2:00:00 > 2:00:00SUNDAY POLITICS NIC C054J/02 BRD000000
2:32:14 > 2:32:16Hello, and welcome to Sunday Politics.
2:32:16 > 2:32:19After years of delay, all £80 million
2:32:19 > 2:32:22of the fund set up to help improve deprived communities
2:32:22 > 2:32:23has been allocated.
2:32:23 > 2:32:26But questions are now being asked about why almost £2 million
2:32:26 > 2:32:29of the Social Investment Fund is being managed by a group
2:32:29 > 2:32:31with links to the UDA.
2:32:31 > 2:32:33We'll hear from one of the chief architects of the fund,
2:32:33 > 2:32:37the DUP's Emma Little-Pengelly, and one of its chief critics,
2:32:37 > 2:32:39the Alliance Party's Chris Lyttle.
2:32:39 > 2:32:41Also today, the Executive has a new approach
2:32:41 > 2:32:43to how its Programme for Government will operate,
2:32:43 > 2:32:45but will it make any difference?
2:32:45 > 2:32:48We'll speak to one US politician who believes it will
2:32:48 > 2:32:51and we'll also hear her thoughts on the battle for the White House.
2:32:51 > 2:32:53And with their thoughts on all of that and more,
2:32:53 > 2:32:56my guests of the day are Felicity Huston and Brian Feeney.
2:33:02 > 2:33:05It was set up with the purpose of transforming working-class
2:33:05 > 2:33:08communities, but since its creation the Social Investment Fund
2:33:08 > 2:33:11has been making headlines for all the wrong reasons.
2:33:11 > 2:33:13Firstly, there were complaints the money wasn't getting
2:33:13 > 2:33:15to communities quickly enough.
2:33:15 > 2:33:18Now, the pot of £80 million has all been allocated,
2:33:18 > 2:33:21but some MLAs are concerned about almost £2 million
2:33:21 > 2:33:24of the funding going to a group with links to the UDA.
2:33:24 > 2:33:27Emma Little-Pengelly, you were involved in this project
2:33:27 > 2:33:30for quite some time, is it right to be giving
2:33:30 > 2:33:34£1.7 million in Government funding to an organisation
2:33:34 > 2:33:36some of whose key personnel have links
2:33:36 > 2:33:38to a proscribed Loyalist organisation?
2:33:38 > 2:33:41I think first of all it's worth looking at the scheme
2:33:41 > 2:33:42of the Social Investment Fund.
2:33:42 > 2:33:44It was an attempt to do things differently.
2:33:44 > 2:33:46It was a bottom-up project.
2:33:46 > 2:33:48It was very much about the community identifying problems
2:33:48 > 2:33:50and identifying solutions.
2:33:50 > 2:33:52In terms of the organisation you mentioned,
2:33:52 > 2:33:55it's not just the Social Investment Fund that funds Charter NI.
2:33:55 > 2:33:59Charter NI is funded by up to 15 different organisations,
2:33:59 > 2:34:01including the Housing Executive,
2:34:01 > 2:34:04Belfast City Council, North Down Council.
2:34:04 > 2:34:07So there's a range of funders there. All funders,
2:34:07 > 2:34:10like in the Executive Office and with the Social Investment Fund
2:34:10 > 2:34:13have to assure themselves that this is a legitimate organisation,
2:34:13 > 2:34:16there are legitimate governance arrangements in place
2:34:16 > 2:34:18and that is what has been done in this case.
2:34:18 > 2:34:20I don't think anybody's questioning that.
2:34:20 > 2:34:23But what people are asking questions about is this employability scheme
2:34:23 > 2:34:26which is directly funded by the Social Investment Fund,
2:34:26 > 2:34:31to the tune of £1.7 million when key personnel in that organisation
2:34:31 > 2:34:33have direct links to the UDA.
2:34:33 > 2:34:35Are you comfortable about that?
2:34:35 > 2:34:38Well, I think, first of all, and my party leader's made this very clear,
2:34:38 > 2:34:40we will not be leaving the Loyalist community behind.
2:34:40 > 2:34:43We want to work with the Loyalist community but what we are also
2:34:43 > 2:34:46very clear about is that those people within the community
2:34:46 > 2:34:48that are still involved in things like criminality and drugs
2:34:48 > 2:34:51have no place in the new Northern Ireland. They've no place
2:34:51 > 2:34:52in delivering these schemes.
