Chamber and committees

Social inclusion partnerships only became effective as of April 1999. There are no cases involving the withholding or recovery of payments to social inclusion partnerships prior to May 1999.

As stated in the response to S1W-24177, SIP boards are responsible for making funding allocation decisions, and for ensuring that these decisions are made in the public interest and not in the interests of any one individual. Communities Scotland has a monitoring role in relation to SIPs through the annual reporting and appraisal mechanisms. In the course of these annual appraisals, any matters of concern to Communities Scotland, whether they relate to funding or any other aspect of SIP activity, are raised with SIP boards.Beyond that, various responsibilities are placed on the local authority as grant recipient in relation to SIP funding decisions. General guidance issued to local authorities as grant recipients under the new terms and conditions for SIP fund grant applicable from April 2002 state that:

• Activity receiving SIP funding must be free of any political bias and must not involve political campaigning;
• It is important that all decisions about the use of SIP grant are made in the public interest and not in the interests of any one individual or group of individuals, and
• Grant recipients should ensure that all members of partnerships and their sub groups declare any relevant personal interests they have and that these interests are recorded in a central register. The grant recipient should keep a central register of these interests, which must be made available for inspection by Communities Scotland, grant recipients and members of the public on request.

On sanctions, in general terms Communities Scotland may reduce, suspend or withhold payment of grant, or require all or part of the grant to be repaid if it appears that an activity, or any part of it, has not been undertaken in accordance with these terms and conditions or for the purposes intended or with any other conditions Communities Scotland impose at the time the grant offer is made. At SIP level, however, it would be for the SIP board to implement their own sanctions against board members should they feel that these members were not making decisions in the public interest.

Under the standard Terms and Conditions of Grant for the Social Inclusion Partnership Fund (1 April 2002) local authorities as grant recipients are obliged to ensure that all members of partnerships and their sub-groups declare any relevant interests.

The principles behind the registration of interests for social inclusion partnership (SIP) board members are broadly similar to those for councillors and non-departmental public bodies. Financial guidance is available to accompany the terms and conditions, which provides a fuller indication of the types of circumstances in which interests should be declared. The SIP fund standard terms and conditions (1 April 2002) require that grant recipients maintain a central register of such interests.

The revised Terms and Conditions of grant for social inclusion partnership (SIP) funding require registers of interest to be available to the public. Applicable from 1 April 2002, they strengthen and augment the previous guidance by including a new requirement on local authorities as grant recipients to ensure that all members of partnerships and their sub-groups declare any relevant interests that they have and that these interests are recorded in a register. The local authority, as grant recipient will keep a central register of these interests, which must be made available for inspection by Communities Scotland, all those involved in the SIP process, and members of the public on request.

We have put in place necessary arrangements with Audit Scotland in relation to external audit certification of grant claims, as well as detailed procedures which local authorities as grant recipients are required to follow to ensure proper financial procedures are in place.When a case is drawn to the attention of Communities Scotland, which warrants concern, a restriction is put in place on the grant recipient pending a proper investigation. The onus is on the local authority as grant recipient to carry out that investigation.

The Scottish Executive withheld SIP Fund grant from the City of Edinburgh Council as grant recipient for the Craigmillar SIP. The grant was withheld pending further investigation by CEC into the relationship between EU funding and the Social Inclusion Partnership Fund. A judicial review has now been raised in connection with this matter. It is not possible to give a timescale for resolution of the relevant issues.

The requirement to hold a central register of interest only became effective from 1 April 2002, following the revision of the Social Inclusion Partnership Fund Terms and Conditions. As yet therefore, there have been no such requests to inspect the registers over the period to date.

The sum of £392,062 relates to financial year 2000-01, whereas the sum of £366,610 was referring to costs within financial year 1999-2000.As per the previous answer, S1W-24178, both figures relate to expenditure claimed by Glasgow City Council in their role as accountable body or administrator of social inclusion partnership (SIP) Fund payments to projects supported by the SIPs. The amounts claimed represent administration costs of up to 2.5% of each of the 13 Glasgow SIP allocations in any one year, which the council has incurred in respect of all SIP projects in these SIPs. The council as accountable body is eligible to claim such costs under the terms and conditions of the SIP Fund, (latest version 1 April 2002).

The identified problem relates to the Youth Information and Resource Project funded by North Ayr SIP. An audit investigation established that there was not a proper division of financial responsibilities and that there was also a lack of adequate financial supervision. However, the introduction of a dedicated senior finance officer who will administer the partnerships finances and the implementation of a series of improved financial procedures satisfied the Executive that the restriction referred to in S1W-24178 should be lifted.