MEETING OF THE JOINT GOVERNMENT / VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY SECTOR FORUM ON 25 MAY 2006, THE MOUNT, BELFAST

Present

Maurice Leeson Barnardos, Joint Chair

Chris Ball Community Arts Forum

Lynn Carvill Organisation of the Unemployed NI

Jim Deery Greater New Lodge Community Forum

Michael Hughes Rural Community Network

Patricia Haren Women’s Support Network

Olwen Lyner NIACRO

Wendy Osborne Volunteer Development Agency

Carol O’Bryan Simon Community NI

Monica Wilson Disability Action

Paschal McKeown MENCAP

Sean O’Muireagain Comhairle na Gaelscolaiochta

Denis Palmer Youthnet

Elaine McElduff Children in NI

Zoë Anderson Secretariat, NICVA

Dave Wall DSD, Joint Chair

Marie Abbott DSD

Russell McCaughey DSD

Geoff Beattie DSD

Agnes Killen DCAL

Irene McAllister DETI

Ciaran Crosbie DRD

Patricia McVeigh DHSSPS

Marian McIlhone DHSSPS

Jim Rainey DEL

Louise Warde Hunter DE

Alex Boyle DOE

Ian Maye DOE

Debbie Donnelly OFMDFM, RPA team

Colette Leeson OFMDFM, RPA team

Peter McNaney Belfast City Council

Heloise Brown Secretariat, DSD

1. Welcome and apologies

Dave Wall welcomed everyone to the meeting, in particular Ciaran Crosbie, Michael Hughes, Paschal McKeown and Sean O’Muireagain, who were attending for the first time.

Apologies were received from:

Carolyn Barr (DFP), Patricia Cooke (Community Network Portadown), Tom Clarke (NIO), Noel Cornick (DARD), Drew Haire (OFMDFM), Grace Henry (Help the Aged), Roy Hanna (Rural Community Network), Tom Kiernan (DSD), Seamus McAleavey (NICVA), Frances McCandless (NICVA), Marcus MacRuairi (POBAL), Pauline Millar (OFMDFM), Seamus Murray (DSD), Liz Stewart (DRD), Tom Wilson (DSD)

2. Minutes of last meeting

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 March 2006 were agreed as an accurate record.

3. Matters arising

Maurice Leeson noted that OFMDFM had been asked to attend and to provide an update on the Anti-Poverty Strategy. Dave Wall reported that according to OFMDFM there is little to report as the Strategy is still with Ministers, and will be launched when Ministerial approval is received. OFMDFM have agreed to provide an update to the next meeting of the Joint Forum.

4. Revised Terms of Reference

Paper 15/06 refers. The meeting approved the revised Terms of Reference.

5. Updates

(A) A Shared Future

(B) Neighbourhood Renewal

Papers 16/06 and 17/06 refer. The meeting noted the content of both updates. It was requested that future updates contain more detail, and agreed that this would be fed back to those concerned.

6. Review of Public Administration – Presentation by RPA Central Team

Debbie Donnelly of OFMDFM’s RPA team thanked the Voluntary and Community Sector for its previous contributions to the debate and gave a presentation to the meeting of decisions so far (copy attached).

7. Review of Public Administration – Presentation by DOE

Ian Maye of DOE gave a presentation to the meeting on the implementation phases of the RPA, and the TOR and structure of the local government taskforce (copy attached). The TOR and minutes of meetings for the Local Government Reform Taskforce are on the web at: http://www.doeni.gov.uk/lgd/localgovreform/

Questions and discussion on both presentations followed.

Members wanted to know how new relationships are being and will be progressed, and what other issues are being taken into consideration other than process and finance. The remit for Departments is not purely financial: equality, social need and promoting good relations affect all public administration. While it is currently in the early stages, there will be a new statutory relationship between central and local government, but the sector has to be brought in long before the transfer of functions. Community planning will be at the heart of the new relationship.

The sector has representatives on many of the DoE subgroups and details can be found on www.communityni.org DSD has a key role in the management and development of how information is fed back. They will run until late June / July 2006, then will be reshaped and pared down. Most subgroups are meeting a number of times and the agenda at present is very limited. The real work will begin after June, when the details of implementation will be developed.

In Education, there is a VCS representative in the work they are doing on RPA. Patricia McVeigh agreed to report back to the Joint Forum on the situation in DHSSPS. It was asked whether there was an opportunity for genuine engagement given the timescale, and the concern was raised that the tight timescale was being used as a reason not to undertake wider work.

Members were concerned about how the principles of the Compact will be taken forward and embedded in this process. The need to embed the Compact in the process from the outset was recognised and while working groups are still making suggestions at this stage, a more structured approach will follow.

Ian added that the sector will be asked to think about how it fits in. In New Zealand, the central / local government / voluntary and community sector relationship is very positive and provides an example of how local government can be turned into a powerful force in society. This would be an ideal moment to consider other approaches and take this opportunity to make a difference to how things are done.