2:34:52 > 2:34:55Now, when we look at, when our Government looks at an organisation
2:34:55 > 2:34:57in terms of funding, we do listen to the police,
2:34:57 > 2:35:00we take a look at the governance and we have to satisfy ourselves,
2:35:00 > 2:35:02absolutely have to satisfy ourselves...
2:35:02 > 2:35:03Are you satisfied, then,
2:35:03 > 2:35:08that Charter NI passes that governability test?
2:35:08 > 2:35:11Because the chief executive of the organisation spent five years
2:35:11 > 2:35:15in prison for armed robbery and possession of a firearm.
2:35:15 > 2:35:18There's a senior figure in the UDA in East Belfast who
2:35:18 > 2:35:21sits on Charter NI's board of directors
2:35:21 > 2:35:23and his wife is a senior employee of the organisation.
2:35:23 > 2:35:25And there are many community organisations
2:35:25 > 2:35:28where people sit on the boards or perhaps are employed by them...
2:35:28 > 2:35:30This one receiving £1.7 million of public money.
2:35:30 > 2:35:34There are many others, like the West Belfast Festival, the Ashton Centre.
2:35:34 > 2:35:36Yes, but we're talking about this one
2:35:36 > 2:35:38and nearly £2 million of public money.
2:35:38 > 2:35:43I'm asking you, are you satisfied that in this case this organisation
2:35:43 > 2:35:46passes the governability test that you've just mentioned?
2:35:46 > 2:35:48Absolutely, and if it didn't then Belfast City Council,
2:35:48 > 2:35:51North Down Council, the Executive Office, couldn't fund it.
2:35:51 > 2:35:53There is a system of checks and balances.
2:35:53 > 2:35:56We've heard, and you've outlined already, there were concerns
2:35:56 > 2:35:58about how quickly this scheme delivered.
2:35:58 > 2:35:59One of the reasons it wasn't quick
2:35:59 > 2:36:01was the number of checks and balances included
2:36:01 > 2:36:03in terms of getting this money out.
2:36:03 > 2:36:05They've gone through full business case, the economists,
2:36:05 > 2:36:07the governance, have been scrutinised.
2:36:07 > 2:36:08If we weren't satisfied by that,
2:36:08 > 2:36:10then this money would not be going to that organisation.
2:36:10 > 2:36:12Chris Lyttle, are you satisfied?
2:36:12 > 2:36:16Well, there are some good people in good organisations that have tried
2:36:16 > 2:36:18to make the most of the Social Investment Fund,
2:36:18 > 2:36:23but it has been beset by a lack of openness and delay from its outset.
2:36:23 > 2:36:26We had a select group of organisations invited
2:36:26 > 2:36:28for the launch of the event.
2:36:28 > 2:36:31The steering groups took a year to be appointed.
2:36:31 > 2:36:34When they were appointed, they were given meagrely three months
2:36:34 > 2:36:37to work with consultants to invite applications and to work
2:36:37 > 2:36:41those up to an adequate standard, which is why it has taken around
2:36:41 > 2:36:46four years for OFMDFM officials to get those programmes up to standard.
2:36:46 > 2:36:48Furthermore, the steering groups were advised in
2:36:48 > 2:36:51relation to the appointment of lead partner organisations
2:36:51 > 2:36:53that those lead partner organisations
2:36:53 > 2:36:56could only be appointed from the membership of the steering groups
2:36:56 > 2:36:59that were appointed by OFMDFM, DUP
2:36:59 > 2:37:03and Sinn Fein, and questions were raised as to why that wasn't
2:37:03 > 2:37:07a more open application process for access to these monies.
2:37:07 > 2:37:11Furthermore, there were executive programmes ongoing,
2:37:11 > 2:37:13in the Employment and Learning Department for example,
2:37:13 > 2:37:16that had £9 million funds
2:37:16 > 2:37:19that managed to create access to education and employment
2:37:19 > 2:37:22for around 5,000 young people.
2:37:22 > 2:37:25That experienced cuts whilst this £80 million fund
2:37:25 > 2:37:28was held in abeyance, so there have been difficulties from day one
2:37:28 > 2:37:32in relation to the programme and it might be interesting to ask
2:37:32 > 2:37:35if it's so effective, if OFMDFM are going to do this programme again.
2:37:35 > 2:37:37Well, we'll come on to that in a second or two,
2:37:37 > 2:37:39but just to stay on this point for a moment more,
2:37:39 > 2:37:42are you saying that you believe there are other groups in
2:37:42 > 2:37:44the communities at grassroots level
2:37:44 > 2:37:47who would have been equally capable of delivering all of these projects,
2:37:47 > 2:37:52which simply didn't get an opportunity to apply to run them?
