SUBGROUP ON THE ECONOMIC CHALLENGES Tuesday 5 September 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: Witnesses: The subgroup met at 10.03 am. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let us begin. The Minister will be here soon, and we are short of time. Please switch off all mobile phones. We have lost evidence because phones have been left on. I have received apologies from Peter Weir, who will be replaced by David Simpson; and Sean Neeson, for whom Kieran McCarthy will substitute. Are there any other apologies or changes? Ms Ritchie: Alasdair will be here shortly. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The draft minutes of the meeting of 24 August are available for members to read. Mr Paisley Jnr: May I have clarification that those minutes confirm that all the parties agreed that report? Is it correct that there was no dissension? The Committee Clerk: Yes. Mr Ford: That point was accepted at yesterday’s meeting of the Committee on the Preparation for Government (PFG). The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members content with the minutes? Members indicated assent. Mr Simpson: Once again, I declare an interest in the manufacturing industry. The Committee Clerk was to find out the finer points of declarations of interest. I have heard nothing further, so I suppose that that is sufficient. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do any other members have declarations of interest? Mr McNarry: I am getting ready for a pizza run on the 24 November, if it all goes belly up. Mr Simpson: If you are looking for shareholders, give me a shout. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I turn to matters arising. The subgroup agreed the report, with some minor editorial amendments and additions. The report was to be passed to the PFG Committee. I remind members that they must keep closely to the terms of reference when asking questions. There will be two evidence sessions; the first will be with the Minister and her three advisers; the second with the Youth Forum. Both shall be followed by question-and-answer sessions. The Minister will cover three different areas: enterprise, trade and investment; education; and employment and learning. Do members wish to raise any procedural issues? Mr McNarry: Will questions to the Minister be taken in any particular sequence? For example, will education be dealt with first? The Committee Clerk: If members are content, that would a sensible approach to take. We could start with questions relating to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI), followed by the Department of Employment and Learning (DEL) and finish with the Department of Education (DE). Dr Birnie: Chairman, how will the numerous cross-cutting issues be dealt with? The Committee Clerk: Three officials will be at the table, so there is no problem with cutting across Departments or asking questions out of sequence. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There will be overlapping issues. The Minister will give a short presentation and then take questions from members. Mr McNarry: Could I ask the Minister where she is buying the buses? The Committee Clerk: I am sure that you could. Mr McNarry: Chairman, could you ask her? Mr Paisley Jnr: David, you should not reveal your hand at this point. Dr Birnie: What about the job with Wrightbus Ltd? Mr Ford: I thought that Ian had got the job with Wrightbus Ltd. Mr Paisley Jnr: The buses are sorted; do not worry about that. Mr McNarry: There is an alternative, if you want the pizza run. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): A plenary debate on the report is likely to take place on 11 or 12 September. Should any member of the subgroup wish to comment on the report during the debate, they must bear in mind that any additional views or comments will be on their own behalf, not on behalf of the subgroup. Mr McNarry: How is Hansard fixed to complete a transcript of today’s sessions with the Minister and the youth forum in time for that debate? Members taking part in the debate may wish to refer to some of the Minister’s remarks. The Committee Clerk: The report will have to be cleared by the Minister and the officials, but it will have a very quick turnaround. Hansard has agreed to give priority to the report of this meeting, so it will be ready to go out to all the witnesses tomorrow. Mr McNarry: Excellent. The Committee Clerk: The cut-off point for ministerial clearance is close of play on Thursday. Should there be a debate next week, we hope to include the report in the business bundle on Friday. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The other issue is how today’s proceedings are reported. Should there be a debate, there will be no time for the subgroup to meet to discuss any addendums to the report. As the Committee Clerk mentioned, the only option is for Hansard to provide a report of today’s evidence sessions. Mr McNarry: Would some sort of report be prepared for the PFG Committee? The Committee Clerk: The difficulty is that there is no way for the subgroup or the PFG Committee to clear a further report in time for a debate on Monday. At the last PFG Committee meeting, I suggested that members should have enough time to deliberate the evidence and that it should be ensured that all members have an opportunity to air their views through in Hansard. Even with that, members will not get the report until Friday. It is just not possible to do it any other way. Mr McNarry: I understand. I made the point for the record. The Committee Clerk: The PFG Committee was aware of the situation. It got ahead of itself and assumed that that was what the subgroup would do. I suggested that approach at one of the meetings; I cannot see any other way round it. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Minister, you are very welcome to today’s meeting of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland. After your short presentation, members will ask questions. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Ms Maria Eagle MP): I am used to Select Committees, where Members are known as honourable Members. How would you like me to refer to you? Mr Simpson: Honourable Members will be fine. Ms Eagle: You can call me Maria. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I also welcome Stephen Quinn, Bernie O’Hare, and David Woods. I suggest that we deal with questions in their departmental categories, namely DETI, DEL and DE. The questions may overlap, but I suggest that we take that approach. 10.15 am Ms Eagle: Thank you for inviting me to meet the subgroup to discuss the challenges facing the Northern Ireland economy. I intend to say something about what the Government are doing to address those challenges. I am accompanied by Stephen Quinn from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI), Bernie O’Hare from the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) and David Woods from the Department of Education (DE). The Secretary of State, Peter Hain, has made economic development a top priority. He has sought to engage local political leaders in the debate on policy development. We all want to change the direction of the Northern Ireland economy for the better. This subgroup, through its engagement with a wide variety of key stakeholders, is making a very important contribution to the process, and I am very happy to assist the subgroup’s work in any way that I can. Since my appointment in May 2006, I have been particularly encouraged by the commitment shown by the business community and political representatives such as yourselves to work towards a more vibrant and sustainable Northern Ireland economy; one that is less reliant on the public sector. The Secretary of State’s decision to bring together some of the key portfolios, DETI, DEL, DE and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL), under one Minister, enables me to ensure some sort of coherent approach across those Departments’ policy areas. I shall briefly outline the key challenges facing the economy as the Government see them and devote the majority of my comments to outlining some of the current major strategies and initiatives that DETI, DE and DEL have in place and how those are integrated into the ‘Economic Vision for Northern Ireland’. In conclusion, I shall touch briefly on the subgroup’s work and the development of the proposals to place the economy onto a higher-growth trajectory, which is what we all want. It is important that we recognise the strengths of Northern Ireland’s economic position. We are enjoying a historic period of macroeconomic stability, having benefited from the growth in stability of the UK economy. Northern Ireland has grown faster than many other regions in the UK. Manufacturing exports have more than doubled in real terms over the last decade. Unemployment has been halved to its lowest level in generations, and we have more jobs than ever before. The rate of economic prosperity in 2004, measured by gross value added (GVA), is higher than the UK average, and the GVA per capita is above two other regions in the UK — Wales and the north-east. Prices are 3% below the UK average. For the first time, more tourists are visiting Northern Ireland each year than there are people living here. It is important to keep in mind the achievements that Northern Ireland has already made. More people than ever before have higher living standards, yet working-age economic inactivity levels — almost 28% of the working-age population — are higher than the UK average, so there are challenges such as that. The private sector is uniquely weak compared to the dominant public sector, which is hugely subsidised from London. That means that the local economy is simply unsustainable in the medium term, let alone in the longer term, if we continue as we are. The education system has delivered superbly for some, but appallingly for others. There are too many individuals in the workplace with no qualifications. Northern Ireland has a very high level of economic inactivity. The level of economic prosperity in Northern Ireland is well below the UK average, although, admittedly, that can be a harsh comparator, given the weight and the huge influence of the south-east of England on that figure. The Northern Ireland economy has a relatively poor productivity performance. The GVA per employee, which is the commonly used measure of productivity, has been falling, relative to the rest of the UK. That has been caused, in part, by a lack of expansion of high value-added sectors, particularly within financial and business services, and a continued concentration of employment in low value-added sectors, which we need to address. Northern Ireland has relatively low levels of business start-ups. Business growth is not as rapid as we would wish. Too few firms are active in research and development (R&D). In addition to those long-standing weaknesses, we now face the increased threats and challenge of global change, of manufacturing jobs lost and service jobs outsourced, particularly to China and India. That means that the currency of the future must be high productivity and high value-added activity. Highly developed skills are also imperative. Far more must be done if Northern Ireland is to become a world leader in the fastest-growing and most wealth-creating sectors and if Northern Ireland is to become a place where people want to locate and expand their businesses and a place with which people wish to trade. To address those weaknesses, we must focus on four critical economic drivers: enterprise; innovation and R&D; skills; and infrastructure. Enterprise, investment in R&D, promotion of innovation and creativity, the right skills for future employment opportunities and a modern infrastructure to support business and consumers must be encouraged. I want to say a little about what the Government are doing to try to deliver in those areas. Encouraging enterprise is crucial to raising productivity, to creating employment and to generating new prosperity in disadvantaged areas throughout Northern Ireland. We are trying to do that through supporting business start-ups and business growth and through promoting enterprise in our schools and in the wider economy. Northern Ireland is lacking in entrepreneurial culture. A lack of skills and fears of failure and of falling into debt have been identified as particular barriers to setting up businesses here. Those concerns are not limited to Northern Ireland, as they are present in other parts of the UK. The accelerating entrepreneurship strategy and the revised curriculum for post-primary education are two strands of our approach to the problem. Since the accelerating entrepreneurship strategy was launched in June 2003, Invest Northern Ireland (INI) has supported more than 10,000 new business start-ups; 140,000 students have participated in the young enterprise programme in schools; more than 11,000 women attended entrepreneurship initiatives; and the Prince’s Trust Northern Ireland has supported 600 new business start-ups by young people. International competitiveness is also a key issue. A good deal has been said about the need to attract tourism and foreign direct investment (FDI) and how we can achieve that. The tourism sector has significant potential for further growth. There is potential for job creation and increased revenue, not least in some of our rural areas. We are keen to build on the success that we have seen in recent years. Investment in tourism infrastructure will be crucial, and members will no doubt be interested in saying more about that later. Much of the recent debate on competitiveness has centred on the contributions of FDI and indigenous investment, and on the potential to secure enhanced performance through greater use of regional fiscal incentives. Major investments must remain an important part of our strategy. FDI particularly helps to build clusters, new skills and sectors and local supply chains. Experience dictates that FDI companies’ productivity is strong, so they can help us in that field as well. Comparisons with other UK regions show that INI has been pretty successful in attracting FDI. Many compare Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland and point to the role that the headline rate of corporation tax has played there. I have heard some of the debate about that, and I note that there is no clear consensus, as far as I am aware, that a reduction in the headline rate of corporation tax would solve all our economic problems. When Economic Development Forum (EDF) members discussed the Industrial Task Force report earlier this year, they agreed that a reduction in corporation tax would be strongly beneficial. They also agreed, however, that it was not a silver bullet. Progress in a broad range of areas is necessary in order to improve the economy. A range of other factors, including an available skilled labour force, contributed to the success that the Republic of Ireland has seen. That said, I note that the Industrial Task Force has commenced further detailed research. I look forward to considering that work on its completion. There is clear consensus that the Northern Ireland economy can no longer compete on the basis of low cost. Innovation in both product and process is central to enabling business to compete and move up the value-added chain, and that is what we must do. The Regional Innovation Strategy for Northern Ireland is important for that to be achieved across all Departments. We are working to increase our levels of innovation. More Northern Ireland businesses need to view R&D as an investment rather than as a cost. One of DETI and INI’s priorities is to encourage more businesses to undertake R&D, which is a key driver of innovation. Not enough firms undertake R&D, and further investment is needed for many of those that do. In addition, DETI, DEL and INI work together to ensure better and stronger links between business and higher and further education and to ensure a greater transfer of knowledge and technology. They are also working to support the universities in Northern Ireland that are focused on those areas of research in which Northern Ireland firms are world class, or have the potential to compete with the very best in the world. We must ensure that there is a stronger regional infrastructure. We also need to maximise the potential of the Northern Ireland Science Park, for example, and the research and technological development centres of excellence. In addition, DETI, with key stakeholders across the public, private and academic sectors, is reviewing existing innovation policy with a view to developing a new framework to address the key challenges that the region faces. A Northern Ireland science industry panel, supported by the Secretary of State’s skills and science fund, is being established to encourage business to take up that challenge and take a central leadership role in exploiting R&D in science and technology. The