timeframe available for implementation.

· It is envisaged that decisions will be taken on an ongoing basis by the Steering Committee between March 2011 and June/July 2011.

4.2.4 The Steering Committee discussed the paper and made the following recommendations and comments;

· The draft paper on operationalising the Deloitte recommendations is accepted in principle by the Committee.

· Negotiations and discussion with the Managing Authority in relation to the terms and conditions of the Consortiums contract for delivery are commenced immediately.

· Concerns were expressed about the realism of achieving full spend in the current timeframe of the Consortium contract and that it will be challenge even within the extended timeframe proposed by the Consortium.

· Alliances within the community and voluntary sector (Consortia bids) should be desirable criteria for the open call.

5. Specific Project Updates

5.1 FAIR (Project SACRED, ref no: 000893 & Project CAPABLE, ref no: 000990)

The Consortium have been instructed by the SEUPB on the 10^th September 2010 to terminate two letters of offer with FAIR in accordance with the respective clause 22 of the standard conditions of grant aid and to seek recovery of all monies that have been paid to FAIR under these letters of offer. The SEUPB also have a letter of offer with FAIR and this Letter of Offer has also been terminated. The total of amount of grant aid to be recovered by the Consortium is €343,509 approx.

The termination of the Letters of Offer is based on the audit findings commissioned by the SEUPB to examine all relevant matters in relation to the management of the three Peace III funded projects.

5.2 SAVER/NAVER Ref No: 000595 (South Armagh Victims Encouraging Recognition / North Armagh Victims Encouraging Recognition)

Amount Awarded: £469,686.13

Grant Aid Paid to date: £248,959.74

The Consortium has been instructed by the SEUPB to suspend any further payments to this project until the completion of an independent audit. The Steering Committee will be updated again at the next meeting.

6. Date of Next Meeting: November 2^nd, 1pm in CRC Offices Dungannon.

Please note that CRC have moved offices from Moygashel to new premises at Ballygawley Road, Dungannon. Directions will be circulated with the agenda for the next meeting.

SIGNED:_____________________________________ DATE:________________________

(Chairperson)

SIGNED:_____________________________________ DATE:________________________

(Counter signed)

Table 1: UPDATE ON REVIEWS
	Promoter & Project	Strand	Outcome	Consortium Action
1	WAVE 000813: Continuum of Services Application amount: £1.2m	2	The Review Panel agreed to overturn the decision of the Steering Committee on the grounds that “the outcome was a decision that no reasonable person would have made based on the information provided” The panel also recommended that seven specific conditions must be met by WAVE in advance of issuing the Letter of Offer.	1. The Consortium wrote and received clarifications from the SEUPB in respect in reasons for the decision and the technical issue of DFP approval 2. The Consortium have written to and met with WAVE in respect of the conditions which are a pre requisite to the Letter of Offer No response has been received from WAVE to date. Consortium will update the Steering Committee at the next meeting.
2	BBC 002632: A State Apart	1	The applicant withdrew their application for review the day before the review meeting	No further action required
3	National Museums Northern Ireland (NMNI) 002853: Facing the Past	1	The Review Panel concluded that there had been “a failure in the adherence to procedures or systems that materially affected or could have affected the decision” The Review Panel recommended that: 1. The applicant be given the opportunity to submit further clarification in relation to objectives, outputs, reach and value for money including examination of the potential for a scaling down of the costs of digitalization; and 2. The Consortium re-assess the application and present to the Steering Committee for consideration	1. The Consortium provided clarification to the Steering Committee in relation to the review. Concerns were expressed in relation to two issues: a. The grounds for overturning the decision were not the grounds the applicant had sought the review b. The cost and process for completion of the Economic Appraisal for the project. 2. Clarification on the EA presented to the last Steering Committee: The EA consultant submitted a report to the stage of Need; the EA stated that they were unable to progress the EA as further clarifications/information would be required to complete the process.
	Promoter & Project	Strand	Outcome	Consortium Action
	002853 NMNI Contd.			3. Actions Agreed by the Steering Committee: · Consortium to write to the promoter as the Review Panel recommendations · Consortium to write to the SEUPB to seek clarification in relation to the completion and costs associated with the Economic Appraisal · An update to be provided at the next Steering Committee meeting

In respect of the reviews the Steering Committee made the following comments:

· Copies of items for discussion to be circulated to members in advance where possible

· The Consortium clarified that going forward the Economic Appraisal process will be managed entirely by the Consortium from commissioning, to contract and payment.

2.3 Decision Deferred at June Meeting

Table 2 SUMMARY GRID

CONSORTIUM STEERING COMMITTEE DECISIONS 30^TH September 2010

Applicant

Previous Team Score

Previous Recommendation of the Steering Committee

Update

Steering Committee Decision

University of Ulster- ARK/CAIN

Project Title: Legacy of Loss

138

69%

Deferred subject to clarifications

Letter from the promoter clarifying their current position in relation to the project was presented to the Steering Committee

As the project proposal had changed substantially from application and the original assessment; and project is no longer viable; it was agreed by the Steering Committee that they could no longer consider the application as eligible for consideration. Options outlined in the promoters’ correspondence may be eligible for consideration when Theme 1.2 re-opens.