2:37:52 > 2:37:54Well, they certainly didn't get an opportunity
2:37:54 > 2:37:56to apply to be the managing organisations.
2:37:56 > 2:37:57It was from the membership
2:37:57 > 2:38:00of the steering groups, is my understanding.
2:38:00 > 2:38:02If that's the case, that's not acceptable, is it?
2:38:02 > 2:38:04What happened to openness and transparency in government?
2:38:04 > 2:38:07This was a very different way of doing a project, and it's very much
2:38:07 > 2:38:10- within the context of...- But it was a flawed way. That's the charge.
2:38:10 > 2:38:13But if you look at the new Programme for Government, it's very much
2:38:13 > 2:38:16about doing things differently. Now, we could have given the money
2:38:16 > 2:38:18to existing schemes and existing organisations but we would've
2:38:18 > 2:38:20got the same results that we were getting
2:38:20 > 2:38:21and we needed something to change.
2:38:21 > 2:38:245,000 people into employment.
2:38:24 > 2:38:26Hang on, this fund goes way back
2:38:26 > 2:38:27beyond the new Programme for Government.
2:38:27 > 2:38:30I mean, it's been five, nearly six years in the making.
2:38:30 > 2:38:33But this set the seeds of looking at outcomes-based,
2:38:33 > 2:38:34a different way of doing things,
2:38:34 > 2:38:37trying to mix things up, and very much it was -
2:38:37 > 2:38:39and Chris sat on the steering group, so Chris is aware -
2:38:39 > 2:38:42that there was a very wide consultation process,
2:38:42 > 2:38:44getting ideas from the maximum number of people.
2:38:44 > 2:38:45This wasn't a closed scheme,
2:38:45 > 2:38:47this was an idea of people putting in their ideas.
2:38:47 > 2:38:51He's mentioned in terms of the managing organisations for this,
2:38:51 > 2:38:53and Chris was part of those discussions.
2:38:53 > 2:38:56There was a wide discussion about what way this would work.
2:38:56 > 2:38:59We either went out to public procurement, we tendered for that,
2:38:59 > 2:39:01which is a very lengthy process and you end up getting
2:39:01 > 2:39:03the same types of organisations coming through,
2:39:03 > 2:39:04which didn't produce the results before.
2:39:04 > 2:39:07So this was very much about working with the community...
2:39:07 > 2:39:09So it's a gamble? You accept it's a gamble?
2:39:09 > 2:39:11No, it is based on a lot of thinking out there.
2:39:11 > 2:39:13It's based on a lot of research.
2:39:13 > 2:39:15You're going to hear about Mark Freeman
2:39:15 > 2:39:17and turning the curve, and outcomes-based.
2:39:17 > 2:39:19This was very much what this was based on.
2:39:19 > 2:39:21It was based on doing things differently
2:39:21 > 2:39:22to try to get a better result.
2:39:22 > 2:39:24Some people might call it a gamble
2:39:24 > 2:39:25but I would say it's worth taking that risk
2:39:25 > 2:39:28to get a better outcome and better results.
2:39:28 > 2:39:30Yeah, but you're assuming that is the case,
2:39:30 > 2:39:34you're assuming it will work out that way, but you can't be sure.
2:39:34 > 2:39:36You've said that the process of openness and
2:39:36 > 2:39:39transparency in appointing the groups you set to one side
2:39:39 > 2:39:42so that you wouldn't get the same groups coming forward again,
2:39:42 > 2:39:44but you're taking a gamble on the groups that might come through
2:39:44 > 2:39:46and you opened yourself up to the criticism
2:39:46 > 2:39:49- about Charter NI for a start. - People will always get criticised
2:39:49 > 2:39:50once they try to do things differently.
2:39:50 > 2:39:52- But this is public money. - I think the issue here is,
2:39:52 > 2:39:55what's the alternative? We keep doing what we've always done.
2:39:55 > 2:39:57We keep putting this money in the same way,
2:39:57 > 2:39:59through the same organisations, doing the same things.
2:39:59 > 2:40:02If we do that, we're never going to change anything.
2:40:02 > 2:40:05So, in this case, you end up with an organisation where key personnel
2:40:05 > 2:40:08have a link to a Loyalist terrorist group.
2:40:08 > 2:40:10And that doesn't make you uncomfortable?
2:40:10 > 2:40:12This is an organisation that includes people with a past,
2:40:12 > 2:40:14as do many, many community organisations.
2:40:14 > 2:40:15This was about inclusion.
