SEUPB discussion paper reflective of reality, says DUP MEP
28 September 2006
DUP Member of the European Parliament, Jim Allister QC has welcomed the main findings of the Special EU Programmes Body’s discussion paper on the future delivery structures for the PEACE programme. The DUP MEP claimed that the paper’s findings if acted upon will ensure more resources are targeted to needy communities and not wasted on unnecessary administration costs.
Jim Allister said:
“It is a matter of public record and considerable public concern that vast swathes of the European Programme for Peace and Reconciliation’s budget (roughly 10%) is being consumed in unnecessary Technical Assistance costs – costs devoted to paying administrative staff, light, heating and rent of office accommodation. These valuable funds should not be consumed in such a way and should be allocated to needy communities. The findings of the SEUPB’s discussion paper, which envisages the elimination of IFB’s from the programme in the prior-RPA environment and the responsibilities for programme delivery during this period becoming the responsibility of SEUPB, will save significant resources, which should be allocated to worthwhile projects.
Similarly, the post-RPA recommendations, which envisage a strong partnership between local authorities and the SEUPB acting in a scrutinising role, are also to be welcomed. Local representatives, know better than most the needs of their local communities. I welcome the elimination of IFB’s from the programme, many of whom command little support within the Unionist community, and one of which – CFNI is viewed as directly hostile to the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland.
There are some elements that have yet to be teased out – we are insistent that the delivery structures of PEACE III should be reflective of the broad range of opinion and diversity that exists within our community. At present this is not the case.
Leaving that aside we broadly welcome the contents of this paper and are dismayed that certain political parties seem so determined to continue wasting Northern Ireland’s precious resources on costly programme delivery. It is imperative that SEUPB maintain their initial position on the delivery structures as outlined in this paper until the end of the process and are not brow-beaten by others into reversing back towards the fundamentally failed model used up until now.
Now that significant progress has been made on the delivery structures, we turn our focus to the priorities for the future. Our top priority is to ensure that the long-standing under-funding of the Protestant community which has gone on up until now is reversed, it is also vitally important that these valuable resources are not wasted on unnecessary froth, but are devoted to projects aimed at increasing economic activity and improving infrastructure in the Province.”