Government are committed, through the Skills Strategy for Northern Ireland, to raising the skill levels of the Northern Ireland workforce. Key priorities of that strategy are to understand the demand for skills, to improve the quality and relevance of education and training, and to tackle the barriers to employment and employability that keep so many of our people economically inactive. A skills-expert group, informed by the workforce development forums in the 25 sector skills councils, will advise on the medium to long-term skills needs of Northern Ireland. The skills and science fund is providing an additional £35 million to help address the problems of economic activity, which is a tremendously important issue. The overall purpose of the package is to enhance investment in skills and training programmes for employment. The objective is to tackle economic inactivity and increase the skills of the working-age population. The right skills need to be developed and nurtured the entire way through the education system, and we must make sure that we turn our attention to that. We are particularly concerned about the lack of basic skills and the need to promote lifelong learning, so that if an individual misses one chance it is not the end of the line for them. The revised curriculum, beginning with foundation stage, exists to ensure that children leave primary school with a strong grasp of basic literacy, numeracy and ICT skills, enabling them to take full advantage of post-primary education. There is no doubt that, in many respects, our secondary education system has great strengths. However, the subgroup will be aware that a high proportion — one quarter — of the workforce in Northern Ireland has no qualifications. It is pleasing to note that the number of pupils leaving school without any qualifications is falling, but we need to tackle the legacy of the past and make sure that we also upskill those who are already in the workforce. Infrastructure is the fourth driver of the ‘Economic Vision for Northern Ireland’. The provision and maintenance of a quality, modern infrastructure is vital to a more sustainable economy. It is vital that Northern Ireland’s economic infrastructure be fit for the purpose of improving our economic performance. It is set to benefit from a £16 billion investment programme over the next decade, harnessed and delivered by the Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland. That will include spending £3 billion on schools, £2 billion on the roads’ network, £800 million on further and higher education, and £500 million on the rail and bus networks. Of course, DETI also has a key role to play in the development of Northern Ireland’s infrastructure in energy, telecommunications and tourism. I have no doubt that members may wish to talk to me about that in more detail. In each of the four economic drivers — enterprise, innovation and R&D, skills, and infrastructure — the Government have a coherent package of policies designed to address those weaknesses. However, I must emphasise that the challenge is not for the Government alone; I strongly believe that the private sector needs to continue to play its part and take on a leadership role in some of this. Its partnership role is embodied in the Economic Development Forum, which I chair. The business community, trades unions, universities, voluntary organisations, Government and, of course, local political parties are working together to achieve the common goal of a more sustainable Northern Ireland economy via the implementation of that vision. However, partnership extends beyond the confines of Northern Ireland. Local firms must be more outward looking in respect of trade and collaboration. Many opportunities exist for further joint working between UK regions and with the South of Ireland. That is why the Secretary of State has attached considerable importance to North/South co-operation where mutual benefits are to be gained. 10.30 am I will conclude with the subgroup’s third term of reference: how an economic package or peace dividend might contribute to economic regeneration, and how that might be delivered. The structure of the package is not the only factor; its delivery must be considered also. In particular, fiscal incentives must be considered within the context of EU competition policy and must be able to be technically and practically implemented in a way that will fulfil their role, yet not be detrimental to other UK regions. Proposals should not solely concern short-term gain; they should consider the longer-term impact and how they will deliver the economy that we want in Northern Ireland. Assuming that those hurdles can be overcome, it is logical that any set of proposals should be constructed around the four key economic drivers identified in the Economic Vision for Northern Ireland. As the Northern Ireland Business Alliance highlighted, there is no quick fix — if there were, we would have used it by now. All partners need to play a full role in meeting the challenges ahead. I look forward to considering the subgroup’s report. The subgroup has been working tremendously hard over the summer, and I look forward to seeing its report. I hope that my short overview of the key points has been helpful. With my officials, I will, of course, do my best to further assist the subgroup in any discussion. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Thank you very much, Minister, for your presentation. We will take questions on DETI, followed by questions on DEL and DE. Ms Gildernew: You are very welcome, Minister. My questions cut across Departments, but I will start with a question relating to DETI. During its deliberations, several presentations were made to the subgroup. One showed that there are poor levels of educational attainment and fewer higher earners west of the Bann. One impediment is the infrastructure in that area, which has been a major factor in its not being able to keep up with the overall economy. The border is a further impediment, especially in my constituency, where areas are cut off from their natural hinterlands. Is anything being done to identify particular economic difficulties in rural areas, especially west of the Bann? An increase in FDI, for example, would probably not filter down to those areas unless there was a concerted effort to redress the balance. With the Chairman’s indulgence, my second question concerns education. A major contributor to the economy of the Twenty-six Counties is its education system. The need to upgrade third-level education policy was identified early, and many regional colleges have specialised in science and technology, which has made the workforce more attractive to foreign investors. Are there any plans to harmonise our third-level sector? We have an excellent third-level education sector. I work closely with the further education colleges located in my constituency. For instance, very good work is being done in Fermanagh College, East Tyrone College of Further and Higher Education and Armagh College of Further and Higher Education. Are there plans to examine the model in the Twenty-six Counties, with the colleges that specialise in science and technology, so that we can have a workforce that is skilled and able to compete for investment? Ms Eagle: My officials may reply on some of the detailed points. I emphasise that the Government do not want people to be left behind. We do not want a developing economy and increasing success that will leave pockets of deprivation and that will leave economically inactive areas and people behind. A key part of what we wish to push for is the inclusion of everyone in the future success for which we are aiming and striving through improving our economic performance. That is important in areas such as the north-west, where there are disadvantages that make matters more difficult. That is important also in pockets of deprivation within cities, for example, where there are high levels of unemployment and economic inactivity. From Government’s point of view, it is tremendously important to ensure that we harness and use the talents of all Northern Ireland’s people, not just those whose talents and efforts are easiest to harness. We must ensure that, as we go forward, our skills strategy — and the way in which we give opportunities to those who may have been excluded from the labour market — takes that into account. As for infrastructure in the north-west, members will know about recently announced North West Gateway Initiative. It is a joint effort between North and South to bring better development to the north-west and to overcome some of the infrastructural and other barriers to which Ms Gildernew referred. The initiative is designed to provide a comprehensive framework within which we can co-ordinate improvement to infrastructure, life chances and jobs, etc, for people in the north-west. We are working hard on that initiative between the Governments, North and South. Mr Stephen Quinn (Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment): On Ms Gildernew’s general point, the Minister stated that we do not wish to leave anyone behind. The formal expression of that wish is the Regional Development Strategy, which is a commitment to balanced regional development across Northern Ireland. That strategy sets out a policy framework within which, for example, the Regional Transportation Strategy was first developed, during the time of the Assembly. Subsequently, the Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland, which is the main mechanism through which infrastructure investment is organised, was developed within that framework. The Government would stress that they often hear the argument that if one were to look at the figures and the distribution of investment under the Regional Transportation Strategy, and, subsequently, the Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland, they would see that they are balanced, and that the west of the Bann gets a fair shake. There is always room to debate whether this or that scheme should go forward more quickly or at a higher level than might otherwise be the case, but I have heard a fair bit of argument that seems fairly convincing that, certainly on transportation infrastructure, if nothing else, distribution of investment across the region is fair. Focusing on the DETI points about economic development, when I last appeared before the subgroup, I made the point that part of Invest Northern Ireland’s business plan requires it to set targets for certain levels of investment in New TSN areas. That is specifically designed to address Ms Gildernew’s concern, which is that there might be a natural tendency for economic investment to gravitate towards the large centres. In fact, not only does Invest Northern Ireland set those targets, it meets them and, occasionally, exceeds them, so there is a concerted attempt, at an operational level, to address balanced regional development through economic development. Ms Gildernew: Presently, as you know, Mr Quinn, the motorway stops at Dungannon. As far as I can see, there is not an equitable spend on infrastructure. It is obvious, from looking at a map, where the infrastructure goes and where it stops. Also, west of the Bann, there has been a huge decrease in the roads maintenance budget. That will have an impact. We have clearly seen businesses leave. Businesses go where the roads are, and people go where the jobs are. I am concerned that the west could become an economic wasteland if there is not a concerted attempt to link Belfast through the west with Sligo and Donegal, with everyone receiving the knock-on benefits of that. Mr Quinn: Infrastructure maintenance cuts probably apply across the region. They are not unique, either in location or intensity, to the west of the Bann. I am from Enniskillen, so I understand entirely your point about the motorway. However, the investment strategy provides for some investment in the A4 beyond Dungannon. Ms Gildernew: Some investment in the A4 has been made, but the strategy does not go far enough. Mr Quinn: I shall leave my departmental remit and go back into Department for Regional Development (DRD) mode, but did a Minister not say something recently about the Enniskillen bypass? Ms Gildernew: Yes; on its own, the Enniskillen bypass is all well and good, but getting people to Enniskillen so that they can benefit from it is another matter. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will stick with educational matters. Dr Birnie: Thank you Chairman, and thank you, Minister, for coming. I have two questions. Recommendation 9 of our report refers to the fact that no single Department has the authority — or overlordship — to drive regional economic development. Some might point to the fact that the regional economic strategy, which was supposed to develop out of the Economic Vision for Northern Ireland, is roughly a year late. Therefore, is the argument behind the subgroup’s recommendation fair? I note that you described the local economy as “unsustainable”. Is that a fair comment? I am tempted also to ask whether the Secretary of State was fair in last night’s ‘Belfast Telegraph’ when he described the schooling system as “an economic disaster”. If unsustainability refers to the fact that the Northern Ireland economy receives a net transfer from the Treasury, I put it to you that you would also have to argue that the economies of Scotland, Wales and the north of England are similarly unsustainable because they also receive net transfers from HM Treasury. Ms Eagle: When I said “unsustainable”, I was not referring to the fact that there is a net Treasury transfer or that the Barnett formula applies in some parts of the UK but not others. I was referring to the balance in which 60% of economic activity is undertaken in the public sector and 40% is in the private sector. That is unsustainable, and we need to change it. However, that is easy to say but not so easy to do. Therefore, I am not arguing that unsustainability equals having any kind of net transfer from the Exchequer. The Secretary of State’s comments — which I strongly endorse — about the education system’s being “an economic disaster” referred to the fact that 24% of Northern Ireland’s current workforce has no qualifications and that children, especially those from the more deprived sections of society, are still leaving school with no qualifications. Thankfully, however, that figure is declining. This is an economy in which we are all seeking a step-change improvement in activity and output and for which we must create many jobs over and above employment trend increases. To affect the shift from 60% public-sector activity and 40% private-sector activity to something rather different, we must exploit the potential efforts and talents of all our people. I suspect that many believe that that shift is desirable; however, I have not yet seen all the Committee’s recommendations, so I do not quite know what it has said. The Northern Ireland economy is quite small, and we cannot sustain leaving out of economic activity those people who are of working age and unable to contribute. Those people have the talent, capacity and will to contribute. The Secretary of State was referring to the fact that people who are at the bottom end of society do not gain qualifications and, over time, have not succeeded in our current school system. That is the disaster. If we are going to make these step changes, which we all agree are needed, to harness everyone’s abilities, it is simply not sustainable for people to continue to fail in the school system. I believe strongly that if we are to improve the economy, we must make the system succeed for everybody to exploit the potential of all our people. 