2:40:15 > 2:40:18This was about saying to communities and community organisations,
2:40:18 > 2:40:21"If you want to transform, if you want to get involved
2:40:21 > 2:40:24"in proper delivering of services to the community,
2:40:24 > 2:40:26"then there are a set of criteria there."
2:40:26 > 2:40:29We have to look at governance and, in terms of Charter NI,
2:40:29 > 2:40:31there's a board there, there's strong governance.
2:40:31 > 2:40:34That is checked by every single funding organisation.
2:40:34 > 2:40:36It's a good organisation delivering services.
2:40:36 > 2:40:38So, belt and braces,
2:40:38 > 2:40:41safety net still in place, says Emma Little-Pengelly
2:40:41 > 2:40:43I think I've outlined how that's not the case.
2:40:43 > 2:40:47I would say that Charter NI is involved in positive work.
2:40:47 > 2:40:51Bonfire management schemes, mural replacements, childcare schemes.
2:40:51 > 2:40:52So what's the problem?
2:40:52 > 2:40:54Well, I've outlined the total lack
2:40:54 > 2:40:56of openness and transparency in the process.
2:40:56 > 2:40:58And Emma Little-Pengelly has explained why,
2:40:58 > 2:41:02in these specific circumstances, another route had to be taken.
2:41:02 > 2:41:04She paints a picture that existing programmes weren't working,
2:41:04 > 2:41:07and that existing organisations weren't working.
2:41:07 > 2:41:12The youth employment strategy that had 5,000 young people
2:41:12 > 2:41:15into education and employment was working with further education
2:41:15 > 2:41:18colleges, it was working with the community and voluntary sector,
2:41:18 > 2:41:22who experienced significant cuts during this time when this lack of open
2:41:22 > 2:41:25and transparent process was taking years to be completed.
2:41:25 > 2:41:29Are you concerned, in east Belfast, that individuals who may
2:41:29 > 2:41:35have been victims of the UDA would be put off applying for support
2:41:35 > 2:41:37under this particular scheme?
2:41:37 > 2:41:39Is there any evidence that that is the case,
2:41:39 > 2:41:42because if there was evidence, you would surely know about it?
2:41:42 > 2:41:46Well, it's absolutely essential that anyone involved in community work
2:41:46 > 2:41:50is able to invite involvement from across the entire community,
2:41:50 > 2:41:52and certainly cannot be involved
2:41:52 > 2:41:56in any way in an active paramilitary organisation.
2:41:56 > 2:42:00There have been serious allegations made, by BBC Spotlight,
2:42:00 > 2:42:04and I think we need to hear much more from OFMDFM and from the police
2:42:04 > 2:42:07as to what they're doing to respond to those allegations.
2:42:07 > 2:42:10Is the scheme going to keep going? Will there be more money?
2:42:10 > 2:42:13My understanding is that we're now on the delivery phase
2:42:13 > 2:42:14for the entire 80 million.
2:42:14 > 2:42:17That will probably take a number of years, in terms of the roll-out.
2:42:17 > 2:42:18Many of these schemes are multi-year schemes.
2:42:18 > 2:42:22The employment scheme, for example, will run, I think, over three years.
2:42:22 > 2:42:25So I suspect that what will happen is that we will assess and evaluate
2:42:25 > 2:42:28has it been effective, what's been effective, what hasn't worked
2:42:28 > 2:42:31so well, what has worked well and that will all then be taken
2:42:31 > 2:42:34as learning into a next phase or a new scheme or a new approach.
2:42:34 > 2:42:36In a sentence, if you would,
2:42:36 > 2:42:39what are your reflections on chairing the Finance Committee
2:42:39 > 2:42:42on Wednesday, where the Finance Minister Mairtin O Muilleoir
2:42:42 > 2:42:45appeared before you and you had a testy conversation
2:42:45 > 2:42:47- over quite some time?- Well, the committee
2:42:47 > 2:42:48wanted to give the opportunity
2:42:48 > 2:42:52to the Finance Minister to make it clear that he had nothing to hide.
2:42:52 > 2:42:55It was certainly a more stormy meeting than I was anticipating,
2:42:55 > 2:42:58because I felt that he would take the opportunity
2:42:58 > 2:43:00to be clear he had nothing to hide.
2:43:00 > 2:43:02I think many people walked away from that meeting
2:43:02 > 2:43:03thinking perhaps he does.
2:43:03 > 2:43:05Is that what you believe?
2:43:05 > 2:43:07Well, we tried to get the bottom of a range of issues.
