Subgroup on the Economic Challenges Thursday 20 July 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.05 am. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Proceedings will now be covered by Hansard. Mr McNarry: If we are meeting on Tuesdays and Thursdays, how difficult will it be for Hansard to produce a transcript of a meeting on a Tuesday by the Thursday? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It probably will be difficult. It will depend on the evidence sessions and the length of our meetings. Many of the evidence sessions will include presentations, which may shorten the production time. There has been some pressure on Hansard to turn the transcripts round in 48 hours. More staff are required to deal with the other subgroups. The big problem is staff holiday leave. Mr McNarry: I do not want to be picky, but members are present, and a number of people, on this subgroup and on the Preparation for Government Committee, have rearranged their holidays. I am at a loss to know why Hansard has this problem. May I make a request that every effort be made for a record taken on a Tuesday to be available on a Thursday? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I agree that it is important that members can correct the transcript of one meeting before any subsequent meeting. Ms Gildernew: I appreciate the difficulties and the time constraints in trying to facilitate everyone, especially as Hansard is trying hard to get it right. People need their holidays, and three months ago, no one thought that we would be meeting throughout the summer. People cannot easily rearrange pre-booked holidays. It is difficult when children are involved. I suggest that witnesses prepare presentations. Obviously, that will not be possible for question-and-answer sessions. If witnesses came with presentations, it would help Hansard. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. That is important. I will deal with the declaration of interests. Assembly Standing Order 20(d) states: “Before taking part in any debate or proceeding of the Assembly, a Member shall declare any interest, financial or otherwise, which is relevant to that debate or proceeding, where such interest is held by the Member or an immediate relative.” Members should have already received a copy of ‘The Code of Conduct’, together with ‘The Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’, which advises on the registration and declaration of Members’ interests. Those are included in today’s papers. We have dealt with the issue of privilege in the Preparation for Government Committee. There is limited privilege. The Committee Clerk: Schedule 1, paragraph 6 of the Northern Ireland Act 2006 states: “A written or oral statement made by a member in or for the purposes of the Assembly is to be privileged from action for defamation unless it is proved to have been made with malice.” I do not know how that would be proved, but that is the ruling. This privilege also extends to meetings of Committees, subgroups, or whatever. Members should note, however, that privilege does not extend to press conferences or statements made to the press. That is our legal advice. Ms Gildernew: Do you have a copy of that? The Committee Clerk: I will get a copy for you. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): If members have any interests, could they declare them now? Otherwise, hold thy peace. Mr McElduff: I am a former corner forward for Carrickmore Seniors. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Dr Peter Gilleece, senior researcher, will give a research presentation. Dr Gilleece: There is a copy of the paper in the pack. I will briefly run through the main points of the paper — it will only take five minutes. On the surface, it would appear that levels of unemployment in Northern Ireland are at a record low of 4% and that there is continuing economic growth. There is a consensus view that Northern Ireland needs a significant additional policy boost to rebalance the economy. Progress is considered to be insufficient to catch up with other regions based on the GB average. In terms of developing a more sustainable and balanced economy, and for the public and private sector mix to achieve the UK average, the private sector gross value added needs to treble in size. It is the view of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) in Northern Ireland that something radical needs to be done. University of Ulster economist Mike Smyth thinks that if one accepts the argument that the current structure of the Northern Ireland economy is the result of a unique set of circumstances over the past 38 years, it can be argued that what is required to return the economy to a more normal growth trajectory is an equally unique or abnormal set of policies. What might those policy options be? Mike Smyth has identified four policy options. First, there is the status quo — that Northern Ireland continues to depend on public sector expenditure to maintain living standards. Secondly, there could be enhanced capital allowances and research and development (R&D) tax credits. For example, Amgen, which is one of the world’s leading independent biotechnology firms, recently located a global R&D centre in Cork because it was not feasible to consider Northern Ireland as a location. However, a 300% tax credit might have changed the position. The third option is a corporation tax concession to match that in the Republic of Ireland. Mike Smyth’s fourth option is high-level North/South industrial development co-ordination to capture some of the positive economic spillovers from the very rapid growth of the economy in the Republic of Ireland. To illustrate those examples, he points to the fact that 20 of the Fortune 100 companies are located in the Republic of Ireland and 50 of the Fortune 500 companies are in the Republic of Ireland. None are located in Northern Ireland. Both the Industrial Task Force and the Northern Ireland Business Alliance have proposed actions including significant fiscal incentives to attract foreign direct investment that would encourage various higher levels of indigenous investment. They believe that, although Government strategies on skills and innovation are welcome, only by combining indigenous growth with high quality foreign direct investment can we meet the projected employment deficit. Economist John Simpson believes that Northern Ireland needs a radical series of initiatives to build more successful outcomes and to start to catch up with other competitive knowledge-based regions. The debate about the size of the public sector versus the private sector in Northern Ireland continues. The Republic of Ireland’s public sector is 33% larger than it was in 1988. Economist Mike Smyth believes that the task for economic policy development in Northern Ireland for the foreseeable future is to achieve private sector growth, and not necessarily to cut the size of the public sector per se. Philip McDonagh, chief economist with PricewaterhouseCoopers, believes that the picture is far from bleak, as long as existing levels of public expenditure are sustained. With the £14·7 billion infrastructure programme commencing, and Northern Ireland having one of the few growing workforces in the EU, there should be a continued boost to investment and no shortage of labour to deliver it. That situation will become even brighter if there is a managed transition from the public sector domination in the economy to it becoming one that is private-sector-led. Entrepreneurship and innovation are now firmly established on the public and private sector agendas as priorities for economic growth. It has been three years since the launch of the strategic documents designed to embed entrepreneurship in Northern Ireland in the form of an accelerating entrepreneurship strategy, and the innovation strategy entitled ‘think/create/innovate’. Since then, in respect of entrepreneurship performance, Northern Ireland remains ninth out of the 12 UK regions in its level of entrepreneurial activity. The most recent data on innovation activity places Northern Ireland tenth out of the 12 UK regions, a drop from sixth place in 2000. A key determinant of innovation activity is investment in R&D. The spend on R&D by businesses as a proportion of value added is 0·8% compared to the UK average of 1·4%. Levels of university/business collaboration, a key objective of the innovation strategy, remain low. Only 2·2% of R&D spend in Northern Ireland universities is derived from UK business, compared to 5·5% across the UK. 10.15 am Relative to investment in R&D, universities in Northern Ireland are the least efficient of the 12 UK regions, in terms of patent applications and non-software licences granted and their intellectual property income from large commercial organisations. Universities perform slightly better in terms of income from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the number of spin-outs. In conclusion, the challenge for economic policy in Northern Ireland is to assist the transition to a higher performance economy. The challenge is considerable. A low-growth, low-productivity, low-innovation economy has powerful self-reinforcing barriers to change. There appears to be general agreement among business leaders that we need to concentrate on the crucial areas of building skills and supporting innovation. Leslie Morrison, the chief executive of Invest Northern Ireland (INI), offers a more optimistic view. He believes that Northern Ireland must play to its strengths: a young, well-educated and adaptable workforce; a high-quality research base in the universities; a telecommunications infrastructure that offers 100% broadband access; our near-shore locations for North America and Europe and our world time-zone centrality; our excellent system of commercial law and protection of intellectual property; and an environment that is supportive of, and responsive to, the needs of business. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I thank Dr Gilleece for his presentation. Mr Paisley Jnr: Dr Gilleece’s paper is an exceptional piece of work, and it will serve as a useful template for the subgroup when it draws up its report. The paper highlighted several points that need to be reflected in our briefing paper and in our terms of reference. One issue that emerged from Dr Gilleece’s paper, which has also emerged from other studies, is how the entrepreneurial spirit is a driver to economic success in other economies. The low levels of entrepreneurial activity in Northern Ireland and the impediments to such activity rank fairly low in our briefing paper, but the matter of how we encourage entrepreneurial activity should be brought to the fore, and we should try to focus on that. Although issues such as infrastructure and poor literacy and numeracy skills are important, many things have been thrown into this just to tick boxes. If we are to talk turkey, the issue of lack of encouragement for entrepreneurial activity must be placed up front and addressed quickly, and I am glad that Dr Gilleece identified that in his paper. Another important issue on which we must focus is the unique circumstances that Northern Ireland finds itself in as a result of a generation of the troubles and IRA violence. From the 1970s on, Gerry Adams directed a campaign against economic targets, and the bombing of our economic targets has obviously been a long-term impediment to our economic success. We must consider putting up front a special measure — such as investment or additional resources from Government — that takes account of the terrorism war and recognises that Northern Ireland needs extra-special help in emerging from a terrorism campaign. Getting those additional resources from the Government should be high on our agenda. The paper also implies that, while there are successful economies and individuals elsewhere, Northern Ireland has its fair share of successful individuals who have demonstrated entrepreneurial drive. Many of us could point to very successful individual businesses throughout Northern Ireland — not in the public sector, but in the private sector — that have done extremely well, in spite of terrorism and all the impediments. That will probably affect our list of potential witnesses because that list relies very heavily on the public sector. We should be asking private companies that are successful, innovative and entrepreneurial, such as Wrightbus Ltd and Moy Park, to come here and tell us how they have done it. Let us consider things that could help us to draw up a report and make recommendations, as there are people who have been successful through thick and thin. Let us find out how they have done that and learn from them, as opposed to trying to learn from organisations that are teachers, not doers. Let us talk to the doers in life as opposed to the teachers. Ms Gildernew: I too thank Dr Gilleece for a comprehensive paper, and I welcome the fact that, in his opening remarks, he acknowledged that a quarter of Northern Ireland’s children live in poverty. As elected representatives, we must take that seriously. There have been various economic challenges for the private sector here, not least partition. The border has created huge problems for businesses to grow, and when communities are socially and economically cut off from their hinterland, that has a huge impact. There has been a lack of investment in infrastructure, particularly west of the Bann. It is also widely recognised that the private sector is not big enough and needs to grow. However, one of the barriers to that is that there have been years of political instability here, and we still do not know whether there will be an Assembly in November. The business community constantly reminds us that we need to do our job in order for them to do theirs. As Peter Hain pointed out last year, the North is a failed entity from an economic point of view, as well as, I believe, from a political point of view. The Six Counties cannot exist alone economically. We must seriously consider the harmonisation of tax regimes. Corporation tax, in particular, has a big impact on my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where people can look at investment opportunities a few miles across the border in Monaghan or Leitrim that are not available to them in Fermanagh and Tyrone. The comparisons between the Twenty-six Counties and the Six Counties must be considered and the fact that we must step up to the mark. I welcome Mike Smyth’s comments that something unique or abnormal will be needed. We are consistently tied to the common theme of keeping this place in line with the UK. It was also a constant theme in previous Committees that we needed to keep our policies close to those of the UK. We have much more stacked against us with high energy costs, high transportation costs, lack of infrastructure, and the investment and development that must take place in the border corridor. We cannot tie ourselves to Britain; we must look seriously at harmonising the regime across the island and working as an all-Ireland entity. InterTradeIreland and INI are doing what they can, but they have their hands tied behind their backs, as they are unable to work with the bodies across the border. There is much more potential here for tourism, but it saddened everyone to hear the news last week that tourists were unable to find anywhere open to get a bite to eat. We have to consider seriously the whole July scenario and the orange parades, as we are again cutting off our noses to spite our faces. If we cannot attract people to visit here, we have less chance of attracting them to invest in this place. We face serious challenges, and a great deal of work must be done to bring the private sector up to the necessary level. Mr Weir: That contribution could have been a set speech from any stage over the past 70 or 80 years. We need to look forward, but there has been some degree of progress. I welcome the previous member’s commitment for us to build on the Twelfth of July as a major European cultural festival. That shift in thinking at least shows that there is a realisation of the importance of the Twelfth as a key event in our calendar and that there is a need to build on its obvious tourist potential. I welcome those remarks and hope that they can be built upon. I do not accept the broad concept outlined by the previous member who spoke and also, unfortunately, by the Secretary of State. If he is trying to sell Northern Ireland abroad, it is highly counterproductive for him to refer to Northern Ireland as an economically failed enterprise. I do not accept that as a notion. There are many things that we need to do. We must focus on the broader picture and look more outwardly rather than simply look down South. The notion of moving towards a much wider market will not be helped by the idea of detaching ourselves economically from a larger market and tying ourselves much more closely into a smaller market that is less that one-tenth the size. We must be open in our co-operation across any border or boundary. We should be careful about tying ourselves in with the Republic of Ireland. We should be looking at the global market because we have seen the effect that globalisation is having in our constituencies. There is a realisation that there is no point in fighting particular battles. For instance my area, like many others, had a strong textile industry. Apart from concentrating on certain specialisms, the Northern Ireland textile industry will be a thing of the past because, with the best will in the world, we will not be able to compete with north Africa or China. The only way that some of those markets can be sustained is by moving into the high-value-added side and specialisms that cannot be supplied by way of the same level of cheap commodities elsewhere. I welcome the paper as it provides a useful steer for the subgroup. The long list of issues under tab 8 is useful because we should not rule out any options at this stage. The paper identifies options involving research and development and corporation tax. There is clearly a range of issues to be explored, such as industrial derating and high energy costs, which are identified elsewhere. The subgroup ought to concentrate its efforts on the private sector and considering a role for Government in removing obstacles to the private sector. If the subgroup gets into too much of an argument about the balancing effect of the public and private sectors, the danger will be that we will be making a rod for our own backs. If rebalancing is required, the Government reaction will be to reduce the size of the public sector — and that will not be particularly helpful to Northern Ireland. We need to look at indicators that will help the private sector to grow. The subgroup’s thoughts and solutions on reducing obstacles are likely to be in the form of a cocktail of measures. As with most things in life, there is no magic bullet or single measure that will solve all our economic problems. There must be a wider context. As Ian Paisley Jnr said, we must increase the entrepreneurial spirit because — whether it has been a reaction to a range of things, be it economic circumstances or the troubles — many of our brightest students from Queen’s University or the University of Ulster are heading towards the professions. I am as much a victim — or perpetrator — of that as anyone. I considered being a lawyer or an accountant and I am sure that many others did the same. Some even went down the route of lecturing, and I should perhaps refer to Ian Jnr’s remarks about addressing this not as much to the teachers, but to the practitioners. I am sorry; I did not mean that in any particularly bad way. People of my generation and from my background automatically assume that having a good job means being a lawyer, a doctor, an accountant or a teacher. We must consider how to encourage people to become entrepreneurs. Our society has been somewhat lacking in entrepreneurship. 