A controversy over funding for the Queen’s Jubilee has broken out at Ards and North Down Council after certain Orange lodges were refused grants for being “political” organisations.
At the full meeting of Ards and North Down Council this week, a split chamber voted to change the rules of jubilee funding applications to allow two orange lodges the money - controversially after the application process had already ended.
Last month the council put aside £40K for jubilee funding, with £35K towards the grants scheme and £5K for official bunting and party materials. A council report states the 5K would be made available “to groups who were deemed ineligible to apply for more substantial funding, for example un-constituted groups, religious organisations etcetera.”
Read more: Portavogie fishing village to get harbour makeover
The available grants were up to a limit of £1,000 each and applications were open from March 7 to 14. The grants were assessed by a panel of council officers, with criteria that the events show “value for money,” that they “celebrate or commemorate the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee” and “are suitably advertised and are open and inclusive to the wider community.”
There were 37 successful applicants, and 11 unsuccessful applicants. Those unsuccessful applicants included Bangor District Loyal Orange Lodge Number 18, which was denied for being a “political/faith-based organisation” and the Newtownards Orange Hall Trustees Committee, which was denied for being a “political organisation/building trustee.”
Independent Unionist Alderman Wesley Irvine proposed that all constituted groups that passed the pass mark as set by council officers be approved for funding, thereby allowing the two Orange organisations the funding.
He said: “There are a couple of outstanding groups there, who are constituted community groups, whose score did pass the mark, but were still unsuccessful, due to being a political organisation. I don’t believe that to be the case.
“They have received other funding from the council with regards to centenary funding, community development funding, good relations funding - a plethora of funding.”
Independent Unionist Councillor Tom Smith said the Orange Lodge was “more cultural and religious.”
A council director told the chamber: “The constitution provided by those two organisations is actually the Grand Lodge’s constitution, which is stated as “political outcomes”.
“There are grants given to other Orange lodges that have their own local constitution which are very much locally and community orientated. But these ones that operate under the general Grand Lodge constitution are not included. So they were considered political under that.
“To be cautious about this, the criteria that were issued with the application forms did say that political organisations were excluded, and therefore I suspect that some organisations may not have applied because of that. So if we allow them, there may be complaints from those who didn’t apply.”
TUV Councillor Stephen Cooper said: “I take exception to remarks from the director. While under the umbrella of the Grand Orange Lodge they are operating as a district lodge. So I really do not understand how this criteria has been extended to say it is political. It is not. It is a religious organisation.”
He added: “This is the platinum jubilee of the defender of the faith and for a faith organisation to be denied is an absolute disgrace.”
The director said council officers would review how such organisations would be funded in the future.
The council’s sole nationalist elected representative, SDLP Councillor Joe Boyle said: “The reality is there was a criteria set, there were those who knew the criteria and applied accordingly in good faith for that. Some received, and some didn't because of the criteria in place.
“The director is quite right - if we open it up further we could be running into those who felt they didn’t fit, and had they known otherwise they would have applied.” He said: “We are potentially opening a can of worms here for not standing by the criteria we have set.”
Alliance Councillor Gavin Walker: “If you want to change policy that is perfectly fine, and Alderman Irvine and others can propose motions that would allow us to look at criteria. But making policy on the hoof at this change would set a very dangerous precedent.”
19 elected members from the DUP, the UUP and Independents voted for the Irvine amendment, 11 members from Alliance, the Green Party, the UUP and the SDLP voted against, and three UUP members abstained.
A decision to refuse Bangor’s Ballycrochan Presbyterian Church funding on the grounds it was a faith based organisation was also reversed by council officers, before the vote by elected representatives.
Read more: Ards North Down Council appeals to Stormont to give them regeneration powers
Read more: Ards North Down Council votes to increase flying of union flag
To get the latest breaking news straight to your inbox, sign up to our free newsletter.