2:43:07 > 2:43:10He was very clear about a high level he had nothing to do with particular
2:43:10 > 2:43:12exchanges, but he wouldn't be
2:43:12 > 2:43:15and he didn't want to be questioned about any of the detail around that.
2:43:15 > 2:43:18He has admitted that he had a number of pre-meetings and conversations
2:43:18 > 2:43:20in relation to Jamie Bryson. I think that was probably
2:43:20 > 2:43:21the most interesting aspect of it.
2:43:21 > 2:43:24I think we probably do need to tease that out a bit.
2:43:24 > 2:43:26And of course he made it abundantly clear at that meeting,
2:43:26 > 2:43:28as you know very well, that he had no connection whatsoever
2:43:28 > 2:43:31with any of the conversations that might have taken place beforehand.
2:43:31 > 2:43:33Thanks, both, very much indeed.
2:43:33 > 2:43:35Let's just hear the thoughts of my guests of the day,
2:43:35 > 2:43:37Felicity Huston and Brian Feeney.
2:43:37 > 2:43:40Felicity, what do you make of...?
2:43:40 > 2:43:44Let's talk about the £1.7 million that's going from the
2:43:44 > 2:43:47Social Investment Fund to this particular organisation, Charter NI.
2:43:47 > 2:43:49Acceptable or not acceptable, in your view?
2:43:49 > 2:43:52I think, Northern Ireland, if we eliminated anyone with a dodgy past,
2:43:52 > 2:43:56people who have served time and so on, there would be a lot of spaces
2:43:56 > 2:43:57up at Stormont.
2:43:57 > 2:44:00That is what we have actually embraced with the Good Friday Agreement.
2:44:00 > 2:44:04Yes, but those people, the argument runs, have been elected and they have been open
2:44:04 > 2:44:05- about their past.- Yes.
2:44:05 > 2:44:07This is a different circumstance...
2:44:07 > 2:44:12- I doubt...- ..where there wasn't the normal process of procurement.
2:44:12 > 2:44:13That's another matter.
2:44:13 > 2:44:16Northern Ireland suffers terribly from that.
2:44:16 > 2:44:20This conflict of interest thing, it's fine, you sit on a board, and you allocate money to
2:44:20 > 2:44:24an organisation involved in it. That's nothing to do with
2:44:24 > 2:44:27- Charter NI or anything else and who their membership is... - You're not bothered them?
2:44:27 > 2:44:30You're happy with this £1.7 million going to this organisation?
2:44:30 > 2:44:32No. I think it is very wrong that somebody sits on a board and agrees
2:44:32 > 2:44:35to give money to an organisation they have an involvement with.
2:44:35 > 2:44:38But that happens throughout public life in Northern Ireland.
2:44:38 > 2:44:40That's not special to this particular fund.
2:44:40 > 2:44:43I don't know an awful lot about these guys but
2:44:43 > 2:44:46it is a fact of life in Northern Ireland that we have paramilitaries,
2:44:46 > 2:44:49and people with paramilitary connections throughout our structures,
2:44:49 > 2:44:54and we have chosen to accept it, turn a blind eye, or work with it.
2:44:54 > 2:44:56- OK.- It's not right, but that's how we live.
2:44:56 > 2:45:00Just to be clear, the £1.7 million will be used by Charter NI for
2:45:00 > 2:45:02employability projects.
2:45:02 > 2:45:05That's what it's meant to deliver on the ground.
2:45:05 > 2:45:09Brian Feeney, what are your thoughts about this particular case,
2:45:09 > 2:45:12before we talk about the wider issues?
2:45:12 > 2:45:15No public money should be given to any organisation which has
2:45:15 > 2:45:18people from the UDA or any other proscribed terrorist organisation
2:45:18 > 2:45:20sitting on it.
2:45:20 > 2:45:23So you think that Charter NI should be ruled out of this process?
2:45:23 > 2:45:27Because if you have people - and the Spotlight programme was clear about it -
2:45:27 > 2:45:31if you have people with known connections to the UDA, which is an illegal organisation
2:45:31 > 2:45:35which is active, it's only two months since they last killed someone.
2:45:35 > 2:45:38They murdered a man in north Belfast.
2:45:38 > 2:45:42There is nightly trouble in Carrickfergus. It is the UDA.
2:45:42 > 2:45:46They expelled a dozen people from Tiger Bay in the last 12 months.
2:45:46 > 2:45:51The gang leader who was involved in that is now on the run.