10.30 am Finally, I reinforce Ian Paisley Jnr’s point that we need to talk to business practitioners. A criticism that has run through a number of issues is that there is almost too much of a Soviet-style command economy. We should consider how to remove barriers to allow entrepreneurs to flourish. It is useful to hear from those in Government who deal with investment and are trying to bring in overseas investors. However, I want to hear the real problems and the real solutions. Therefore, I most want to hear from the horse’s mouth, from people who have been at the coalface and have succeeded and delivered. It may also be instructive — although it may be more difficult to arrange this — to hear from those who have tried to compete in the economic world and have not succeeded; perhaps they can tell us the pitfalls. Sometimes one can learn from other people’s mistakes as much as from their successes. Mr McNarry: I add my thanks to Dr Gilleece and to those involved in preparing his presentation. I am sure that we all concur that the package was well put together and very helpful. This meeting was OK at the start and then went downhill. At the start of a meeting of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin regrettably introduced political nuances. Perhaps Sinn Féin has now got that off its chest, and I hope that we will be spared that in future meetings. I take issue with an earlier comment. I do not agree that Northern Ireland is a failed economic entity. I was saddened by the Secretary of State’s choosing to say such a thing, as it has given succour to the remark being repeated. Perhaps the Secretary of State is a somewhat failed political entity in Northern Ireland and needs to be careful. I listened intently to Ian Paisley Jnr, and I agree that it is time to hear from those who have succeeded. Perhaps we do not need to hear the full elixir of their success, but rather how they got there, what they thought, where they got their ideas and how they were helped or not helped. Listening to some of their practical experiences may help others. No member of the Government knows where my constituency of Strangford is. Anyone who lands in either of the Belfast airports is directed to other parts of Northern Ireland. The Government have brought no new industry to Newtownards for 37 years, despite the large population of that town. I am sure that we all have particular grievances in our constituencies. I do not want to personalise this, but my constituency has a business centre whose record on start-up companies is highly successful. Having proved their success and wanting to expand, those companies must move outside the Strangford constituency because there are no facilities for them there. Invariably, they move into another constituency, which has a knock-on effect on the workforce. Local people are trained, and companies move elsewhere. I reiterate that I want to hear from successful entrepreneurs, if they will come to speak to us. I also want to put down a couple of markers to identify, where possible, which of the potential witnesses can and will attend. People involved in the economy must tell us exactly what educational standards are required, and we must educate our young people to fill those jobs and meet future economic demands. Young people are gaining qualifications that prove that they certainly have ability, but those qualifications bear no resemblance whatsoever to their jobs. We need an indication of what jobs will be required in Northern Ireland over the next 10 to 15 years, what schools will be required and then find out whether we are teaching young people to go in that direction. It may be mentioned somewhere in the report, but we must raise the level of the cost of power in industry. We need to see the damage and effect that has on us in competition terms. If it were possible, the subgroup might agree to speak to some young people — not to give evidence, but to hear their futures being discussed. We are concerned about, and have highlighted, the brain drain. However, it is not just about that, it is about poverty — as Michelle said. It has been shown that young children in poorer areas are not coming forward into full employment, and we want to find out what we can do for them. It may be a task for some young people to come to the subgroup, but there are competent young people in Northern Ireland, and I am very proud of them. It would be helpful to know what they are looking for. It would also be good if we were able to tell the business community what young people want. Ms Ritchie: I thank Dr Gilleece for his paper and the members of the secretariat for the documents presented in advance of the meeting, which were useful. We must identify all the economic challenges facing the people of Northern Ireland — including the impediments — and ensure that whatever Government we have knows how to meet those challenges. That includes the business and economic world, the trade unions and any competitor involved. We are trying to achieve a better way of living and better wealth for the people in the North of Ireland. We must also ensure that there is a fair distribution of wealth and that all the population has a fair and equal opportunity to benefit. In looking at Dr Gilleece’s paper, I was taken by the views of Mike Smyth. The Secretary of State is anxious to chide us that we have invested too much in the public sector. However, we have always had a small private sector, and to displace the public sector with the private sector is not necessarily the answer. The private sector is mobile, and it could move investment out of the North of Ireland — and even the island of Ireland — to other countries with low-cost economies and put people here at a disadvantage. We must realise that agriculture and fishing are no longer the principal industries: they have been put in second place, and we must ensure that the people in those industries are given all the opportunities available. We must consider issues in a North/South context. Political stability is related to economic stability, but, over the past 35 to 40 years, there were many reasons that we did not have economic stability, not least of which were paramilitary and state violence, which cannot be discounted. We need more pragmatic North/South co-operation. We must examine the options so that opportunities are available for everyone. Recently, the International Centre for Local and Regional Development, which has links to Harvard University, published a study into the two spatial planning strategies on the island: the regional development strategy in the North, ‘Shaping our Future’, which is currently under a five-year review; and the National Spatial Strategy in the South. The subgroup could tap into that study. Perhaps we should take evidence from Dr Driscoll and others who are involved in that collaborative research, because they might be able to tell us how we can work together to achieve economic opportunities not only in border areas that were impacted on because their natural economic hinterlands were cut off, but on issues of social interaction. That should be looked at as well. In the North, we depend heavily on the roads network. Most freight is carried on roads that are, of course, also used for domestic travel. The subgroup should examine the North/South railway infrastructure and the Derry-Belfast line to ensure that business can be conducted more efficiently and effectively. We need proper investment in the roads infrastructure. We must ensure that the downturn in the structural roads maintenance budget does not turn an asset into something that requires reconstruction; we could be robbing Peter to pay Paul. We must ensure that that does not happen. The North of Ireland needs a well-developed and internationally competitive physical infrastructure that meets the needs of existing businesses and attracts inward investment. Mr Paisley Jnr: That is a good point. Business people from outside Northern Ireland are amazed that cargo and freight cannot be carried on the Belfast-Dublin train. Freight must be carried on the roads network, or an alternative network must be used. In Northern Ireland, certain commodities must be distributed via the roads network. That is absolutely crazy. This issue merits examination, so that we can find out if cargo can be carried on trains. Ms Ritchie: I thank Mr Paisley Jnr for his comments. The subgroup could take evidence from representatives from the freight and haulage industry, who contribute to the economy. From their experience, they could tell us about any impediments or challenges that need to be overcome. We need to develop the roads and the public transport infrastructure. The Planning Service should be more sympathetic and friendly to the business world. Something simple like a planning application for a business project or a factory takes a long time to process. That issue should be examined, so perhaps we should take evidence from the Planning Service as well as the Economic Development Forum. We should not be restrictive about whom we invite to give evidence. We must examine all the opportunities, and, most