There is concern about consultation with Section 75 groups, and that the process is moving so quickly. Debbie agreed that this is a key issue and we should no longer be engaged in consulting after decisions have been made. The Equality and Social Need Group will be considering this at a meeting next week.

It was pointed out that there is a massive gap between the people who can access information over the internet and those who can’t (e.g. those with disability access issues, ethnic minorities, those with literacy problems). This is an issue for the communication subgroup that needs to be considered.

A communication strategy for the RPA as a whole is in development, and that the community planning element of the RPA includes a number of communication issues. This is vital to allowing ownership.

Finally, members askedwhat the impact on the process will be if devolved government returns. The process may be re-examined, as the Assembly will be able to implement its own changes. However, the Assembly initiated the RPA process, so it is already signed up to it. The major impacts may be that the process takes longer than planned and the legislation will require a different process, but the central tenets are unlikely to change. Dave agreed with these comments and added that the Secretary of State is keen for the RPA to run to its conclusion.

9. Review of Public Administration – Presentation by Peter McNaney (Belfast City Council)

Peter McNaney gave a presentation about the changes required and the challenges of the RPA (copy attached). The presentation was followed by questions and discussion.

Question: How can we create a structure in which statutory responsibility on councils can come about?

Peter responded that collaboration needs to be brought into the system: as a starting point, those involved need to address the ‘how, when, where’ of the changes, and to bring collaboration in.

Question: In terms of community planning in other parts of the UK, is there actually full engagement with the VCS?

Peter replied that the picture is varied across the UK, e.g. parts of Scotland do not have the level of engagement that there is in NI. Consultation is about engagement: there must be a feedback loop in community planning.

Debbie Donnelly added that there is a VCS Compact with Edinburgh City Council, which would serve as a model, but the process took two years to put in place. One consequence of this local Compact was the rationalisation of some of the existing partnerships.

Question: For the VCS in Scotland, community planning still seems to be quite aspirational, even though the process has been in place for some time.

Peter noted that from this point until 2009 is the time to ensure that engagement is real and meaningful, and that priorities are focused on.

Others commented that the challenge stemming from A Shared Future is that community planning must be for the good of all. Communities can be pitted against each other, and it may be easy to develop shared facilities from scratch, but existing infrastructure is harder to make integrated.

Peter replied that it is not simply a case of fixing what we have, but of planning the future in a different way.

Question: If people are inclined to work in their own areas, this presents a challenge because it doesn’t lead to a sense of wider ownership.

Peter responded that the key challenge for the Grove facility referred to in his presentation is in making it a shared space. There are ways of achieving this. A recent article by Bruce Katz, formerly of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, identified two things that ensure the success of community renewal: the community has a choice in what takes place; and the community is connected to economic prosperity.

10. Discussion groups

The Forum broke into discussion groups on the Review of Public Administration. Brief verbal feedback on the discussions indicated that the Forum was content with the formation of an RPA subgroup, but that the remit and aims of the subgroup should be clearly identified.

11. Positive Steps Progress Report

Paper 18/06 refers. Dave reported that most items in Positive Steps were on track. The key issue was longer-term funding, which may take longer than 2 years to achieve. The Implementation Group will meet again in October, when a key task will be to identify how it is planned to achieve the Positive Steps recommendations within the required timescale.

It was noted that in fact, some Departments are understating their achievements, eg in relation to services to marginalised youth. Departments may not be aware how many of their achievements are relevant to Positive Steps. It was requested that VCS representatives would feed in information where they are aware that Departmental investments are missing from the report.

Action: All

12. Partners for Change update

Marie Abbott reported on Partners for Change (paper 19/06 refers) and took questions.

Concern was raised that it is now 2006 and PfC is not yet out for consultation, so the strategy can only run for one year. How will it forward plan, given the changes under the RPA? Partners for Change must have value in taking forward Positive Steps.

Departments have indicated that some functions will change due to the RPA and this will be picked up in the annual monitoring of the strategy. Action points will be relevant and current, as most commitments run for longer than 1 year: the 2005-08 strategy will have bigger strategic commitments than the previous Partners for Change. Some Positive Steps actions clearly referred to the end of the period, and while these have to be embedded, the actions to honour commitments will be put in place.

Positive Steps has received a very high profile and it is hoped that this influence will be retained when, at the end of this year, Partners for Change becomes the lead strategy rather than Positive Steps. It will be vital that a senior level of interest is maintained.

Partners for Change could restate the importance of engagement with the VCS. We need to link it back to the Compact as a constant restatement that this is about valuing the sector.

13. Discussion groups

The Forum broke into discussion groups on the implementation of Positive Steps and the Compacts across the UK.

14. Feedback from discussion groups

It was agreed, based on the feedback, that a Joint Forum response to Positive Steps will be drawn up and agreed at the next meeting, for presentation to the next Positive Steps Implementation Group meeting in November.

Action: Secretariat

15. Date of next meeting

The next meeting will take place on Wednesday 8 November at 9.30 a.m.

16. AOB and close

No AOB was raised.