2:45:51 > 2:45:55I mean, this is an organisation which is active, illegal, has never
2:45:55 > 2:46:00decommissioned its weapons, and should not have anyone near public money.
2:46:00 > 2:46:01OK.
2:46:01 > 2:46:04But there are lots of very good people with very impressive
2:46:04 > 2:46:06- track records who are involved as well...- Absolutely.
2:46:06 > 2:46:08..in Charter NI and they seriously outnumber those small number
2:46:08 > 2:46:11- of individuals...- Yes. - ..who have connections, direct or indirect, to the UDA.
2:46:11 > 2:46:15It doesn't matter what the small number is. The people with the small number of
2:46:15 > 2:46:17connections should be thrown off.
2:46:17 > 2:46:21It's as simple as that. But we have this absurd... And it's not the only organisation.
2:46:21 > 2:46:24We have this absurd position where you have the Fresh Start Agreement
2:46:24 > 2:46:26where people are talking about establishing
2:46:26 > 2:46:28an organisation to get rid of paramilitaries, and instead of
2:46:28 > 2:46:33that they're bribing paramilitaries to be good boys and it is not working.
2:46:33 > 2:46:39This has been going on for years. They give money to the UVF, they give money to the UDA,
2:46:39 > 2:46:44"Please don't wreck the place. We'll make you community leaders. We'll make you community workers."
2:46:44 > 2:46:46- It doesn't work. - All right. OK. That's your view.
2:46:46 > 2:46:50Clearly, obviously, and you would accept, others people won't necessarily agree with it.
2:46:50 > 2:46:52- It's a very interesting... - Yeah, but they'd be wrong.
2:46:52 > 2:46:55OK, in your view, of course. It's an interesting conversation piece.
2:46:55 > 2:46:57Thank you very much.
2:46:57 > 2:46:59Let's take a look back at the political week in 60 Seconds,
2:46:59 > 2:47:01with Gareth Gordon.
2:47:05 > 2:47:09Was the Finance Minister in on Daithi McKay's coaching of
2:47:09 > 2:47:12Jamie Bryson? How many ways can you say no?
2:47:12 > 2:47:18I have no involvement whatsoever with this particular affair. None, zilch, nada, nothing.
2:47:18 > 2:47:22Danny Kennedy backed calls for the Orange Order to lift the ban
2:47:22 > 2:47:26on members like him attending Catholic services.
2:47:26 > 2:47:33The Orange institution will take its time and arrive at what I hope will be a sensible decision.
2:47:33 > 2:47:35At the Conservative Conference the Secretary of State
2:47:35 > 2:47:38tried to calm fears a hard border is looking more likely.
2:47:38 > 2:47:43No-one wants to see a return to the borders of the past.
2:47:43 > 2:47:46But Martin McGuinness has made his mind up.
2:47:46 > 2:47:49What the Tories are doing is all about themselves.
2:47:49 > 2:47:54They don't give tuppence for the island of Ireland, north or south.
2:47:54 > 2:47:59The real controversy of the Conference involved a tizz over fizz and trouble over bubbles.
2:47:59 > 2:48:01Somehow it got lost in translation and it became a champagne reception,
2:48:01 > 2:48:05but you know, you couldn't pay for the amount of attention we have had a relation to that matter.
2:48:10 > 2:48:15Arlene Foster, unrepentant about that controversial drinks do in Birmingham.
2:48:15 > 2:48:18Now, the Executive has adopted a new way to manage the targets it
2:48:18 > 2:48:21has set out in its draft Programme for Government.
2:48:21 > 2:48:25We mentioned it a few moments ago. So will the new outcome-based approach work?
2:48:25 > 2:48:28And what are the pitfalls ministers, and their senior civil servants,
2:48:28 > 2:48:29need to be aware of?
2:48:29 > 2:48:33The US politician Diana Urban has pioneered the system in Connecticut.
2:48:33 > 2:48:35She's here to take part in a conference this week,
2:48:35 > 2:48:37and she's with me now.
2:48:37 > 2:48:41You're very welcome to Sunday Politics. Very nice to have you on the programme.
2:48:41 > 2:48:46Tell me why are you such an advocate of the outcome-based approach?
2:48:46 > 2:48:49Well, Mark, first of all I'm delighted to be here and to have
2:48:49 > 2:48:51Celine from the National Children's Board get a hold of
2:48:51 > 2:48:54me to talk about outcomes-based accountability.
2:48:54 > 2:48:56I was eager to come over because of the success we have had
2:48:56 > 2:48:58in Connecticut.