importantly, we must move on. If we continue to look to the past, we will miss opportunities. We must avail ourselves of all opportunities. We also need to look at examples in the European Union, because we may be able to take evidence from the academic perspective in the directorate and from practitioners too. 10.45 am Dr Birnie: I have a number of points, and I will respond to some things previous members have said. Entrepreneurship, which Ian and others stressed, is critical, and we need to look at that, because there is a danger that we could focus so much on promoting inward investment and the development of companies whose ownership lies outside the Province that we neglect indigenous or locally controlled manufacturers and service companies. That would be a mistake because there is abundant evidence from our experience in other parts of the world that locally owned firms have a greater tie-in with the local economy. They are less likely to be mobile and, as previous members have said, up sticks with their capital and hop to other jurisdictions when markets or tax conditions change. Although I am happy to acknowledge the considerable achievement of the so-called Celtic tiger economy South of the border, particularly since 1990, when annual economic growth in the Republic has been in excess of 5%, and, in some years 10%, many experts in Dublin concede that the outstanding weakness in the Southern economy is the heavy dependence on foreign direct investment. It is working at the moment, but there is no guarantee that it will continue to work. We need to learn that lesson from the Southern experience. We should not only look at promoting external firms; we should also look at the promotion of the local business sector. The cost of the troubles was emphasised by other members, particularly Ian Paisley Jnr. This is an unusual feature of our economy and has been one of the impediments to economic progress over the past 30 to 40 years. We cannot say that the cost no longer exists. The recent Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report on organised crime gave considerable evidence about how paramilitary and other organised crime groups have almost set themselves up as medium-sized businesses leeching off the legitimate sector of the economy. Being a multi-hundred-million-pound enterprise — although not the sort of one we are keen to encourage — it is sucking the lifeblood out of the economy. Experts feel that this is just one of the causes of our economic predicament rather than the only one. It is not even the biggest cause. Our experience since the mid-1990s suggests that, while being a necessary condition for economic dynamism, the achievement of greater peace and stability, and ultimately a stable and workable form of devolved Government here, is not a sufficient condition for it — we need to look at other things. There is the issue about what might be called economies of scale. Michelle made a point about this: the old adage about Northern Ireland being a failed entity, going back to Mr Haughey and other commentators. Obviously, Northern Ireland has a small economy, and in many cases it is sensible for us to seek economies of scale by linking with outside markets. However, we need to be pragmatic about that. I have no objection in principle to greater co-operation with the Southern economy provided that it is on the basis of mutual benefit — that is the rubric within the 1998 agreement. Of course, ours is also a UK and European Union regional economy. Therefore, as Dr Gilleece said, in a sense we should not narrow our horizons, as successful businesses seek profitable expansion opportunities anywhere in the world. I thank Dr Gilleece and all the staff for their background notes for today’s meeting. The point was raised in Dr Gilleece’s paper, and our deliberations will have to dig into this crucial question, that Mike Smyth has given the economy a number of options. We could reduce the headline rate of corporation tax, perhaps to the Southern rate of 12·5% or lower, as was suggested, or, we could increase tax allowances. The crucial point is that we have a choice. Lobbying from business community groups such as, on the one hand, the Industrial Task Force, which is headed by Sir George Quigley, and the Northern Ireland Business Alliance on the other, has given me the impression that there are strongly differing views about which of those routes we should go down. We need to be very careful to ensure that we get into that question in some detail, because there are good arguments for both strategies. One could say that, on the surface, both those routes increase the net or post-tax profits of a company and that they are mathematically equivalent, but that lowering the tax rate or increasing the allowance is another matter. Business experts seem to feel that there are arguments for and against both routes, and we will have to get a handle on that. I should perhaps declare an interest as a former academic economist and say that in seeking witnesses to give evidence to the subgroup, there is a strong case for us to hear from groups such as the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland (ERINI), which is the successor to the Northern Ireland Economic Council (NIEC) and the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre (NIERC). Prof Richard Harris has done some fundamental research in that area, so we should consider that. We should also question officials from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and other Departments. Northern Ireland should have had its regional economic strategy in place; indeed, it was scheduled to be so in autumn last year. We are nearly past the middle of summer 2006, so something in the official policy-making process has clearly slowed down. That is a concern. Dr Farren: I welcome the opportunity that this subgroup has given us to look at economic challenges. I hope that in doing so we will shed our almost innate tendencies. On the one hand, whenever the South is mentioned, we say: “Ah, but” and talk of dark clouds on the horizon and that we should not go down that road in case those clouds cover us. On the other hand, there is another almost innate tendency to say that the North is such a basket case that the only place from which we can start is in the context a united Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement set down the framework within which we must operate, and, given that we have such a short time at our disposal, our initial report should concentrate on the opportunities that we can identify — beyond August, this subgroup may have further work to do. I say to Esmond Birnie that a strategy, the Economic Development Forum, is in place. Dr Birnie: My understanding is that that is contained in ‘Economic Vision for Northern Ireland’. There is to be a response from Departments, with regard to existing policies, by the autumn. Dr Farren: I imagine that, essentially, the Department will adopt the main thrust of that report. From the discussions that I have been involved in over the last two or three years, and from observing the situation generally, I am satisfied that a clear consensus has emerged with respect to the economic vision that people share and believe that we should aim for. That vision concerns the adjustment from an economy that is overly dependent on the public sector to one in which wealth creation is a much greater contributor to overall economic development. Within that vision, there are a considerable number of identifiable targets that need to be aimed for and worked towards, including some matters that have been raised this morning. We are not without a great deal of work on entrepreneurship. I endorse Ian’s suggestion that we should talk to successful entrepreneurs, many of whom have succeeded in spite of what might have been done — with the best of motives — by the Government. Many started off on the shop floor with little or no third-level education. Although a few may have attended courses on how to succeed as an entrepreneur, they have all become successful because they saw opportunities and had the guts to go for them. That tends, however, to be rare. We will not be able to reproduce Tony O’Reilly or Willie Wright and his family just by listening to them and then tapping whatever juices they have and squirting them into other people in order to make new Tony O’Reillys, Willie Wrights or Tony Ryans. That is not the way that it will happen; we will have to create and provide the opportunities. Notwithstanding the high-flyers, there still needs to be a network of support systems in place to help people lower down the chain — and I say that without any pejorative suggestion — of entrepreneurial activity. We are not without a great deal of that already. On our journeys here this morning, even though it is a holiday period, we will all have overtaken, or been overtaken by, large trucks carrying goods to and from Northern Ireland, either South or across the Irish Sea to Britain and further, so do not imagine that we are starting from scratch. There is a great deal that we can enhance in the support systems that are already out there, and we can draw on the examples of what has happened down South. Having been brought up there and having received my primary, secondary and third-level education there, I was told often by my mother to make sure that I got a job in the Civil Service as it would be permanent and pensionable. Mr Paisley Jnr: You should have listened to her. Honour your father and mother. Dr Farren: Perhaps I should have taken her advice. My point is that advice was given to everyone in my class at school to move in that direction or become a teacher — and teachers are getting a bit of a battering around here. Nevertheless, that is the road I chose to follow. 