10.45 am It is not just about the children of today and tomorrow; we cannot leave behind those who have been failed by the school system in the past. Half of those people who are economically inactive and are of working age have no qualifications, and 24% of the workforce has no qualifications. That level of economic inactivity must be linked to the fact that those people have no qualifications, and if we want to succeed as we aspire to, that cannot continue. I think that that was the point that the Secretary of State was making. There is no argument about the fact that the top end of the school system in Northern Ireland works extremely well and provides good graduates and good quality staff for economic activity. However, too many of those people are employed in the public sector, and too few opt for entrepreneurial careers or jobs in the private sector. We waste the talent and opportunities of too many of our people. Ms Ritchie: Minister and officials, you are very welcome to the subgroup. The Minister mentioned the importance of the structure and delivery of an economic package. Have the Minister, the Secretary of State and her other colleagues on the ministerial team given any thought to the components of that economic dividend or financial package? Would additional money be given as a financial incentive to establish an Executive and to restructure the economy and regenerate Northern Ireland, or would that money come from departmental underspend, or from a possible sale of land, such as Belfast harbour? What discussions has the Minister held with her colleague who has responsibility for the Department for Regional Development and the Department of the Environment about the possible delays in processing planning applications for business and economic development? What discussions has she had on the need to address the infrastructure deficit and the need to develop the economic opportunities identified by the collaborative investigations and report into the all-island spatial planning strategies, namely the regional development strategy that Stephen Quinn referred to, and the national spatial strategy produced by the Republic of Ireland? The collaborative strategy was produced some months ago. Ms Eagle: I am looking forward to the subgroup’s comments on the financial aspect mentioned in its terms of reference. The subgroup’s report will be a basis on which discussions can proceed. I will not be drawn into listing a set of meetings that I may or may not have attended. However, the issue will continue following the work of the subgroup. The subgroup has an advantage over me in that members have seen the report and have in their minds the recommendations that will be made. I have not seen the report, but I am looking forward to reading the subgroup’s recommendations. I am sure that they will form an important basis for ongoing discussion, and that is about as much as members will drag out of me today. Ms Ritchie: I had hoped to drag more out of you. Ms Eagle: I accept that, but I am afraid that that is about as far as I can go. Ms Ritchie: Chairman, could I suggest to the Minister that it is an either/or situation? Either the Secretary of State and his group of Ministers, of which she is one, have given no thought to this; or, more likely, they have given thought to it, but she does not wish to discuss their thoughts with the subgroup at this stage. Perhaps the Government are using departmental underspend for that purpose. Ms Eagle: I am not going to be dragged into that debate. I am looking forward to seeing the subgroup’s recommendations, and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to go any further. I do not blame Ms Ritchie for trying to get me to go further, but I hope that she can understand my reluctance. Ms Ritchie: I am a trier. Ms Eagle: I know Ms Ritchie will not agree with or approve of my stance, but I hope that she at least understands it. Mr McNarry: Would it be in order for the Minister to write to the subgroup when she has read the report? Then we could read — Ms Eagle: I am certain that there will be discussions between yourselves, as MLAs and local politicians, and Government Ministers in all Departments, and with the Secretary of State, on the issues at the centre of the report’s recommendations. It is work that we will all refer back to in the next few months and discuss in great detail. With respect to planning, I am not the Minister responsible — and one has to be thankful for small mercies. However, as a Minister, and the chair of the Economic Development Forum, I hear many views and have some understanding of the many issues with the planning application process and the delays that can arise. My colleague, who is responsible for planning, has, of course, a greater understanding of it. Mr Quinn may be more up to date than me on all-island issues. Mr Quinn: When the British-Irish Intergovernmental Council (BIIC) met in July, it commissioned an audit of existing North/South economic co-operation and an examination of where scope for further co-operation might lie. The audit will cover a range of matters such as business and trade promotion, energy, and telecommunications. In July, the intention to have further joint trade missions was announced. When the Taoiseach went to India earlier this year, a number of Northern Ireland firms participated in that joint trade mission. Further joint trade missions to Canada and Russia will take place soon, and that kind of co-operation is likely to develop. In July, BIIC asked for a comprehensive report to be prepared by October on the scope for existing and potential co-operation between North and South. That work is continuing intensively between relevant Departments and business people. Mr Paisley Jnr: Minister, you are most welcome, and thank you for your presentation. No doubt, we will want to consider some of those issues. I want to deal with two cross-cutting issues, and I will try to be neither cross nor cutting. At the strategic level, it is important that a positive message goes out about Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is absolute folly for the Government to speak about the problems of Northern Ireland in a way that demonstrates that it is a failed economy, a failed enterprise or a failed opportunity. People listen to Government. People outside Northern Ireland are listening to the Government, and if they hear that negative message coming down from the Secretary of State, no matter how it is intended, it will tell potential investors that the Government think the place is a basket case, and they, therefore, should not bother with it. China and India have the worst pay rates and conditions for workers, but one never hears their Government Ministers telling us how bad their economies are. All one hears is how positive and wonderful those economies are. The Minister will agree that, despite the problems, Government must constantly send that sort of positive message about Northern Ireland. We must reach out more to countries where although opportunities exist, we do not exploit them. I am thinking of China. Recently, I spoke to the British Ambassador to China and his chargé d’affaires. In the past three and a half years, there has not been a single trade delegation from Northern Ireland to that country. China is the biggest single opportunity in the world, yet more investors from Yorkshire have visited it than from this island. A person who has never been to Northern Ireland runs the agency to promote Northern Ireland in China from an office in Malaysia. The agency is trying to promote Northern Ireland to the Chinese from a country towards which China is hostile. There is an opportunity for us to project a positive message about Northern Ireland and to reach out to other countries, but it is not being taken. I would also like you to address the issue of impediments to progress and economic opportunity. Our report says that there is too much Government bureaucracy and too little delivery — many witnesses shared that sentiment; that delays in planning approvals are frustrating economic opportunities; and that there is a growing realisation that public services must focus more on supporting the economy. There is something sick at the heart of Government machinery when businessmen tell us that the economy has lost over £1 billion of investment in the past three years because planning regulations and red tape have prevented commercial and entrepreneurial spirit from flourishing. What are the Government going to do about that? Ms Eagle: It is important that we be positive and do not send out negative messages about Northern Ireland. I hope that my presentation did not give that impression. I started by listing some great successes and I said that it is important that we recognise those. It is fine for the business community and stakeholders to debate how best to go forward economically in the medium-to-long term, but that is not to suggest that the Northern Ireland economy is a basket case and needs to tear everything up and start from scratch. I agree that it is important that positive messages be sent out. The Government do their best to ensure that everyone from the Secretary of State down sends out such messages. With regard to outreach, I do not know the specifics about China, but I will ask questions about it, because the situation there does not sound great. Nevertheless, Northern Ireland has been a success, and INI and its predecessors deserve a great deal of credit. We have had great success in attracting FDI to Northern Ireland. Since it was established in 2002, INI has encouraged over £2 billion into the Northern Ireland economy. In fact, in regional terms, Northern Ireland is punching well above its weight. Its population share would suggest that it ought to have about 2·7% of UK FDI, but it has achieved about 10%. A lot of that is down to the efforts of INI, so I do not wish to suggest that it has been deficient. We can always aspire to do better, and that is an important part of ambition. I will not go into specifics, but I have some sympathy with the fact that people often feel that there is too much bureaucracy. I am not responsible for planning issues and that area of Government. However, I have heard what members have said, and I will report that back to the Minister responsible for those matters. It is important to strike a proper balance between, on the one hand, safeguarding the environment and ensuring that standards in development are correct and, on the other hand, ending up with delays that cost investment or development. Bureaucracy issues are often raised when one is dealing with Government. Some people will complain that one person’s basic minimum standard is another person’s bureaucracy and red tape. We need to strike a balance and debate where the line ought to be drawn. It is important to realise that it is not simply the job of Government to remove regulations and assume that everything will be hunky-dory. We need to ensure that we have more entrepreneurial spirit and that the private sector and business leaders take more responsibility for innovation and R&D. They should consider R&D as an investment, rather than a cost. Everyone in Northern Ireland must raise their game — not only the Government, but the private sector, business leaders. 11.00 am Mr Paisley Jnr: I agree that the Minister is neither responsible for day-to-day planning issues nor personally responsible for many of the issues mentioned this morning. However, in the big strategic picture, she is responsible. The buck stops with her; not with anyone in this room. Local investors, and those who might like to inwardly investment, are turned off by the Government’s regulations. We should compare our regulations with those of our neighbours. Before this meeting, I spoke to Margaret Ritchie about Ikea. Ikea may want to come to Northern Ireland, but it is turned off because there is so much bureaucracy. The Republic of Ireland had the same bureaucracy, but it changed the law overnight and invited Ikea to open a store there. Hotels have been seeking planning permission for four to five years, but they have not yet been built. Even the Minister mentioned the importance of getting the tourism enterprise up and running. The regulations are a huge turn-off. The Minister must take a grip of all Departments for which she is responsible, inform them of the regulations and the shortcuts that must be taken to ensure that Northern Ireland can start to deliver for investors. Mr Quinn: It is worth putting on record that Peter Hain led a successful trade and investment delegation to India in April, returning with a couple of substantial agreements on deals and investments. Mr Paisley Jnr: I did not mention India. Mr Quinn: In addition, the then Minister, Angela Smith, visited in Hong Kong and China during November and December last year. Mr Paisley Jnr: The British ambassador and the Consulate General in Guangzhou — the biggest city in the south of China — said that they had not even heard of a trade delegation from Northern Ireland. That is a bad message for a Department that has 86 people working in it. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Members are permitted to ask only one question; otherwise we will run out of time. Mr Quinn: Mr Paisley is right that DETI has an overarching responsibility for business regulation. The Department intends to review the ‘Better Regulation Strategy’, which was published in late 2002, and will initiate that consultation during this calendar year. The fact that the Department is doing that four years after the strategy was published indicates that it is not complacent about the need for better regulation. Mr Ford: I welcome the Minister and her team. Further to Margaret Ritchie’s comments, the Minister said that she looked forward to reading our recommendations on fiscal issues, but that she did not wish to discuss them at present. The subgroup should therefore record its gratitude to the Minister for saying that she will return to discuss them in the future. I will now extract my tongue from my cheek. I wanted to follow up on some of the points that the Minister made about the development of enterprise. I am an MLA for South Antrim, which, historically, has had low unemployment rates by UK standards. Until the 1980s, that was because there were many skilled jobs, particularly in the man-made textiles industries. However, there is now a problem with the many jobs in lower grade services and retailing. The Minister has already highlighted the problem of declining GVA per employee as opposed to increasing GVA, and it seems that we are not making use of the skills in our workforce. Many people are underemployed. When DETI is reviewing innovation policy, how will it enable skilled people who have jobs that do not demand all their abilities to set up their own businesses? There is not a major problem with those who are unemployed, because there are grounds to encourage them into enterprise, but it is a leap in the dark for those who are underemployed to set up a business. One is less likely to do that if one is half comfortable in one’s present employment. Ms Eagle: That is an important point, which links, in part, to what I said about the need to develop a more entrepreneurial culture. I outlined some statistics in my presentation that show the achievements of our strategy to develop a more entrepreneurial spirit since its introduction in September 2003. That is the way forward, and it must be encouraged. I accept what Mr Ford said about it being more difficult for someone who is half comfortable in his or her job to set up a business. However, if we can provide more support and ideas for setting up businesses, particularly when the inevitable blockages or difficult situations arise, progress will be made. I certainly agree that there are not enough business start-ups, that the SME economy is not large enough and that many people who could be successful will not dip a toe in the water. Our strategy has, to an extent, tried to address those issues. I accept that more needs to be done. Mr Quinn: I would make a couple of points. First, the issue is not so much that people are underemployed, but that they are employed in sectors such as construction and agriculture, where there is relatively low-value added. That has a depressing effect on regional GVA. There is, therefore, a need to change the economic structure in order to increase employment in high value-added sectors, relative to low value-added sectors. That must be part of the strategy. Secondly, the proportion of business expenditure on R&D is low and must be increased. That is a concern. However, it is a catch-22 situation. One reason for the low business expenditure on R&D is because Northern Ireland is a small-and medium-sized enterprise (SME) economy. SMEs tend to view R&D as a cost rather than an investment. We endeavour to change that culture. Invest Northern Ireland’s programmes, such as Compete and Proof of Concept, try to address that problem, but Mr Ford is absolutely right to put his finger on it. Mr McNarry: Good morning, Minister. I trust that you are refreshed after your break. I am not surprised that you have not had the opportunity to read the report. I commend it to you. I assume that you have been briefed on it. Ms Eagle: I am aware that it was considered by the Preparation for Government Committee yesterday, but I have not been briefed on its content. I do not believe that any of my Departments have seen it. Mr McNarry: We have been pressed for time. However, my understanding was that our meeting with you was delayed so that the subgroup could gather as much evidence as possible to discuss with you. I am aware that there are time limitations. I have, however, a few questions on education, and one on enterprise, trade and investment. We have moved away from the original order. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are pushed for time. Mr McNarry: I understand that. The subgroup has recommended that Northern Ireland should have a knowledge bank similar to that in Wales. Does the Minister support extra resources being made available in order to secure a knowledge bank for Northern Ireland? The Department of Education’s business plan for 2005-2006 does not mention science. We find that astonishing. Recommendation 7 of the subgroup’s report calls for the creation of a dedicated post in the Department with overall responsibility for driving improvement in science education. How long would it take to implement that recommendation? I want to ask a question on recommendations 5 and 21. I understand that it is difficult for the Minister, as she has not read the report. Those recommendations reflect the evidence provided to the subgroup in both oral and written submissions, which clearly attributed factors such as underachievement and poor literacy and numeracy skills, which are holding back the Northern Ireland economy, to failings in the education system. The Minister has addressed that in some of her earlier comments. However, what assurances can she give to small businesses, large businesses and industry that the education reforms will satisfactorily address and reduce the effect of those drawbacks on the Northern Ireland economy? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The subgroup’s report is not actually in print. The PFG Committee is having it printed. Mr McNarry: I thought that the Minister might have had the benefit of receiving our recommendations or even the report’s executive summary. They are not secret. I understand the Minister’s position and, for once, I sympathise with her. Ms Eagle: Thank you. Having had a preview of the subgroup’s recommendations, I am looking forward to reading the report even more than I was when I came to the meeting. I am grateful that Mr McNarry understands my predicament. As I have not had a chance to read the executive summary or the recommendations, it is difficult to give precise responses to some of the specific and detailed points. As regards the first point, I do not quite know what a knowledge bank is, so I will have to respond on that point after I have seen the subgroup’s deliberations. Mr McNarry: How will you respond, Minister? Ms Eagle: I am certain that there will be many mechanisms through which Ministers — not just me — will respond to the report’s recommendations. If it would be helpful, I am happy to write to the subgroup to answer the questions that, not having seen the report, I am unable to answer today. Mr McNarry: Do you know what a knowledge bank is per se, irrespective of what it says in the subgroup’s report? Ms Eagle: The description can refer to a number of things. I hope that Mr NcNarry will forgive me but, not having seen the report, it is difficult to deal with the point in detail. That is not to say that I will not do my best to accommodate the subgroup in an appropriate manner at a later stage. Again, not having seen the report, I am not quite clear whether members envisage the extra post being in DE or DETI. Mr McNarry: The post would be in DE. Ms Eagle: I will respond in writing to the detailed points raised by Mr McNarry. Mr Woods: A member of the Education and Training Inspectorate sits on a science and technology committee and feeds back to DE issues on the promotion of science and technology in the curriculum. As Mr McNarry said, there is no specific post, but that does not mean that the issue is not on our radar. Mr McNarry: There is a fear that Government will take science and similar subjects off the curriculum, and that is why we made that point. What assurances can the Minister give that Government reforms will reverse the failures that have been identified across the board by everyone from the business sector? Ms Eagle: I strongly believe that using curriculum reform to tackle underachievement at the lower end of the ability scale, widening the opportunities available to all children to include professional and technical subjects, and promoting collaboration between schools through the entitlement framework will ensure a much better capacity to tackle the skills shortages that business people highlight as a problem and to cater to all ability ranges. Children, who in the past have failed because their talents have not been reflected by the academic curriculum, will have the chance to succeed. I believe that the reforms will achieve that. 11.15 am Mr Simpson: I thank the Minister for attending and her opening comments. Although she may not have read the 21 recommendations, the Minister’s researchers must have done some work because many of her opening comments hit on matters on which the subgroup has agreed. In saying that, however, one party does not know to what it has agreed. Nevertheless, the vast majority of us have a goal for Northern Ireland’s economy; some of us know what we are talking about. The Minister referred to trade and industry and said that corporation tax, for example, is not a silver bullet. The subgroup and I accept that, but corporation tax is part of a cocktail of measures that could be introduced in Northern Ireland to attract inward investment and to help businesses to become established. The chairman of the Opposition’s policy group on economic competitiveness, Mr John Redwood, said that the Conservative Party would be in favour of different rates of corporation tax across the United Kingdom. Corporation tax is not the only answer, but everyone would agree that it would help. I have declared an interest in the manufacturing sector. We must get to grips with capping industrial rates. Last Thursday, I spoke to Minister Hanson in his constituency office, and I fear that the working group on industrial rating, which he will chair, will have a predetermined outcome and that we will get nothing from it. It is an exercise, and the Government are bent on forcing the full rate on the manufacturing industry. That would have a devastating effect in Northern Ireland and would destroy the manufacturing sector. That issue must be addressed. The Minister mentioned also young enterprise programmes. I have referred to the funding of those programmes several times in the House of Commons. A representative of Invest Northern Ireland assured me that an extra funding package has been introduced, but neither I, nor those people who organise the programmes, have seen any evidence of that. I would like some details on that. I know that we are stuck for time, but I have one final question. What is the Government’s strategy for the next 10 years to create the 140,000 jobs that, if we are to believe the figures supplied by the Northern Ireland Business Alliance, are necessary? The subgroup could sit until next September and make all the recommendations that it likes. All the information could be put into papers, and Ministers, such as Ms Eagle, could exchange pleasantries with members of the subgroup. However, unless there is action from Government, we are totally wasting our time. The longer it goes on, the more businesses will wane. The manufacturing sector is going down the tubes, and, because of its corporation tax and other incentives, inward investment is going to our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland needs action, not talk; and it needs it now. Ms Eagle: With respect, there has been some action in Northern Ireland. I said earlier that, in UK regional terms, Northern Ireland has been punching above its weight in, for example, foreign direct investment. That is as a result of increased action and money and of the work of Invest Northern Ireland and Government and their partners, such as local business people and local politicians. As Mr Simpson’s colleague said, I do not think that Northern Ireland should undersell itself too much. I understand Mr Simpson’s concerns about the manufacturing sector. It is a problem throughout the UK. Where will 140,000 extra jobs come from? That is a lot of jobs. We all have a role to play. It is a significant task to ensure that we can meet those aspirations and that we can jointly agree the number of jobs and the time period in which they will be created. It will not be easy. We must all work together — local politicians, local business and the Government, as long as we are responsible for dealing with these issues. We must ensure that we spend wisely to get the most from our money, that we boost our economy as much as possible and that we stop failing — and writing off — those who have not succeeded at school. We must all take action to try to get our growth rate off its current trajectory. That will be a significant challenge. It is not simply about what the Government will do; it is about what we all will do. The subgroup’s work is valuable in that it may help reach some kind of consensus on the best way forward over the medium term. Mr Simpson: What about the funding for the enterprise programme? Mr Quinn: That is essentially a matter of fact. Chairman, may I reply to Mr Simpson direct on that at a later stage? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Three members have yet to speak, and we are pushed for time. Dr McDonnell: I thank the Minister and her colleagues for attending this morning, and I apologise for missing the first couple of minutes of her presentation. I also thank her for her kinds words on the subgroup’s report and its potential. She realises that some of us have spent the summer working on it. This morning, the Minister heard at first hand a positive approach from a positive DUP — it was worth working through the summer to create that. I have no doubt that as a result of Mr Paisley Jnr’s positive efforts this morning the Minister will find herself out of a job on 25 November. Mr Paisley Jnr: That is because I aspire to have a house like yours one day, Alasdair. [Laughter.] Dr McDonnell: I could not help but draw attention to that positive DUP approach because it is an unfamiliar phenomenon. I have a few quick questions, the first of which is quite simple and straightforward. Although the Minister has not seen the detail of the report, does she plan to pick up on some of its ideas and recommendations between now and the restoration of devolution? The subgroup spent a lot time chewing over R&D, and I refer the Minister to paragraphs 30, 39 to 42, 102 to 107, and 150 of the report. However, the problem with R&D is that it has become a catch-all term, referring to something that nobody quite understands. It is bundled into a corner and becomes the perfect solution that we can never quite reach. Are there plans to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to engage in R&D? There is an opportunity and a need to increase efficiency and effectiveness in small and medium-sized enterprises by introducing them to R&D and making it easy for them to access it. More importantly, are there any serious plans to ensure that applied R&D within universities is put to work? We can chew around all day about bringing in a few extra tourists or opening an extra coffee shop in Bushmills or whatever. However, my biggest frustration with the economy is that there is a vast brains trust within our universities, and a vast potential to create intellectual property, and thus wealth. However, by and large, that is not happening — or, where it is happening, it is only a trickle. I welcome the Minister this morning because she has her fingers in a number of pies; in DE, DEL and DETI. If she has not already done so, I urge her to find a mechanism to reward universities. I make no apology for advocating the American approach: its universities generate wealth and spin out businesses. Has she any plans to do anything about that? Ms Eagle: Specific references, as well as recommendations, to the report have now been made, and I am even more at a disadvantage. Mr Paisley Jnr: I feel a leak coming on. Ms Eagle: I hope that the report will be published soon and that it will not have to be leaked. Mr McNarry: You can have it now if you like. Ms Eagle: I will ask Mr Quinn to deal with the question of applied R&D. As to whether the Government will leave the subgroup’s report until devolution and let the Assembly deal with it, good ideas and ways forward should be picked up when they are generated. I see no reason to leave it to moulder on a shelf. I hope that the subgroup and the Government continue to engage in sensible ways at various levels to take forward whatever is in the report. Mr Quinn: Before I deal with applied R&D, I will return to Dr McDonnell’s point about SMEs. Such businesses can contact INI to see whether it can offer any opportunities. INI has a number of relevant programmes. I mentioned earlier Compete and Proof of Concept; I doubt that SMEs would be interested in the latter, but the former is one of several INI programmes that are worth considering. INI is certainly open to talking to businesses about how they might productively increase their business expenditure on R&D. In relation to further education, the Minister referred to the fact that DETI, DEL and INI are working together to strengthen the links between higher and further education and business. All those interests are represented on the EDF, which the Minister chairs. We are also trying to ensure that support to the Northern Ireland universities is focused on areas of research that have productive economic potential. We are working with the grain of what Dr McDonnell suggested. Dr McDonnell: We are not getting the spin-outs. Mr Quinn: There are some. Dr McDonnell mentioned a particularly glowing example the last time that I met the subgroup; QUBIS and others have been a success. However, Dr McDonnell is right in that it has been a trickle rather than a torrent. Mr McCarthy: David Simpson said that manufacturing is going “down the tubes”. In my constituency, agriculture and fishing are going in the same direction. All that we are left with is tourism. Our coastline is under real threat at present. Does the Minister agree that the coastline and beaches are precious and are major attractions to visitors and tourists? Some stretches of coastline are in the ownership of public authorities, such as in my constituency. Would the Minister discourage those authorities from selling coastal land, as it will inevitably fall into the hands of developers, thereby denying the public and visitors enjoyment of a special amenity? The Minister said that she was not responsible for planning, but surely joined-up government would allow Departments to work together to prevent that happening, so that the tourist industry can survive, and even thrive. Ms Eagle: Tourism will be an important part of the future here. It is already an important sector in the economy, representing 8% of total jobs. Given that tourism is underdeveloped, there is clear potential for it to significantly increase. It is important that we take these issues seriously. Any area that is underdeveloped for tourism and decides to encourage more tourism will end up with the difficulty of balancing development with natural beauty. The natural beauty of the environment — of which the coastline is an important part — is undoubtedly one of Northern Ireland’s greatest tourism assets. Moreover, if tourists are to be encouraged to come here, there must be places for them to stay and facilities for them to use. An appropriate balance must always be struck between, on the one hand, the natural beauty of the country attracting people and, on the other hand, their having somewhere to stay and something to do. It is not appropriate for me to decide what that balance should be; local communities need to decide that. I do not want to get involved in any arguments about who might own which piece of natural beauty. Undoubtedly, local people will have views, and locally elected, democratically accountable councils, if they are sensible, will listen to the views of the electorate. 11.30 am Mr Quinn: May I add a point to the Minister’s comments? The development-planning and development-control processes are designed to achieve the kind of balance that is being discussed. Under the Review of Public Administration, responsibility for most of those processes will go to the revised local councils, so there is scope for locally elected politicians to get to grips with the issues of concern. Mr McElduff: I welcome the Minister and her colleagues. I support Michelle Gildernew’s comments about historical discrimination and regional disparity west of the Bann. David Simpson argued for a lower rate of corporation tax in the North. The logic of adopting a single-island, harmonised approach to corporation tax is staring us in the face. To erect political barriers when we are trying to solve economic problems is plainly silly. That is a political rather than an economic approach. We should ensure that the people of the North’s interests are put first and that a level playing field is created with the rest of Ireland. Any other approach would be silly. I want to take this opportunity to say to the DUP that it could assume the reins of power in late November, or even before that, and perhaps take the education, employment and learning, and enterprise, trade and investment portfolios. The DUP should not shirk its responsibility. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Can we keep to questions to the Minister? Mr McNarry: Well done, Barry. That was all over the place. Ms Eagle: I hear the point that is being made, although I do not get the sense that there is consensus in the subgroup. However, in view of what I have heard today, I shall look closely at your recommendations on corporation tax. I shall be interested to see what the report says. Mr Quinn: I remind the subgroup that the comparison of the two headline rates is not the be-all and end-all of the matter. Most Northern Ireland businesses have SME status, and the rate of corporation tax for SMEs is 19%, not 30%. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): One issue that came out of the subgroup’s discussions is how SMEs could become exporters and more entrepreneurial. Is there any way in which your Departments, along with Invest NI, could come together to make that happen? Ms Eagle: That is important, because the domestic economy is too small to support the kind of growth for which we are aiming. Therefore, being outward-looking and internationalist in the way in which home-grown companies do business is a tremendously important part of enabling growth, not just through a reliance on foreign direct investment, but through locally generated investment. Invest NI has quite a good record in that respect. Mr Quinn: Since it was established in 2002, Invest NI has encouraged nearly 500 companies to export for the first time. That is exactly your point, Mr Chairman. It has encouraged about 1,100 existing exporters to enter new markets. If you are asking us whether we agree with what you have proposed, we do — absolutely. In fact, we want to do more in that area, rather like we want to do with R&D. Mr Paisley Jnr: Minister, responsibility for some of what we shall press for in our report will always fall to the Westminster Government, and to the Treasury in particular. What clout does the NIO have with the Treasury to get it to think imaginatively and outside the box when it comes to rejuvenating Northern Ireland? Ms Eagle: That is an important point, as those fiscal issues are excepted matters. I probably have less clout with the Treasury than the NIO does. Debates in Whitehall about those issues are important. Mr Paisley Jnr: Are those issues being flagged up? Ms Eagle: The way in which Whitehall Departments work with each other allows for such issues to be flagged up and debated. The subgroup’s report will greatly assist the NIO and Departments here when they raise those issues in other forums. It will serve as a boost, and that is another reason why I look forward to seeing the report when it finally lands on my desk. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I thank the Minister and her officials for coming this morning to make a presentation and to take so many questions. When you get our report, your responses to it will be important. Thank you. Ms Eagle: Thank you. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We now move on to our next presentation. I welcome representatives of the Youth Forum. After you have made a short presentation, we shall take questions from members. The names that I have before me are Ellen Donnelly and Paddy Campbell. What are your colleagues’ names? Miss Ellen Donnelly (Northern Ireland Youth Forum): They are Helen McNamee and Ruth Porter. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): You are all very welcome. Please do not feel intimidated. Miss Donnelly: That is a bit difficult. Mr McNarry: We are intimidated by you, so do not worry. Miss Donnelly: That is good to know. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): This presentation is being recorded by Hansard. Would you like to begin? Miss Donnelly: Thank you for inviting us here today. I am the chairperson of the Northern Ireland Youth Forum. Mr Paddy Campbell (Northern Ireland Youth Forum): I am the treasurer of the Northern Ireland Youth Forum. Miss Donnelly: There would have been more young people here but for the fact that the schools have started back. It is difficult to ask young people who are really committed to the education process to take time off school in their first week back. We have been asked whether our education system and our schooling prepare us for work, and we have taken are approach to the meeting from that perspective. My experience of school was really good; I got my GCSEs and A levels and am now at university, so I suppose that the system did work for me. I cannot really distinguish between what I learnt in school and where the skills came from that helped me to become the person who I am now. I was very involved in youth work. A lot of the skills that I have developed around teamwork, communication, public speaking and decision-making, which I will use in my work, came from the Youth Forum and other youth activities that I was involved in. School gave me the one-plus-one stuff, the academic stuff, but it did not really give me the opportunity to have that sort of dialogue and to learn those skills that will be helpful in my job. In thinking about what could have been different in school to help me to prepare better, I considered how young people learn and the way that teachers teach. In school, it was all about didactic teaching: we were told to look at the board and write this down. It was about knowledge. However, in the workplace that high-level stuff is not used, except in very specific jobs. How are the necessary skills assessed? For example, in English it is not enough just to be able to write; you also need to be able to talk and listen. Are those skills assessed in school in a balanced way that helps young people realise that there is just as much need to develop them, as there is to develop the written skills? That is one thing that needs to change in schools. Young people should learn in a participative way, so that they get to speak and interact with each other in a way that will help them to develop those skills. I also thought about careers development. I did not really know what career I wanted to follow until a year or two ago, and I feel that I was led into that career. I want to be a youth worker, but I did not have a good knowledge of what other careers are out there. I listened to somebody talking about the business sector and asking how people could be encouraged. Nobody comes into schools and says, “This is my job, I am a manager in a company and these are the things that I want to talk about.” An inventor does not come in and say, “I invented this, and it is really going to help Northern Ireland.” How do you engage with those people who are really passionate about what they do? Whether it is science or business, how do you get those people to inspire young people about the sorts of jobs that are out there? Teaching is an easy option for a lot of people, because they do not know what to do, but more inspiring careers development, concentrating on, as I would call them, unconventional jobs might help those people to live up to their fullest potential and realise that teaching might not be for them. Getting hold of people with those skills and abilities, and those who have the potential to be inventors, would help to inspire the economy. The people who could bring Northern Ireland forward are the people who go off and become teachers because nobody really gives them that guidance. A lot of things could change in schools to help young people to realise their potential. It is also important to say that this is not just about the young people who do not achieve the adequate levels of numeracy and literacy, because the Department of Education does lots of things to help them. However, what about people who go on to do mediocre jobs? Society would say that those people have succeeded because they are teachers or nurses, but what about the things that they could have done instead? How do you work with young people to help them to be the creators and boost Northern Ireland’s economy? Doing that would actually help the economy, as opposed to concentrating on its failures. 11.45 am Mr P Campbell: I agree with everything that Miss Donnelly said. I want to talk about what could be introduced into the education system to prepare people for work. I come from Ardoyne. I went to Hazelwood Integrated College, with Catholics and Protestants, and it was quite an experience for me. At sixth form, I left to go to St Gabriel’s College; a really run-down school with 300 pupils, including six people in the sixth form. That was also quite an experience. I have thought about business skills, and what I would like to be included in the education system in a few years’ time. Minute taking could be taught in English classes, for example. Maths and personal and social education (PSE) classes could teach financial know-how, perhaps in fifth year. That would give pupils an idea of what a credit card is and how interest rates work in order to prepare them for when they reach the age of 18. From our experience, teachers are simply thrown into PSE classes. Teachers think that they are not really part of their jobs. To my fellow pupils and I, PSE was a homework class. Careers advice is also important. In Hazelwood College, everyone in my year had a careers teacher. We were given a personality test, the outcome of which was meant to give us an idea of the jobs that we could do. The outcome was a choice between two jobs, with no other alternative. It did not help me. I did not want to train to be a football or sports coach, which was my outcome. Now, I am now a treasurer on the executive board, so things have changed. Giving young people knowledge about debit cards and credit cards and teaching them financial know-how would help. It would have helped me; I got into a lot of debt when I left school. I have got rid of it all now, but that knowledge would have helped me and many of my friends who have had the same experiences. Mr McNarry: You are very welcome. Thank you very much for coming. We went out of our way to ensure that your generation was represented. We did not think that we could produce a report on the future of the economy in Northern Ireland without hearing your voices. You have articulated the views of your generation very well, and I respect that. I will be interested to read your questions in Hansard, because we need to find the answers. That is positive. Mr Campbell mentioned credit cards. He will be interested to know that our report recommends that an enterprise culture be developed in schools, right from the primary sector. We are on the same wavelength, at least. This is not a subgroup on education, but education is a priority when considering the economy. Mr Campbell outlined his experience. In education, we seem to be heading towards good schools and bad schools. As a politician — and I am sure that I speak for others — bad schools are not acceptable. I take this opportunity to wish you all the best for your futures. I hope that, wherever you find yourselves, you will become stakeholders in Northern Ireland. We are anxious about what we call the brain drain, where a number of young people, for various reasons, leave our country to go elsewhere, and too many of them do not come back. I hope that you will stay and make a fist of it. Speaking as a parent myself, what did your parents see as the impediments or drawbacks to getting you through school? What obstacles did they think confronted you in assessing your employment future? It is very important to address the family aspect of this. Those of us who are parents know how tough it is to get our children through school and university. I wish to see whether you took on board your parents’ thinking. What help did they get from the school to face the challenges that they saw ahead for you? Did they agree when you decided what you wanted to do? I do not wish to get too personal because your reply will appear in Hansard, and I do not want your mum or dad to hit you over the head with the report. However, I am interested in that perspective. Miss Donnelly: I would like to reply to your comment about our being future stakeholders. We are stakeholders already — that is important. The Youth Forum is about young people being stakeholders now, as opposed to in the future. Mr McNarry: That is me put in my place. Miss Donnelly: We would have appreciated having the subgroup’s recommendations before coming here today so that we could have commented on them specifically. My parents found it difficult to support me after primary school, because they did not have the skills to help me with my homework. Then, they did not know what university was all about because they had not gone to university. I suppose that it is difficult for parents who did not have that experience to advise their children. My mum wanted me to try to do better than she did — that was the direction in which she pushed me. My mum could not give me other support in choosing a career — she did not really know enough. Mr P Campbell: With me, there was just one thing: the whole way through my secondary education, my dad told me that experience and attitude were more important than qualifications. Mr McNarry: Thank you for your openness. That is refreshing. Dr McDonnell: A couple of things spring to mind. I welcome you here, and I welcome your constructive criticism. Do you have any channel for articulating that criticism back into the education system, or is this your first opportunity to be heard? Miss Donnelly: When I was at school, there were no such things as schools councils. Dr McDonnell: I am sorry; I am not talking about your school. As a Youth Forum, do you have links to the education system? Miss Donnelly: Yes, the Youth Forum was set up by the Department of Education, and it is linked through the Youth Service to that Department. Dr McDonnell: Do you raise criticisms and ask the questions that you asked this morning with the Department? Miss Donnelly: Not very often. The Youth Forum does not normally get that opportunity because it does not get as much support from the Department of Education as it should. Dr McDonnell: What would it take to get you that support? It is very important that your criticisms and questions be heard, whether they are right or wrong. You said this morning that circles should be completed. I speak for myself, but I am sure that colleagues around the table would be very glad to see the circle completed, because it would be a waste of your time and our time if your criticisms were not grounded somewhere. Secondly, I would like to pick up on the matter of English and the need for lessons in speaking and interacting as much as for reading and writing. Do you have any programmes in that direction within the Youth Forum or within youth organisations? I believe that that is a vital point. All of us round this table arrived here as public representatives with little or no training in public speaking or other required skills, so I am very sympathetic to your point. The abilities to speak publicly and to stand up and perform are as important as being able to interpret. Miss Donnelly: I could harp on about youth work, because I feel passionately that it gives me those sorts of skills. I am also passionate about the funding that youth work receives. Only 1% of the education budget goes towards it, yet I learned the skills about which I am talking through youth work. I feel that youth-work leaders have skills that teachers do not, and we have time to communicate with young people, but there is no support from the education system. Maria Eagle talked today about schools, schools, schools, but youth work is also part of her remit. Youth work is not seen by any part of Government as a specific area in which investment is necessary. I have been with the Northern Ireland Youth Forum for four years, and for the majority of that time, I have harped on about the fact that we do not get enough funding to allow us to engage with young people properly and to gather their thoughts. There is no point in Paddy Campbell and me discussing the views of young people when we do not really represent them — we represent ourselves as individuals. If we are expected to bring young people’s views to Government and engage with them, there must be investment in how we engage with those young people and gather their views. That needs to be a youth-led movement. I do not know whether any of you know that Angela Smith, Maria Eagle’s predecessor, announced the establishment of the Northern Ireland Network for Youth (NINFY). We are working on consultation on that, and we are part of the steering group of young people that is developing what that network will look like and how it will help young people to interact with Government. We must ask how young people can bring their views to Government, but also how Government can consult better with young people on the things on which Government know