2:48:58 > 2:49:01To put this in terms so that your viewers can understand,
2:49:01 > 2:49:04Connecticut has a yearly budget of about 20 billion.
2:49:04 > 2:49:09Of that 20 billion, 5.6 billion is spent on children and families.
2:49:09 > 2:49:13I'm an economist in my other life, so when I came into the legislature,
2:49:13 > 2:49:16I was like, "So what are we getting for that 5.6 billion?
2:49:16 > 2:49:19"Can you tell me whether children have less asthma?
2:49:19 > 2:49:22"Can you tell me whether children are reading better?
2:49:22 > 2:49:24"Can you tell me whether children teen pregnancies are down?
2:49:24 > 2:49:28"Can you tell me whether restraint and seclusion in our schools is a problem?
2:49:28 > 2:49:31"Can you tell me whether children are graduating, whether they're attending school?"
2:49:31 > 2:49:36The answer, pretty much, is, "Um... We don't really have data on that.
2:49:36 > 2:49:41"So, Representative, we can tell you that if you give us more money,
2:49:41 > 2:49:44"we are sure we'll be able to achieve these things."
2:49:44 > 2:49:48So that's where I was introduced to outcomes-based accountability,
2:49:48 > 2:49:52in the States we call it results-based accountability,
2:49:52 > 2:50:00and put together a team to say, "How do we know what we are getting for our tax dollars?"
2:50:00 > 2:50:04I suppose one of the criticisms is though that it is only a useful
2:50:04 > 2:50:07mechanism when you look back at what the outcome or the result has been.
2:50:07 > 2:50:10We have focused very much up to now on setting
2:50:10 > 2:50:14a target and trying to achieve that, and that seems to be one of the key
2:50:14 > 2:50:16differences, and one of the reasons that people in this part of the
2:50:16 > 2:50:19world are uncomfortable, nervous about the change.
2:50:19 > 2:50:22Well, I'm going to argue that point with you immediately.
2:50:22 > 2:50:26If you look, we have an online report card, CT Kids Report Card.org,
2:50:26 > 2:50:31and you can see we go back and look at what has happened in the past
2:50:31 > 2:50:36and then we do a graph that projects into the future.
2:50:36 > 2:50:40Were we not to do anything, what would happen with asthma?
2:50:40 > 2:50:43What would happen with children's reading?
2:50:43 > 2:50:47What if we simply allowed the curve that had been established to continue?
2:50:47 > 2:50:50And I can tell you that children wouldn't be reading, there would be more
2:50:50 > 2:50:55asthma, there would be more teen pregnancies, that the programmes that we had in place,
2:50:55 > 2:50:59a good deal of them were not getting us where we wanted to go.
2:50:59 > 2:51:02OK, but critics of the approach say it is flawed, and it's flawed for the following reason.
2:51:02 > 2:51:06It's vague, it's nebulous, it's impossible to evaluate.
2:51:06 > 2:51:08How do you respond to that criticism?
2:51:09 > 2:51:13It's almost difficult for me to respond to that because I have
2:51:13 > 2:51:15been in the middle of this for ten years.
2:51:15 > 2:51:18I understand that people have difficulty with data,
2:51:18 > 2:51:22but this is based on data, it's data-informed decision-making model.
2:51:22 > 2:51:24So how can I tell you it's getting better?
2:51:24 > 2:51:27Because I know that we are getting less children with asthma,
2:51:27 > 2:51:30I know that children are now attending school when they weren't before.
2:51:30 > 2:51:33I can also tell you that restraint and seclusion...
2:51:33 > 2:51:37I'm not sure if that's a problem here in Ireland, but we have children with
2:51:37 > 2:51:41mental health issues that are being restrained and secluded in school.
2:51:41 > 2:51:43How can they learn?
2:51:43 > 2:51:45I know now that we are tackling that problem
2:51:45 > 2:51:48so I can tell you from data that we are getting better.
2:51:48 > 2:51:51Children are better off, families are better off.
2:51:51 > 2:51:54One of the goals here I suppose,
2:51:54 > 2:51:58one of the outcome-based goals, is to have more people in employment.
2:51:58 > 2:52:01Everybody wants more people in employment but simply saying,
2:52:01 > 2:52:06"That is our goal, better jobs and more of them", doesn't necessarily mean you
2:52:06 > 2:52:09- are going to deliver it in policy terms.- You are spot on.
2:52:09 > 2:52:12That is what a lot of programmes will tell you.
2:52:12 > 2:52:16You'll say, "So your programme on the apprenticeship, how is it doing?"