11.00 am Going into business was not even mentioned. It is mentioned now, and all around us we can see good examples of people taking up business opportunities. Michelle Gildernew can see the Sean Quinns of this world — not all of his business is located in the South. Fermanagh depends considerably on the employment he offers north of the border, as well as south. Let us hear from successful people and from those who have already been involved in developing the strategy. I am a firm believer in the importance of a social partnership, and I point to the Southern experience of that as a clear example of the success that we should try to follow, where successful social partnerships have worked to underpin the economic strategies adopted by the Government over the past 10 to 15 years. The Economic Development Forum provides us with a rather unwieldy, but nonetheless similar, opportunity for such a partnership to be created and developed here. We should hear from it because it represents the leading players who contribute to economic strategies as regards education, the business world, Government and — at the other side of industry — the trades unions, which are missing from our list but which should be consulted. We may not have time in the next few weeks to consult individually, so it might be worth starting with the Economic Development Forum, given that it has produced a document that covers all the issues. It may not provide all the answers, nor answers with which we might agree; however, it would be a useful starting point in hearing from the outside world. Moving on from that, there are the Northern Ireland Business Alliance (NIBA), agencies such as InterTradeIreland, and Invest Northern Ireland itself. Over the next few weeks, let us identify a set of achievable objectives to compile an initial report and see then where we are as regards further work. Mr McElduff: The briefing papers are good material to reflect upon. There is no escaping the political impediments, and we should listen to civic society and the business community. The Northern Ireland Business Alliance came to this Building on 16 May, talked of economic challenges, and highlighted the requirement that the Assembly and the political institutions must function without delay. As elected representatives, that responsibility is ours and we can do something about it. Page 10 of the NIBA presentation refers to the need for a stable Government and a stable society. The NIBA clarified what that meant when it gave its presentation. I do not apologise for emphasising, as Michelle Gildernew did, that the cost of partition to our economy must be factored in strongly. The fact that there are two separate economic systems has resulted in great inefficiency and heavy duplication of spending, and we are certainly not making the most of our finite resources. That is in view of the fact that this island has a population of fewer than six million people. I welcome the fact that Mike Smith highlighted the difference in corporation tax between the two states; that is definitely a major impediment. During the past couple of days, I have engaged with the man and woman in the street about our economic challenges. Yesterday, I asked a gentleman in Omagh what he thought the economic challenges were. The two issues that kept being mentioned were investment in infrastructure and corporation tax. I did the same vox pop in a shop in Pomeroy on my way here today, and the shopkeeper in Pomeroy gave the same answer. It is fascinating that the people in the street have firm views about the difference in corporation tax between the two states and the need for infrastructure. If we want to create balanced regional development for our economy, we should also emphasise the west of the Bann and the greater north-west of the island of Ireland. Some years ago, at a Question Time, I asked the then Minister for Regional Development what were the number of dual carriageway and motorway miles in Counties Tyrone, Fermanagh and Donegal. I think that the answer was in single figures. There is also a total absence of rail infrastructure in those areas. A map of Ireland shows that the north-west has no rail infrastructure provision whatsoever. The state of the A5/N2 road from Derry and Donegal to Dublin is also an issue. The road is of poor quality, coupled with the fact that there is no rail option. Common sense tells us, and the people are telling us, that proper, functioning, democratic institutions are needed to give confidence and stability to our economy. People are also saying that investment in infrastructure, balanced regional development and the difference in corporation tax are the issues that need to be addressed. There is an emerging consensus that the subgroup should hear from successful practitioners — perhaps those who have experienced hurdles and barriers to success and who might want to share those. That could happen in evidence sessions, although, as Séan Farren said, our immediate challenge is probably time-limited. Briefing papers could also be provided to the subgroup. I would like a briefing paper on the contribution that the education system in the South has made to an education and skills strategy for its economy. Chairman, you represent the Mid-Ulster constituency. Four of those dual carriageway miles that I mentioned earlier are between Cookstown and Moneymore, for whatever reason. Mr McNarry: You are not doing your job. Mr McElduff: You need to get back to your constituency, Mr Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I thank Dr Gilleece for his presentation. The first decision for the subgroup is whether its evidence sessions are open or closed. That decision can be made now, or when each meeting takes place. Can we make a decision one way or the other? Mr Weir: Mr Chairman, there should be a general presumption that evidence sessions should be open. Certainly, any meetings with Government officials should be open. If, say, an industrialist wants a closed session, we should accommodate that, but as a general rule we should sit in open session. Mr McElduff: I agree with that. The presumption should be in favour of openness. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That is grand. On top of that, we have a list, but it is not complete; members may propose other names for that list. As I listened, I thought of the Northern Ireland Manufacturing Focus Group (NIMFG), as it deals with issues related to industrial derating. It is important to remember that evidence reports can be very longsome. We do not have sufficient time at this stage to produce such a report. Mr Paisley Jnr: Margaret Ritchie pointed out, and I fully agree, that we should have someone here from the Planning Service. David Ferguson, Chief Executive of the service might helpfully be put on notice. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. With the handout is an outline timetable of evidence sessions — two a week. Changes can be made to that, but if we want to hear evidence from Ministers, departmental officials and businesspeople, we should give adequate notification. The Committee Clerk: I have pre-warned certain witnesses that they may be called for next Tuesday’s evidence session. I will call them back after this meeting to tell them the times we have arranged. In my view it is important that we should have NIBA and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) up first. They can tell us what they believe is wrong before we bring departmental witnesses. That might give members food for thought about what they wish to ask Departments. Liam Nellis, Chief Executive of InterTradeIreland, is off next week. We had also intended to call the Minister, Maria Eagle, and officials from DETI. As for timings, we planned to give everyone roughly an hour: NIBA from 10.00 am to 11.00 am; FSB from 11.00 am to 12.00 noon; Liam Nellis from 12.00 noon to 1.00pm; a break for lunch from 1.00 pm to 2.00 pm; and Maria Eagle from 2.00 pm to 3.00 pm or later. On Thursday we were intending to call David Hanson and hoped that the Chief Executive of the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) would also come. Leslie Morrison is in Canada at the moment so we planned to slot him in on Thursday also. We are aware that we need to hear many more witnesses. Esmond Birnie mentioned ERINI, and we envisage hearing them the following week, as well as the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA). As for economists in general, we should decide whether we want to hear Mike Smyth and John Simpson, for example. I have made a list of some people members have mentioned. Margaret Ritchie mentioned Dr Driscoll. Ms Ritchie: He is based in Harvard at the International Centre for Learning. I could give you his address. The Committee Clerk: He probably would not come, but we might get written evidence from him. Ms Ritchie: Yes, we could get written evidence from him, and also from the officials involved in the co-ordination of both spatial strategies. They are available in the Department for Regional Development. Officials worked with colleagues in the South who were working on the National Spatial Strategy there. Dr Driscoll led the project, highlighted the issues for them and brought it all together. 