that they have an agenda. For us, it is important that there be investment in that model so that it will be successful. Ms Ritchie: It is most unusual for us to take evidence from anybody under the age of 20. Your presence is welcome and uplifting, and it is refreshing to hear different views. Given that you have just completed secondary education, you know at first hand some of the deficits that exist in training for your future. Further to that, how should the curriculum be adapted to suit the worlds of work and life so that young people can make their contribution to the economy and help Northern Ireland to grow? Miss Donnelly: When we were talking about this meeting, we tried to envisage what school could be like. For example, what is the point in learning about subjects, such as history, that do not interest you? How can we adapt the curriculum to help students to learn about things that they have a passion for and really want to learn about? If young people are passionate about what they are learning and come across someone who is passionate about communicating that knowledge, they could be inspired to follow through on the subject. The curriculum needs to be adapted to take account of that. I left school before citizenship education was introduced. If that were taught in the right way, it could be a good way of helping pupils to understand where the Government sit in their lives and the impact that they have. I have done some work in helping young people to understand that the Government have a big influence in everyday life. More than voting is involved; Government affect the music that you listen to, the decisions that you make and the taxes that you pay. Helping young people to understand that might help them to realise that they have a part to play in the big system and that it is not just about voting on election day. It is actually about all those other things that impact on your life. It is about young people feeling part of their community and part of the wider society of Northern Ireland. The education system needs to continue to adapt. It has started to do that through organisations such as youth schools’ councils and through citizenship education and learning for life and work. All that is beginning to happen, but we must ask how we can continue to make the small changes that will help young people to realise the connection that school makes to the life that they will lead when they leave school. There is no point in my giving specific examples. However, young people at the end of their first year should be asked what could be changed and improved for their second year. If that process of feedback continued, it would help to develop the system for young people. That is how it works. Listing what would have helped me will not necessarily help other young people. 12.00 noon Mr Simpson: You are very welcome. I am interested to hear that Miss Donnelly is involved in youth work. I have been involved in youth work for over 25 years — despite my age. Miss Donnelly: You are 26, then? [Laughter.] Mr Simpson: I was brought up in the countryside, in a generation when education was not important. Parents wanted their children to get out to work as soon as possible. I was interested in Paddy Campbell’s comments about his father’s advice. My father’s advice was — and everyone knows the old saying — if you make your bed, you lie in it. That is exactly what he told me. Young people must use their initiative and gut feelings for what life has in store. I was interested in what Alasdair McDonnell said about closing the circle between education and industry. It should be closed, and it should incorporate more from the educational point of view, which is important, and more from the industry’s point of view. Industry should have a bigger input. We can learn all we want theoretically, but applying theory in industry does not always work. When I tried to apply to industry what I learnt in theory at the College of Business Studies in Belfast, I was laughed at, because no one had a clue what I was talking about. This is a different generation, and young people have great opportunities. The subgroup has talked about encouraging young people into entrepreneurship and the programmes that are available to help with that. Young enterprise programmes are fantastic. I visited the Belfast city hall recently for presentations. Several schools from my constituency and across the Province won prestigious awards for innovation. That is where industry’s role lies. We need to tighten and close the circle. Can you comment on the apparent lack of fear of failure in the business sector among young people today? I raised that matter in the subgroup, and David McNarry supported me on it. Young people have a fear of losing everything. When I started my business, I was 21 years of age and my wife was 19 — probably not much older than yourselves. We started with nothing, and it has been a hard journey, but we did not have that fear because we started with nothing. Young people today must have everything now, which is why there is a fear of failure. How do young people see industry or the education sector solving that problem, or helping to solve it? Mr P Campbell: Fear of failure? That does not apply to me. [Laughter.] Miss Donnelly: The subgroup mentioned young enterprise schemes. In my school, only business studies students could participate in young enterprise schemes. I love geography, so I decided to do geography at GCSE, which cut my opportunity to take business studies. Even though I might have enjoyed the subject, it was not an option. Some subjects should be compulsory at every age in secondary education. It is expected that everyone can use a computer, and computers are needed in every industry. Even in jobs such as hairdressing, there is an expectation that employees can use a computer. However, when I was at school, not everyone had the opportunity to do computer studies unless it was a chosen GCSE subject. The system should change, and people should experience different subjects without necessarily studying for a qualification. As for the fear of failure, I am not business-oriented. I would not like to invest all my money into something that might not go anywhere. My sister, who has just turned 18, has been working full time since she was 16. She does not think about the fear of failure; she has a fear of returning to education and losing her income. I have been encouraging her to do a training course that pays £40 per week. At the moment she is earning the minimum wage, which is about £120 per week. How can she go back from £120 per week to £40? She is not afraid of failure, but she wonders how she is supposed to live for two years while she does the training course. That is not about failure. Mr Simpson: I think that you are a budding politician. You can certainly talk. Mr Paisley Jnr: As a young person, I welcome you — Dr McDonnell: It is a long time since you were a young person. Miss Donnelly: That grey hair might give away your age. Mr McNarry: Your Grecian 2000 is falling out of your pocket. [Laughter.] Mr Paisley Jnr: It is good to hear the voice of young people, and it is important that the subgroup sends the message that it does not want to send platitudes to young people or to patronise them. It wants to hear their voice. Miss Donnelly has said some challenging things. To say to a history graduate with an honours degree, that history is useless — Miss Donnelly: I did not say that — [Laughter.] Mr Paisley Jnr: The purpose of history is to examine the past and to learn from its mistakes. It is not to become trapped in the past, like some people. It is important that we grasp the opportunities before us. I want to quiz Miss Donnelly more on the challenging things that she said. Did you feel under pressure from your school to get a professional qualification rather than pursue employment in a skills area, such as plumbing, heating, or bricklaying? That might especially apply to pupils who get good GCSE and A level results and who are considering third-level education. Was the education system pushing you towards a professional qualification rather than real work? Miss Donnelly also mentioned some challenging things about innovators and inventors. History shows us that inventors were practitioners; they got their hands dirty. They discovered a problem and solved it. Whether it was jet engines, Dyson vacuum cleaners or environmentally friendly engines, they all began with practitioners on the ground. That starts at primary school, when children are encouraged to get their hands dirty and to be innovative and creative. Was there a huge gap between academic and practical skills? Were you pushed towards a professional qualification? I appreciate what you said about how education should be taught in a participative way and that careers advice should engage with people already employed in various careers. Mr Campbell said that learning should be about the application of practical skills. Those are three crucial aspects for which the subgroup should find space in its report. If there were a pot of money, how would it best be spent to get the results that you are talking about? Should it be directed towards homework clubs, after-school clubs and computer clubs to help kids? Should it be directed to YouthBank and youth services? Or, should it be directed to addressing the debt problems that kids in third-level education have when they go to university? Many of my generation would not have gone to university had grants not been available. Where should that cash be directed? How would it best be targeted to get the results that you have talked about? Mr P Campbell: I would direct money towards all of those objectives. Homework is already based in and is compulsory in schools. I do not know anything about debts at university. Miss Donnelly: Did you feel under pressure at school? Mr P Campbell: No. I totally loved school; I never felt under pressure. Mr Paisley Jnr: Were you pressurised to go down a particular route? Were you pushed towards professional qualification and entering third-level education? Miss Donnelly: I think that I was pressurised. I went to a high school, so there was a big distinction between – I do not know the politically correct term – the abilities of different people in school. In some cases, students who obtain GCSEs are pushed into going to university and becoming teachers or doctors, and students who are unsuccessful are encouraged to become plumbers or hairdressers. Wade Training visited our school and informed us of its courses, whereas my friend went to a grammar school and Wade Training never visited it. There is a distinction there. In some grammar schools, pupils who do not achieve an A grade in a GCSE subject are not allowed to pursue it to A level. It does not matter whether you enjoy the subject — it is about producing the best grades for the school to maintain its profile. Some schools are performance-driven and interested in the school succeeding as a whole, but that does not necessarily allow individuals to grow. Success will only be achieved through a person-centred approach where it is about the individual, as opposed to the bigger system. If I had a pot of money, I would change how teachers are trained. If teachers taught subjects in a different way, it would really change the system. That approach would perhaps start when students begin teacher training. Some teachers are perhaps not right for the job. Teachers should perhaps undergo assessment once they have been in the job for a while. If members recall their school days, there was always one teacher who was not good, no one enjoyed their classes, and students did not even like the subject as a result of that teacher, yet that teacher is allowed to remain in their job. There should be an assessment of such teachers to help them to address the problems that are hindering the students’ progress. I also feel passionately that young people should be part of the process. They should help in the employment or assessment of teachers, because they know which teachers are good. If young people were involved in such processes, they would learn about responsibility and decision-making, and about what skills they can gain from a teacher to help them learn. I would put money towards that; young people would learn a great deal, as well as helping the school to learn. Ms Gildernew: You are all very welcome. Thank you for your contribution and for the way in which you have answered the questions. I am the youngest member of the Committee. Some of your comments have been thought-provoking. I was lucky enough to attend St Catherine’s College, which is one of the best all-ability schools in the North. I take on board what Miss Donnelly said, because my school also interacted with different sectors to examine where we fitted in and in what direction we were going. I did not know what I wanted to be when I grew up until very recently, so do not be too hard on yourselves if you do not know. I am concerned about young people opting out. The subgroup has heard that many people of working age are economically inactive — they do not work for whatever reason. I am concerned about young people who enter the education system at a disadvantage and who are left behind from the beginning. They leave primary education with low levels of literacy and numeracy and enter post-primary education only to be left behind again. Not only do such young people opt out of education, in some cases, they opt out of society and take no part in making a contribution. Some of those children and young people may come from families where there may be third-generation unemployment. I wish to take Ian Paisley Jnr’s question a step further and ask whether investment should be made in children. A previous witness said that the best investment was before a child even started school, when they would learn the ability to learn so that, if they came up against that teacher such as Miss Donnelly described, who was no good, they would still have a desire to learn and could overcome that. What are your views on investment in children? Sinn Féin wants young people to emerge from the education system with skills, and with confidence and ability to travel the world if they wish and to return here to settle, work and to raise families. Like David, I am concerned about young people leaving Ireland and not coming back. 12.15 pm Mr McNarry: I did not say “leaving Ireland”. Ms Gildernew: You talked about the brain drain, David. I am also concerned about young people opting out. David said that we are stakeholders in the future. I agree with that. Sinn Féin’s policy is to lower the voting age to 16 so that young people are encouraged to become politically active, vocal and opinionated on issues at an early age. Therefore, by the time they are 18, they might have made some decisions. A 16-year-old might be more easily enamoured — Dr McDonnell: Is this a question or a lecture? Ms Gildernew: It is a question, Alasdair. I have listened to many lectures today from other people. How do you feel about young people’s participation — Mr McNarry: She has not mentioned Fermanagh yet. Ms Gildernew: I do not need to, David. Do you see how I get a hard time? They pick on the young people in this subgroup. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will hear the question yet. Ms Gildernew: How can we stop young people from opting out? I have asked a number of questions, but do you agree that investment in children is as valuable or more valuable than investing in third-level education? How do you feel about young people’s participation in all manners of public life? Miss Donnelly: I am working on ‘The Big Deal’ programme, which is a project concerned with young people’s participation in life in Northern Ireland. The project targets children and young people from infants to 25-year-olds. We are working with PlayBoard, an organisation that works with younger children. I have had a few conversations with representatives from PlayBoard about such matters as creativity. They asked why a school playground should have swings, for example, when things as simple as boxes can help young people to develop their creative abilities. I have not read up enough about children’s development, but I am learning about parenting at university this year. I watched ‘Supernanny’ on television this morning, which was about how to help parents with parenting skills. Part of that is helping one’s child to be creative and to develop. During my placement with the Southern Education and Library Board last year, I took part in a young mothers’ project. Someone came to demonstrate how to make cheap toys for children and how parents can help to bring out their children’s creativity. Investment in young people should start when they are very young, and one must ask how best to change the culture of talking down to young people. I passionately believe that if children are told from an early age that they should be seen and not heard, they cannot be expected to automatically feel that their contribution is important when they decide that they want to participate in building the economy or to get a job when they reach 16. That is the age when many young people opt out of life or school. They are blamed for not wanting to participate, when, in fact, they have not been encouraged to do so up until that age. The entire culture must be changed, but that cannot be done within the education system alone. Education, media, parenting and other areas must combine and work together to help young people who want to succeed in life and work. Mr P Campbell: There should be more consultation. I have participated in many consultations, most of which did not concern education. Most of my experience is in the area of mental health, and I have not gained much experience of that through basic education in school. Therefore, I would like more consultation on young people’s participation to be carried out within the Youth Forum. Ellen is speaking from a youth worker’s perspective; I am not. I have only recently joined the Youth Forum, so this is all new to me. I am not used to public speaking or coming to Stormont. However, I recommend further consultation on the issue. Miss Donnelly: If young people had a personal adviser from an early age to help with career development, the adviser could help them to choose an alternative avenue and support them, should they decide to leave school at 16. Sometimes, when young people leave education, schemes such as New Deal and other training courses do not seem accessible to them. Young people need to know where to look for information about such schemes, but they must also be willing to look for it in the first place. That information should be made more readily available in young people’s lives and living rooms, rather than them having to search for it. We believe that that can be achieved through personal contact with advisers. Miss Porter: I am here to support young people, and I have discussed the personal adviser system with them. I was part of the so-called brain drain. I spent eight years in England and returned two years ago. In England, I was involved with Connexions Service, which provides a personal adviser service similar to that that Ellen described. Many strategic organisations in England deal with young people who are part of the “not in education, employment or training” group, or NEET. They keep track of young people who have dropped out of the education sector at 16 and who are not in employment or training, and examine what can be done to help them. In that respect, there is a gap in Northern Ireland. If I know that a young person is not in education, employment or training because he or she comes to the local youth club, I can take action. However, there is no strategic overview to allow colleges to work with youth workers and schools in order to address the problem. Mr Ford: Miss Donnelly and Miss Porter have made a crucial and interesting point. In welcoming them, I ask how they envisage personal advisers fitting into the lives of young individuals over a long-term period? That strikes me as a potentially major problem. It is essential that advisers have that long-term involvement. Should the system be developed in schools, careers services or wider youth services? Those services all seem to have an advisory element within them. Miss Donnelly should be pleased to learn that Ian Paisley Jnr stole my hobby horse, which concerns issue the frequency with which more academic pupils are directed towards safe professions, such as the Civil Service, administration posts, and so on. I am saddened that Miss Donnelly also believes that to be the case. We must examine how the range of options can be widened. Paddy Campbell mentioned the curriculum. As the governor of a primary school, I have seen how the enriched curriculum works because my school has piloted it. It seems to reflect some of what Mr Campbell has suggested. The enriched curriculum requires that primary schoolchildren do not sit behind desks and be taught in a formal learning environment, but are instead taught the basic skills of literacy and numeracy through project work, individual research and collaborative group work. Does the Youth Forum suggest that that approach should be undertaken in secondary education or should the current range of academic subjects be expanded? There is a difference between what is taught and how it is taught. That must be addressed before progress can be made. Miss Donnelly: A bit of both is required, rather than either one or the other. Research is required in order to find out what is best for young people. I am passionate about the different methods that are used by teachers. However, I believe that a combination of appropriate methods and subjects is necessary. For example, a decision must be made about whether a knowledge base or a skills base needs to be built. At present, the emphasis in education appears to be on knowledge rather than on skills. There are few jobs for which knowledge is essential. However, young people can develop the skills that are essential in order for them to get jobs and to succeed in their jobs. I believe, therefore, that it is important to examine both what is taught and the way that it is taught. Mr McElduff: Many words of wisdom have been spoken this morning, such as experience and attitudes being more important than qualifications, and people following their passions. What types of job inspire people? The word “inspire” was used earlier, and it was said that people want to be assured that business is an inspirational route. My daughter is 10 years old, Alasdair, and she wants to be a doctor because she thinks that that is where the money is. My 10-year-old thinks like that. Mr McNarry: She must have been reading ‘The Sunday Times’. Mr McElduff: Are 17-, 18- and 19-year-olds thinking about rewarding, fulfilling careers or are they thinking about money? Miss Donnelly: A guy at my school loved motorbikes, but realised that they would not make him his million. However, if he was passionate about motorbikes, why should he not pursue that option? There must be a balance between what interests people and making money. However, not everyone is money-oriented. With my qualifications, I could have got a job that paid much more, but I would not have been happy in that job and may have failed in it at some level. If someone is passionate about a job, how can that passion be conveyed to the school system? As MLAs, your job involves being on television every day, but someone else might be passionate about working in a science laboratory and could inspire others who are also into science. A friend of mine is studying for a degree in physics, and feels that his only option is to be a physics teacher. Students can be inspired by being shown that a wide range of jobs is available, as opposed to just one. Many jobs inspire people, and it is all about engaging with people on what inspires them. Students are not given the necessary information and opportunities about different jobs until they are 18 years of age. Students should be told about such jobs when they are much younger and are making choices about what subjects to study. Students should be told what school activities would help their careers. Mr P Campbell: I agree with Ellen. From a young age, I have always wanted to be a social worker. As Ellen said, it is probably better for students to get some idea about jobs at a young age, as I did through personal experience. My dream and mission in life has been to become a social worker. That is partly why I am here. My father gives me advice on business, and I have a brilliant business plan, which I have had for years and which has inspired me. From my experience, parents have a big part to play in what happens in their children’s lives. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): You are saying that there is a gap between education and being able to find out about jobs and get work experience. There should be an option, or flexibility, to be able to go in and out of the education system; it should be more accessible. People should be able to pick up skills. One suggestion, which ties in with our role as local representatives, is that youth councils should link with district councils or with the new super councils. Are young people interested in participating in local democracy and being involved with district councils? Miss Donnelly: I am really into it, and I know many other young people who are. The issue is how to make the connection between young people and the councils. At a Northern Ireland Network for Youth (NINFY) residential last week, one of the young people said that councils are only responsible for bin collection. How do young people learn that their councils are responsible for more than just the bins? Do young people know that in two years’ time councils will have bigger remits than they did in the past? Young people should be educated and asked what they would like to change in their areas. It is about signposting and directing them by saying that if they became part of a youth council or made connections, they would be able to effect change. Outcomes are also necessary. If young people do not see change as a result of their contribution, why would they bother wasting their time in making their voices heard? That is the biggest part of youth participation practice. There is no point in having a shadow youth council in Derry if it does not help to change decisions taken by Derry City Council. Those are the processes that make things work for young people, as opposed to making things work for councils and consultation with young people being a mere PR exercise for councils. 12.30 pm The Chairman (Mr Molloy): So, it is not just about participation; it is about inputting into the decision-making process. Are there any other points that you would like to raise? Miss Donnelly: We are encouraged by the fact that you wanted us to come here today. There are barriers to our participation in something like this. They include young people being back at school, and practical matters, such as sitting round a table, that make the experience intimidating. I can do it, but we were asked to bring 14 and 15 year olds. I worked with a few groups last year, and had to ask myself whom, out of those groups, could I ask, with a few weeks’ notice, to speak here? Many of those young people would need a few months’ notice. For us, it is a question of how to help each other and get young people’s voices heard round a table such as this in a way that is effective for them and for making changes and improvements in society. We welcome this opportunity, and we can work together to improve our contribution round the table. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It will be important to continue this dialogue. On reading Hansard, I discovered that, from the start, David McNarry was one of the main advocates of getting the Youth Forum to contribute to the subgroup’s discussions. Mr Simpson: You mentioned breaking down barriers. It is vital to do that. When I was Mayor, Craigavon Borough Council introduced youth councils, and there is a youth council in the central area of Craigavon. We let them give presentations and come to council meetings as elected representatives. That is how we saw progress being made in the borough. The ideas and initiatives put forward by the young people on major issues such as recycling and the environment were remarkable, and the council adopted some of them. We have seen a marked improvement in several areas. Making presentations to local councils and letting them hear what young people have to say is a good way to break down barriers. Miss Donnelly: I agree. It is about changing the culture, and recognising that what those young people did in your council area was not surprising, because they could have done that any day of the week. They live in that environment and know what is going on. Why would they not have good ideas? It is about people like you making that commitment to listen to young people. The Youth Forum has held many events at which the political parties failed to show up. Small things like that tell us whether politicians listen to us and support what we do. How can they do that when they do not even attend our events? Mr Simpson: Some of you attend university and some are still at school. Get your politicians to go to the schools. As elected representatives, the responsibility lies with us to do that. Later this month, I am starting a programme with eight schools in my constituency, from both sections of the community. They have asked me to describe the role of an MP, and I will listen to their responses. St Michael’s Grammar School in Lurgan has invited me in October. The pupils will present a paper on how they see things moving forward in Northern Ireland in general and economic terms. Some of their suggestions could be completely off the wall, but at least they are trying. They are breaking down the barriers between young people and politicians, and I encourage you to do as much of that as you can. Mr McNarry: Too often young people get a bad press, and that is something that we have to cope with in our work. With good reason, we have not heard an opinion from you about other young people who get that bad press: those who engage in antisocial behaviour and crime. It is obvious that you give guidance to, and are good role models for, those young people with whom you are in touch. As politicians, what could we do to help the Youth Forum, or to help us all, get the message across to those who will not engage in the way that you are? How can we help those who have given up, who have come out of school with no qualifications, or even with good qualifications but have decided to go the rogue way? How do you attract them into your organisation so that they can learn about what you are doing? Mr P Campbell: I do it myself. I was out last night talking to a few guys about The Big Deal applications. Mr McNarry: Could you come to our subgroup meetings to sort out a few things? [Laughter.] Mr P Campbell: There has been a great deal of talk about how to get the word out, but nothing has been done. Miss Donnelly: It is about investing in young people and believing that they can make a positive contribution. It is about preventing the fallout before it happens. For the people working in the youth sector now, it is about reaching out and investing time. We talked last week about detached youth workers and the role that they play. Their role must be specific and not just about going out and talking to young people. They must be able to draw in young people. It is a combination of relationships. Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) instruct people that they cannot stand on street corners even if they are not making a nuisance of themselves. The work must be about the way young people engage with the police, with older members of the community and with one another. It is a combination of investing in young people, working with them, listening to them and helping them to re-engage with society, rather than putting the blame on them and telling them that they are failures. Miss Porter: As a youth worker involved in youth participation, I have worked with young people in England who have been subject to ASBOs, and I have been involved in youth council structures. I believe that the answer lies in building relationships while, at the same time, recognising that although some young people might not yet be at the point where they could sit round a table like this, they could present their findings in a different format. We need to put in resources so that we can work on a one-to-one or one-to-two basis, as there are some who, because of their personal circumstances, cannot engage with a full group of other young people. In that way, their voices can still be heard. I have worked with young people who had a lot of personal issues but who got involved in youth councils and found that they changed their lives. It is a slow process, however, and it cannot happen overnight. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Thank you very much for your presentation and for answering our questions. It was important that we communicated with you and it is important that we follow up this discussion at a later stage. The subgroup has some other work to complete. Would you mind waiting for 10 or 15 minutes so that you can join us for lunch? It is just sandwiches. Mr McNarry: It is £2.50 a plate. Miss Donnelly: We would have had a lot more people here if we had known that there was a free lunch. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There is no such thing as a free lunch. [Laughter.] Thank you. Members, a number of business items must be addressed before we finish. It should take about 10 minutes. First, I take it as read that members are content that this extensive Hansard report will be the addendum to the subgroup’s report. Members should clear their contributions as soon as they receive the report. Do not wait the full 24 hours; please get back to Committee staff immediately. We have set a deadline by which the report will be ready, and it will be met whether members get back to us or not. Secondly, the revised report — Mr McNarry: I understand what Alan is saying about the Hansard report. I do not know how other members feel, but I was disappointed that the Minister was not able to speak about the subgroup’s report. It was perfectly understandable, however, given that she had not read it or had time to see it. The Committee Clerk: She had not received it. Mr McNarry: Even allowing for that, I thought that she would have been better briefed or that she might have asked to have been briefed. That could have been done relatively easily. She has offered to make herself available once she has read the report. Could we take advantage of that offer at a later date? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The subgroup has further work to do. Mr McNarry: It is important that the subgroup has a session with the Minister once she has read the report and has been fully briefed and brought up to speed. Planning issues have continually cropped up in subgroup meetings. Now that the subgroup has been granted an extension to its remit, can it not use that extra time to arrange a meeting with the Minister who has responsibility for planning? There was evidence from Maria Eagle that we really do not have joined-up Government — she was not going to go down the route of discussing planning. I do not blame her. Can we make arrangements for Maria Eagle to return to the subgroup and for the Minister who has responsibility for planning to appear, too? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We can address planning in relation to economic development, but we cannot deal with the broader planning issue. Mr Paisley Jnr: The Minister sat here this morning and told us that she is not responsible for planning, and then Stephen Quinn said that, yes, strategically, DETI is responsible for planning. Mr Ford: That is why I said, tongue in cheek, that we want her to come back. She did not say no. Ms Ritchie: I was shocked that, in general, the Minister was not particularly well briefed on economic development, enterprise, education and skills. She simply read from a prepared brief — perhaps that is what Ministers do. Having said that, I thought that she did not necessarily answer the questions that were put to her. That is a matter of deep regret, and it is quite shocking. It shows the disregard for us and for this Assembly — although this is not even the Assembly to which we were elected. No doubt, the subgroup could explore other issues under its extended remit; namely, fiscal challenges, education and skills and the economic dividend. Mr Paisley Jnr: Mr Chairman, I got the impression this morning that the Government were laying the foundation for their response to our report. They would like us to gather information, but, ultimately, they gave us a hint that their skills-expert group will report to them, their consultation on a better regulation strategy will be launched, and their Science and Technology Committee will look consider the report. It would be an absolute disaster if the Government’s response were to consult on our report with those three groups, of which the public and business people have never heard. The buck must stop with the Minister and her Departments or, indeed, with her colleagues’ Departments. 12.45 pm Mr McNarry: Those points were well made. It appears to me that, from the start, the Secretary of State was responsible for setting this up. He gave us the remit and the work, and he has tried to hinder us at every turn. He will not make himself available to the PFG Committee, and, when a Minister attends the subgroup, it seems that she is hiding something and will not share ongoing work with us. The Secretary of State and Ministers want to know what the subgroup says and does, but they will not share their work with us. The PFG Committee made it clear in the proposal that it adopted, and the subgroup also made it clear, that our report is as much for the Government as it is for MLAs. The subgroup is putting down a marker that, in the absence of its being able to debate the report in the Assembly, the pressure is on the Government. The subgroup needs this report to wave at them. Ms Gildernew: That is typical of British direct rule Ministers. They are neither held to account by the people here nor do they give two hoots about the issues. Until we are making decisions for ourselves, that will be their attitude. That should be a lesson for us all. I am sure that Maria Eagle is a very nice person, but she does not have the same investment in this place that we have. The Committee Clerk: Now that the subgroup has a further agenda, it needs to discuss the arrangements for meetings. Getting the Minister to return to the subgroup will not be an issue, particularly once she has read the report. The report’s release depends entirely on the PFG Committee. It is embargoed until a plenary is confirmed. The report will be published on Friday if there is a plenary on Monday, but that is outside the subgroup’s control. When the Minister has read it and given us an undertaking, it will be put on the draft programme of work for the subgroup to consider. Mr McNarry: Is the Committee Clerk saying that the Minister will not see the report until the PFG Committee releases it? The Committee Clerk: The subgroup cannot give it to her because it is the PFG Committee’s report. Mr McNarry: Can we ask the PFG Committee to release it to the Minister? The Secretary of State commissioned it and surely he will see it. The Committee Clerk: The subgroup could ask, but it would be a matter for the PFG Committee. Mr McNarry: If that is the route the subgroup must take, members should take it. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Whether there is to be a plenary will be a factor. Mr McElduff: The Civil Service seems to make a distinction between receiving a report and “officially” receiving a report. The Secretary of State and the Ministers could have received it and read it long ago but not have “officially” received it. The Committee Clerk: They have not received the report. It would have been entirely inappropriate of me to issue it to them. The Minister and her officials can access the website and read Hansard, so I assume that that is from where they get their briefings. Mr McNarry: Although we received a briefing, it was a very poor briefing. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Should the subgroup go through the small editorial changes that have been made to the draft report? Mr McNarry: Will we invite the Minister with responsibility for the environment to the subgroup to discuss economic issues to do with planning? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Do members agree that we should invite back Minister Eagle and also invite Minister Cairns, whose portfolio includes planning, to talk about economic development? Members indicated assent. The Committee Clerk: The Chairman will take members through the minor editorial changes. It is a matter of reading them out to ensure that members of the subgroup who are not members of the PFG Committee know what they are. A revised version is contained in members’ folders. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Does the subgroup agree that “needs to” should be replaced with “should” in recommendation 10? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Does the subgroup agree that recommendation 15 be moved to the executive summary and that the remaining recommendations be renumbered as appropriate? Members indicated assent. Mr Paisley Jnr: Is this the same revised list of recommendations that was in front of the PFG Committee? The Committee Clerk: Half a dozen editorial changes have been made, such as the insertion of commas. That is all. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members agree to delete the third bullet point from new recommendation 17 and insert: “Undertake further work on how an economic package/peace dividend could contribute to economic regeneration.”? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Does the subgroup agree to insert new recommendation 18, which reads: “If an extended mandate for the sub-group is agreed by PfG, the sub-group recommends that approval should be given to temporarily contract an economist(s) as a special advisor to provide expert insight and advice on the sub-group’s work and to assist in the preparation of a further report to PfG.”? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Does the subgroup agree to replace “agree” with “recommends” in recommendation 20? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The subgroup has the PFG Committee’s new terms of reference for the work that we are to carry out. On the economic package — Mr Ford: Is the Committee Clerk still tidying up typographical errors or has he finished? The Committee Clerk: I have finished. Mr Ford: There is a fairly glaring error at the top of page 2. Given the expected arrival of Rhodri Morgan next week, the reference to “the Welsh National Assembly” should be corrected. Recommendation 6 refers to that body by its proper name, the National Assembly for Wales. It is a pity that that did not carry over into the executive summary. The Committee Clerk: Where is that? Mr Ford: It is at the top of page 2 in the executive summary. I noticed that it was correctly referred to in recommendation 6. That mistake is not just a missing comma; I would hate Mr Morgan to point it out to us next week. Mr McNarry: If the Minister cannot get hold of it, how the hell is Mr Morgan going to get a copy? [Laughter.] Mr Ford: It might be printed on Friday. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Those changes will be made. The new terms of reference are to: “Consider the results of the ERINI research and the commissioned DETI study into the fiscal options, to prepare a costed case for consideration by a restored Executive and the Treasury; Consider and report on the measures required to develop an integrated skills and education strategy capable of meeting the current and future needs of the economy and based on best practice elsewhere; and Undertake further work on how an economic package/peace dividend could contribute to economic regeneration.” As regards the package, the Minister said that there is not much organised for it, so this is our opportunity to put that package together. The Committee Clerk: The PFG has set two deadlines for this: 4 October for the economic package report, and 23 October for the rest. The subgroup will need to meet twice weekly. It would be impossible to complete the report in less time. It is difficult to say on which days the subgroup can meet, since plenary meetings may begin in September. I understand that, as of next week, the PFG Committee will meet on Wednesdays only, which rules out the subgroup’s meeting on Wednesdays. Thursdays are free at the moment; Tuesdays might be ruled out because of plenary meetings. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The PFG Committee dealing with law and order will meet in the morning and the PFG Committee dealing with the institutions will meet in the afternoon. Those two meetings will take up all of Wednesday. The Committee Clerk: Effectively, Thursdays and Fridays are free. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The PFG Committee dealing with equality will still meet on Fridays, but only for one more week. Mr McElduff: What are the deadlines? The Committee Clerk: It is 4 October for the economic package report, and 23 October for the two other terms of reference: the skills strategy and the fiscal measures. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): What is the best day for the subgroup to meet? Ms Gildernew: Can we sit all day on Thursday? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): All day on Thursday: would that be enough? The Committee Clerk: As long as a quorum can be maintained, that should be enough. To be kind to members, I do not think that you need start this Thursday. A work plan will be issued to members on Thursday and will contain the terms of reference for the economists. The PFG Committee has agreed the subgroup’s recommendation that an economist should be employed. We need to go through a process to comply with procurement rules. It will be a short-cut process. Ms Ritchie: Is there a meeting this coming Thursday? The Committee Clerk: Yes. The next meeting will be this Thursday at the normal time, 10.00 am. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That is a normal meeting, in relation to the report. The Committee Clerk: No, it will be the first of your next series of meetings. It will address three issues. First, it will update the subgroup on whether there will be debates on Monday and Tuesday. Secondly, the subgroup will agree a work plan — a draft plan will be provided. Thirdly, terms of reference for employing an economist or economists will be agreed. It will be a morning meeting. Mr McNarry: At what stage will we need an economist or economists? The Committee Clerk: As soon as we can get them. I am not sure of the time frame. If we had to advertise for them, we would not get them in time; we will take a call-off approach. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): To finalise the dates: this Thursday morning, and, from then on, all-day meetings every Thursday. The next item of business is options for the recruitment of two economists. The Committee Clerk: The way this call-off, short-cut approach works is that the subgroup can suggest names, which will be put in a list that is sent out. If members want to suggest names, they should feel free to do that now. Graham Gudgin and Mike Smyth spring to mind as individuals who have the necessary broad academic background for the post or posts. If members are content, I will ask that procurement branch includes them on the list, as we have taken evidence indirectly from both. John Simpson is much more involved in media work now, so he may not have the current academic expertise that we require. However, the first two may be appropriate people to include for consideration. Ms Gildernew: Given Graham Gudgin’s previous role, would there not be a conflict of interest? The Committee Clerk: I do not think so. He has written about corporation tax. There would be a direct conflict of interest for someone like Victor Hewitt because he commissions research on FDI. I do not think that there would be any conflict of interest for Graham Gudgin or Mike Smyth. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members wish to suggest any other names? Ms Ritchie: I am aware of Mike Smyth; he would be very good. I am aware that Graham Gudgin previously worked for the First Minister. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That is the conflict of interest to which Michelle referred. Mr Paisley Jnr: Can we not forgive him for that? Mr McNarry: There will be a conflict between the economists that the Committee Clerk has suggested. Ms Ritchie: They are two very different people. Mr McNarry: They are. We will have a job working out who is correct. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I suppose that the idea is to get two different positions. Do members wish to suggest any other names? The Committee Clerk: Are members content that Graham Gudgin and Mike Smyth be included on the list? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is there any other business? The Committee Clerk: There is a great deal of information for inclusion in the press release. If members wish to recommend that anything be included in the press release and are content for me to do it, I will prepare it. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is important that the press release shows that the subgroup met with the Minister and with the young people. The Committee Clerk: I have eight pages of quotes on which to draw. Ms Gildernew: From the young people’s presentation, I would like to see included in the press release the knowledge-versus-skills argument that they raised and their suggestion that there be a personal advisers’ scheme to assist in the mentoring of students. It would be interesting to revisit those points at a later date. Mr McNarry: We should also say that we benefited from the Northern Ireland Youth Forum’s presentation. I benefited from it much more than I did from the Minister’s. Mr Ford: As David suggests, we should say that we benefited from the Northern Ireland Youth Forum’s presentation and not say anything about the Minister’s presentation. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There is no other business. The meeting is closed. Adjourned at 12.57 pm. |