2:52:16 > 2:52:19"Oh, well, Representative, we had 600 people."
2:52:19 > 2:52:21And then that's the end. I'm like, "No, no, no, no, no.
2:52:21 > 2:52:23"You had 600 people. How many of them got jobs?
2:52:23 > 2:52:27"And how many got jobs that lasted more than six months?
2:52:27 > 2:52:32"And how many of them got jobs that allowed them to support their families?"
2:52:32 > 2:52:37- OK.- I'm really doing this.- OK. You're obviously passionate about it
2:52:37 > 2:52:40and it's going to be very interesting for people here to learn from your experience.
2:52:40 > 2:52:42It works, you say, in Connecticut
2:52:42 > 2:52:45We'll see if it works in Northern Ireland.
2:52:45 > 2:52:49I would add this also. We looked for a model that people could understand.
2:52:49 > 2:52:53Like, your average person in the street could say, "Now I can
2:52:53 > 2:52:55"look at this and I know what is going on,
2:52:55 > 2:52:58"with children and families in the state of Connecticut."
2:52:58 > 2:53:00If said to you, "Here is performance-based budgeting,"
2:53:00 > 2:53:03you'd be like, "Um... Um..."
2:53:03 > 2:53:08I taught performance-based budgeting. It's a hard thing to understand. This isn't.
2:53:08 > 2:53:11I'll tell you what's a hard thing to understand,
2:53:11 > 2:53:14and that's the US Presidential race which is under way at the moment.
2:53:14 > 2:53:18- You were a Republican for four terms, you are now a Democrat.- Yes.
2:53:18 > 2:53:2312 very senior Republicans have come out now and withdrawn their support for
2:53:23 > 2:53:26Donald Trump in the wake of this latest scandal.
2:53:26 > 2:53:28What is happening?
2:53:28 > 2:53:33You know, Mark, I have to preface this by saying clearly Mr Trump has
2:53:33 > 2:53:39touched a nerve in the public in the United States, and it is something
2:53:39 > 2:53:44we need to pay attention to, that people feel they are disenfranchised.
2:53:44 > 2:53:48That being said, the man is unfit to be President.
2:53:48 > 2:53:53He has given permission to men to diss women,
2:53:53 > 2:53:57and that, in my estimation, is incredibly unacceptable.
2:53:57 > 2:54:02I am a female legislator in case you haven't noticed. I'm a girl.
2:54:02 > 2:54:05And I have experienced sexual harassment,
2:54:05 > 2:54:09in my 15 years in the Connecticut Legislature, and I have lots of
2:54:09 > 2:54:14friends that have experienced it, and by Mr Trump saying this...
2:54:14 > 2:54:17- OK. He doesn't help. - He doesn't help.
2:54:17 > 2:54:21OK. We need to leave it there. Thank you very much indeed for coming in to join us.
2:54:21 > 2:54:24Quick final word from Felicity and Brian,
2:54:24 > 2:54:27and it needs to be quick. Is he dead in the water, Felicity?
2:54:27 > 2:54:30I think that people won't really be surprised.
2:54:30 > 2:54:32I had the peculiar experience of being a girl in an all-boys sixth form.
2:54:32 > 2:54:34I know how boys and men talk.
2:54:34 > 2:54:37That's how a lot of men get on. I think a lot of men will think that.
2:54:37 > 2:54:39The point is, should we be surprised?
2:54:39 > 2:54:41I think we should be disappointed but probably not surprised,
2:54:41 > 2:54:45particularly given his career path. That's the sort of world he seems to have functioned in.
2:54:45 > 2:54:48- It's awful.- You're not surprised, Brian?- Not in the least and no-one should be.
2:54:48 > 2:54:50He's infamous for this sort of behaviour.
2:54:50 > 2:54:54But he can't win. There aren't enough angry white men left to vote for him.
2:54:54 > 2:54:56The demographics are against him.
2:54:56 > 2:54:59Yes. But it's going to be a very interesting...
2:54:59 > 2:55:02It's going to be fascinating, well, the debate tonight particularly.
2:55:02 > 2:55:06Particularly. And no doubt we'll all be sitting up late into the night. Thank you both very much.
2:55:06 > 2:55:08We need to leave it there.
2:55:08 > 2:55:10That is it from Sunday Politics for this week.
2:55:10 > 2:55:13Join me for Stormont Today, that's on BBC Two at 11.20 on Monday night,
2:55:13 > 2:55:16but for now, from everyone in the team, thanks for watching. Bye-bye.