11.15 am Dr Farren: The EDF is a very representative body. I am concerned about the time available to us. The EDF has brought together thinking from a lot of the separate bodies that are being proposed around this table, and we need to consider it at some point. Since that thinking is available in the form of ‘Working Together for a Stronger Economy’, whether we start off with that or finish with it, we ourselves should be confident with the document’s contents. Perhaps we should invite a representative panel, which might include some of the people mentioned on the list, to take a different approach. I suggest that we contact the EDF and ask it how it would like to play it. You have suggested that the Minister should appear next week. Would that be in the first session? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Dr Farren: That decision may have been made because she is not available later on. However, I would like to bounce the ideas that we obtain in the course of further discussion off the Minister later on, rather than early on, because she is one of the policy-makers. Mr Weir: I have no problem with asking some officials from DETI to give a general overview, but I agree that the Minister should be scheduled a good deal later. That may mean that we take two bites of the cherry on the Government side. We could take an initial view of matters from DETI officials, and schedule the Minister for a later date. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We would need to check on that. Mr Weir: Yes; we need to check up on that. It is a common theme of my party, but we should not see ourselves as hammered too heavily by deadlines. It is important that we have an initial draft report according to the timetable that has been laid out for us. That is fair enough and no one would disagree. Given the number of issues and the number of people that have been identified around this table, it is important that we do not rush this matter. Whatever initial work is done between now and the middle of August — which is the first deadline — to some extent, we will get only a little bit into it. Irrespective of what the future holds, there could be enough work for us to meet every week between now and November, and I am not even saying which year. There is clearly much work in that. We can bank what we have got by the middle of August, but it is important that we see that as part of a longer continuum. August is a staging post. It is also important that we line up a number of people to speak to us. We have a relatively packed agenda for next Tuesday’s meeting. We have mentioned William Wright, for example. Mr Paisley Jnr: Perhaps Trevor Campbell. Mr Weir: It may be useful if each of the parties contact the Clerk with names of potential witnesses. I am wary of shooting from the hip on that matter. We cannot just throw out a few names now and be definitive. There may be many important people that we have forgotten about, whose names have not occurred to us at this stage. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It would be helpful if Members submit names to the Committee Clerk. Mr Weir: Yes. We must give a degree of thought to that and try to schedule those people. Mr McNarry: It is important that we are charged to report to the PFG by that date. If that report is significant, work would continue, if the PFG consented. I hope that there will be a debate in the Assembly on that report, in which all parties around this table would participate. More issues will arise when our colleagues get their teeth into that report. We could put all of the names of potential witnesses in a hat and draw them out, because we are not going to get them all. We know most of the views of those people; we have heard them before, and they all have an agenda. It is important that we do not hear their agenda, but that we hear what they can contribute. It is also important, therefore, that the staff relate that. I do not want to be lobbied in this subgroup. I have gone through all that and heard it and I am interested in it, but I want to hear what they think they can contribute, on the broader base as well as on the individual one. The renewables sector seems to be growing in importance. I do not know how we can address the economy without looking at that, nor am I sure how to find out about it, because it is highly commercial. Nevertheless, we should have something on that. I agree that the Ministers perhaps should be left towards the end. Mr Paisley Jnr: Are you suggesting Ministers and the private sector in week four? Mr McNarry: Yes. Mr Paisley Jnr: That is a good idea. Ms Gildernew: I am glad to see that NICVA is included, given the number of jobs in the community and voluntary sector. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) should be represented in the light of the changes to the public sector. It is also obvious that a perspective on the rural economy is missing. Perhaps Martin McDonald of the Rural Development Council should be asked to give an overview of the challenges it faces, because we must not forget that jobs in the rural community should be maintained and sustained. Mr McElduff: I support Michelle’s point that the trade union perspective needs to be heard. I am intrigued to hear from the North/South Ministerial Council’s joint secretariat about the experience of the economic round table, in which George Quigley and others are involved. I would like to get some perspective from there as well. Ms Ritchie: I agree with other members about our discussions concerning the public sector and the role of Ministers. We need to hear from other sectors in order to be able to ask the Ministers about issues that may arise. In my first submission, I mentioned the need to take evidence from the road haulage and freight industries, because they make a major contribution to the economy, not only in Northern Ireland, but on the whole island of Ireland, in an east-west direction and in Europe. We should talk to them about current challenges and future opportunities. The quarry products industry is a major one. Dr Farren referred earlier to the important contribution of Sean Quinn to that industry. It is represented by the Quarry Products Organisation and the Construction Federation. Mr McNarry: Where do we end this list? I could throw in agriculture, fisheries — Mr McElduff: Perhaps we should have a mix of briefing papers and evidence sessions. Ms Ritchie: I take Mr McNarry’s view on board, but perhaps, when we have identified the issues in the earlier weeks, there may be work to be done at a later stage, when we could take evidence from those people. The other issue is whether those groups will be submitting evidence in advance so that we can study them before coming to the meetings and be well briefed. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That will be important. However, as David McNarry has said, they should be asked to speak within this subgroup’s terms of reference, which have already been set in relation to the PFG. That gives us a guideline and ensures that they are not just coming in to lobby on their own issues, or even on the issues within the subgroup itself. Mr Paisley Jnr: There is an issue around duplication in the groups. It is important to get on top of that. If we brought in the Ulster Farmers’ Union and the Federation of Small Businesses and took the muck and the metal out of it, the issues that we are going to hear about are red tape, bureaucracy, duplication, form-filling and all of those things. It would be useful if the subgroup could get the briefing papers as far in advance as possible so that we could tell the witnesses that we would like them to talk about the intriguing points. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): If we want to get the briefing papers in advance, we must notify the witnesses as soon as possible. The earlier we can put together the list, the better our response will be. Mr McNarry: I agree with Ian’s point. If the organisations can be identified and their briefing papers forwarded to the subgroup, they can be alerted that they may be required to address one or two points from their submissions. Dr Farren: The work of this subgroup is meant to be strategic. As David McNarry said earlier, its purpose is not to hear organisations rehearse their own perspectives, legitimate as those may be. It is right that we ask a range of different organisations to appear so that they can focus on how they see the strategic issues that are related to the economy’s development. It is not a matter of what we can do for them, but of what they think needs to be done for the benefit of the whole economy into which they and many other organisations fit. Otherwise, we will end up with lots of different papers, none of which meets at the top. We are trying to stitch everything together in a very short time. Our time is fairly limited, regardless of whether the subgroup meets beyond August, and the expertise that is available is not infinite. We must keep focused. This may be separate to the current discussion, but many parties have frequently referred to financial packages, peace dividends and so on; I think that Ian Paisley Jnr mentioned that earlier. We must ask ourselves what any economic or financial package or dividend will be used for. It is all very well calling for £100 million or £10 billion or whatever, but we must have a clear idea of what we want to use it for. Mr McNarry: It is important — certainly to the Ulster Unionist Party — that this subgroup does not try to negotiate wish lists and requests. Members may recall that a figure of £10 billion was mentioned at the PFG Committee. Dr Farren, you did not want to state a figure when I asked you what you thought, but it is important that we differentiate between the margins of negotiation with regard to a peace dividend and where we go with that. I agree with you to a point, but we must reach a stage whereby we can refer the matter to the PFG Committee. It is for that Committee rather than this subgroup to take it forward. I see that as a hand-over exercise. Dr Farren: Speaking through the Chair, I hear the rhetoric about peace dividends all the time, but I have never heard what it means. We have not revealed to each other what we mean, and if at some point we want to pursue them, we at least need to know what it might mean. Whether we agree on how they might be applied is a different matter — that is where the negotiations come in. It is important that we know what it means, rather than simply putting £10 million or £10 billion on the table and then deciding what we will do with it — it will not happen that way. Ms Gildernew: It is hugely important that we discuss a peace dividend and what is needed. We must face facts: there has been huge underinvestment in the infrastructure here throughout my lifetime. We must seriously examine where the deficits are and what needs to be done to have an impact on them. What I have heard is no surprise to me. With respect, Mr McNarry and Dr Farren represent constituencies that are closer to Belfast than mine. If they knew the difficulties that face constituencies such as West Tyrone and Fermanagh and South Tyrone, they would realise that there are huge issues there. Mr Paisley Jnr: Newcastle is not close to Belfast. Ms Gildernew: I did not interrupt you when you were speaking. There are huge issues that need to be addressed. We are not simply throwing out figures. The figure that Sinn Féin put forward is based on clear research and evidence from the Business Alliance and others. It is not merely a figure that we have dreamed up and thrown out there. There is a solid basis behind it. 11.30 am Dr Farren: With all due respect, I was not denigrating the idea of a peace dividend. I was simply saying that we would need to know what people mean by it. Mr McNarry: I do not think that anyone is knocking the issue. I was merely wondering how far the subgroup could take it. When I was growing up, Belfast was sometimes referred to as Beirut, and the streets resembled what is going on in Beirut now, but here we are now. I have been listening to entrepreneurs, business people and the Government on the news, and they have been saying how devastated they are because they had only begun to put Beirut back together and, in particular, the economic infrastructure of Lebanon, but now it is all up in the air because of the violence. People from your side perhaps have a different perspective on a peace dividend than those on my side. I do not see the peace yet. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We need to get back to discussing the economy. Dr Farren’s point was that it would be beneficial to know how the money would be used; for example, how it would deal with the infrastructural neglect and other issues. Dr Birnie: I agree with Ms Gildernew about the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (NICICTU) attending as witnesses. If I remember rightly, NICICTU has produced an interesting paper on the economy, so it would be worth considering inviting it, given that we should also have a trade union perspective. The list is very impressive, and I agree that the Business Alliance should attend at an early stage. However, I go back to my earlier point. It may be a misperception on my part, but I do not think so. The Business Alliance has taken a particular view on the question of allowances versus corporation tax. It seems to argue for allowances on the grounds of practicality and what will work with HM Treasury. The Business Alliance seems to downplay corporation tax, and perhaps it is right about that, but maybe not. However, for balance, we need to hear the other view from the industrial taskforce, which we have all heard about through the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ and other parts of the media, Sir George Quigley and so forth. Someone mentioned that there is no magic bullet, and that is probably right. However, the other view seems to be that bringing the headline rate down to the southern rate, or close to it, would unlock many of the so-called impediments. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are you suggesting that we should examine those two perspectives rather than having the Minister’s attendance? Dr Birnie: Yes. Mr Paisley Jnr: It would be useful if the witnesses could see a copy of this discussion in Hansard prior to attending the meeting of the subgroup, so that they would have an idea of the type of things that we would like to know. For example, we could ask witnesses how they would apply a dividend to best effect. Then, if we are attracted by their proposals, we could put them to the Ministers in week four. It would be good to get into those issues at an early stage. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is there agreement that we should circulate Hansard, or a synopsis of it, to witnesses to give them an idea of the type of thing that the subgroup is looking for? Ms Gildernew: Is that doable? Is it practical, as dozens of people have been mentioned during this morning’s presentation? I think that witnesses only need a copy of the part that we have been talking about. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The witnesses need to know what evidence we want them to provide. We do not want them to lobby on various issues. Witnesses could potentially come here and talk for two hours without suggesting any ideas for a peace dividend. The Committee Clerk: Their invitation letter will contain a copy of our terms of reference and tell them that they can speak only on those three points and nothing else. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Perhaps that would be a better way of doing it. Mr McNarry: I come from a business background, and it is about profit and loss. I have noticed, through the period of direct rule and more recently, the emphasis with which business has introduced itself to politics and given itself a political voice. It has been highly critical of many MLAs and of what they do. What we seek from businesses is their advice and guidance. We want to hear what they would do with the changes in the current education system, and what they would do with a peace dividend. All of those things are important, but it is right that we question them and seek their advice and co-operation. We want that; there is no point in sitting with a businessman for an hour, and he walks away thinking: “They’re a bunch of flipping dozos, that lot!” [Laughter.] OK, a couple of dozos. You have to give him the confidence that he is actually going to divulge things, co-operate and give help. Mr Paisley Jnr: For the benefit of Hansard, there are two “p”s in “flipping”. Ms Gildernew: I do not think that there are any “p”s in the word that he used. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let us deal with the work in hand. Our first task is to send out the invitations for next Tuesday. Could we finalise that? The Committee Clerk: Could we agree the timetable? Are you happy to hear the Northern Ireland Business Alliance from 10.00 am to 11.00 am? Members indicated assent. Are you content to hear the Federation of Small Businesses from 11.00 am until 12.00 noon? Members indicated assent. Are you content to have Liam Nellis from InterTradeIreland from 12.00 noon until 1.00 pm? Members indicated assent. Do you want the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment officials, without Maria Eagle, on Tuesday? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): What about the task force? The Committee Clerk: Or do you want the Economic Development Forum or the Industrial Task Force? Dr Farren: We will need both at some stage. The Committee Clerk: We could put one in place of the officials on Tuesday, and put the other in on Thursday, if we can get them. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We need some flexibility as regards who is available. The Committee Clerk: Do you want the officials from DETI to tell you what they are doing about their economic strategy? Ms Ritchie: Could you not bring them with the Minister? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I do not think that we would get them separately. We are looking to get all the others, and then the Minister and her officials at a later stage. Mr McNarry: They will be reading Hansard; that is for sure. The Committee Clerk: So we will not have the officials at all at this stage? Is that agreed? Dr Farren: We could see after next week’s meeting. The Committee Clerk: We will leave it until then. We will have EDF on Tuesday, or the Industrial Task Force, whatever way availability works out. Mr Weir: Could I ask for clarity on something? We are making a substitution on Tuesday, from 2.00 pm until 3.00 pm. With regard to timing on Thursday, we have agreed a third speaker. The Committee Clerk: Yes, from 12.00 noon until 1.00 pm. We have the Business Alliance, FSB, Liam Nellis and either EDF or the Industrial Task Force. Shall we keep it to 2.00 pm to 3.00 pm for Tuesday’s meeting to give an hour’s break for lunch? Are you content? Members indicated assent. On Thursday, we will not have David Hanson, but will we still have officials from the Strategic Investment Board? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That would be important. The Committee Clerk: And Leslie Morrison from Invest Northern Ireland? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. The Committee Clerk: The other will be one of EDF or the Industrial Task Force. Thursday’s meeting should conclude at 1.00 pm. We must have a quick chat, either before 10.00 am or after 1.00 pm, about the list of potential witnesses. What way do members wish to do that? Do members want us to invite them to give written evidence? Do members want to do that before 10.00 am or after 1.00 pm? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We could wait to see how Tuesday’s meeting goes. The Committee Clerk: There may be some time between witnesses if a presentation perhaps lasts only 45 minutes. For the following week, from Tuesday 1 August 2006, the list of potential witnesses includes NICVA and the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland, with a question mark over inviting an economist as a witness; Michelle also mentioned NICICTU. Other people were mentioned, including Martin McDonald from the Rural Development Council and representatives from the road haulage and freight industry. Do members want to leave all that and make a decision on Tuesday, which would leave a week? Dr Farren: Could we put them on notice that they may be asked to make a submission and may be called as witnesses? The Committee Clerk: Do you mean that NICICTU should be put on notice? Dr Farren: NICICTU should attend, but perhaps the more sectoral areas, such as an economist being called as a witness, could be put on notice. The Committee Clerk: I have a list of potential witnesses. Do members want David Ferguson from the Planning Service to make a presentation or a submission? Ms Ritchie: A submission. Mr Paisley Jnr: A submission, but with a view that he may be called as a witness later. The Committee Clerk: Should that also apply to Martin McDonald from the RDC? I shall write to the organisation that represents the road haulage and freight industry to request a submission. Quarry products are also on the list, and young people were mentioned. Should we write to the Northern Ireland Youth Forum? Mr McNarry: Yes, if that was what was agreed. Dr Farren: The Youth Council for Northern Ireland would be the correct channel, would it not? Mr McNarry: If there were time, and if Maria Eagle is willing and the subgroup agrees, can she double up on education? We need to discuss certain issues with her. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is important to give Ministers some notice, because the August holidays mean that availability will be an issue. The Committee Clerk: Do you want Maria Eagle to double up and discuss both education and DETI? Mr Weir: She holds the brief for DETI too. Mr McElduff: I feel strongly that education, skills and experience in the South should be factored in. The Committee Clerk: Perhaps Peter Gilleece will write a paper on that for us. Dr Farren: May I suggest another organisation because of its overarching responsibilities? Reference has been made to the tourism industry. It may be worth hearing from Tourism Ireland and the NITB because tourism touches on the constituencies of most members. Tourism Ireland is a North/South all-island body that came from the Good Friday Agreement. Mr Paisley Jnr: Adding to what Seán has said, I think that we should put the Planning Service and the NITB on notice that they may be required to give evidence. Although we will receive their submissions, we would probably like to hear from them as well. We could extract strategic ideas from them. Perhaps they should be called on week four? I read an article in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ about sick leave and holiday leave, and some of those officials may take long holidays. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Planning Service impacts across the spectrum. Tourism, agriculture and every aspect of life have planning issues. Mr Weir: In relation to scheduling, I appreciate that we may be looking for specific people in some organisations. However, the NITB and the Planning Service are more insulated from holiday issues and will be able to provide witnesses because they have more staff. However, if we want to hear from specific individuals, such as Maria Eagle, we should ask them to check their timetables urgently. If she is on holiday, that will have an impact on the timetable. The Committee Clerk: What are we agreeing to do? Shall we put the Planning Service and the NITB on notice? Mr Weir: Perhaps we should discuss that issue next week. However, if we identify specific people, we need to chase them up quickly. That could be done now, particularly as, at some stage, we will want to ask Maria Eagle to attend. We need to contact her office as soon as possible to find out her timetable. The Committee Clerk: David mentioned renewable energy. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee of the previous Assembly held an inquiry into energy, and Brian Norton from the University of Ulster at Jordanstown, who is an expert on that subject, attended. Should we ask him for a submission? Dr Farren: Brian is now president of the Dublin Institute of Technology and may not be available. However, there is an umbrella group for the renewables industry, but I do not know its title. The wind farms and such like are members of it. The Department will know. 11.45 am The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will move on to other business. We discussed issuing a press release about the subgroup’s first meeting. The Committee Clerk: We have drafted a press release, and if members want it sent out, we can do that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): A press release would be useful for organisations that might want to make presentations to the subgroup. The Committee Clerk: Anyone who clicks on the Committee on the Preparation for Government’s page on the Assembly website will be directed to the subgroups. The minutes of proceedings, the press release — if issued — and Hansard will all be available to the general public. Ms Gildernew: The statement to the press is grand and factual, but it does not cover the work that has been done. The chart shows that we are hitting the ground running and that we intend to dedicate ourselves to this matter over the coming weeks and get good work done. It would help if people could see that we are serious about the subgroup and the work involved. Mr Weir: Can I suggest two things? First, I appreciate the point made about the draft work programme. Reference should be made to the fact that the subgroup has agreed to meet twice a week. A complication arises because some people have not yet been contacted, and therefore I do not think that it can be released. Ms Gildernew: I am not suggesting that. Mr Weir: I was not suggesting that you were. We need to make specific reference to the fact that the subgroup will meet twice a week and will continue its work throughout the summer. The press release would also be useful as it would save any confusion by having the press state that all parties were represented at the first meeting. There may appear to be a boycott by one party — I could say: “not the usual suspects”. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That would be useful, and it would also underline that the subgroup will take evidence throughout the summer. Dr Farren: Touché. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are we all agreed on that? Ms Ritchie: Should we not also specify the terms of reference of the subgroup and that we will be seeking evidence from other groups as well? We may benefit from the advice and expertise of groups not mentioned in the press release. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It might be worthwhile to invite other groups to make written submissions. They could then be called to give evidence if we thought it necessary. Dr Farren: Will the contribution of higher and further education be captured in any of the submissions? Barry mentioned the Southern experience, but we need to hear what our Northern institutions are doing. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That would be important, particularly with the Minister’s line. Dr Farren: Shall we write to Queen’s and the University of Ulster? The Committee Clerk: We have suggested bringing in people from Queen’s University. Dr Farren: Yes, I see that. Is that just Queen’s? The Committee Clerk: No; that means people from Queen’s and the University of Ulster at Jordanstown (UUJ). It is a joint briefing. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do they have some sort of a joint approach? The Committee Clerk: There is a joint briefing between the Research and Regional Services directorate in Queen’s and the Office of Innovation and Enterprise at the University of Ulster. Dr Farren: OK. Is the further education sector involved through the Association of Northern Ireland Colleges (ANIC)? If so, that means that we would get them all. The Committee Clerk: We will get a submission from that group as well. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We also had a letter for the Secretary of State. The Committee Clerk: That is a courtesy letting him know that we intend to invite his officials. Mr McNarry: Does the letter say: “Dear Peter, while you are lying on the beach sunning yourself”? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members content with that letter? Members indicated assent. The Committee Clerk: Are members content for us to make changes to the press notice and issue it. Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is there any other business? Mr McNarry: If the room is going be as warm as it is now, will we get air conditioning? Dr Farren: The heatwave may have passed. The Committee Clerk: We could borrow an air conditioner that is used for some of the server rooms, but it can be noisy, so it may affect Hansard. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday. To clarify, as happens in the Preparation for Government Committee (PFG), the Chairman who is observing will also sit in on the next meeting. That is so that the Chairmen can be continually involved. Adjourned at 11.52 am. < previous / next > |