I must draw to the Member's attention that he has had in excess of 10 minutes.

I am nearly finished. I suggest that we take seriously the opportunity to second staff to Europe. I will leave it at that.

The Committee was concerned about the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe, which has done a wonderful job over the years. However, once again I will not dwell on that.

Overall, the report is an excellent initial work of the Committee, and we will have to revisit this subject from time to time and deal with many of the recommendations in greater detail. We will also have to examine the cost implications of the recommendations. It would be foolish to publish the report today; blandly accept all the recommendations; put a pink ribbon round it, and go away. We must review the issue.

Some Colleagues are concerned that the word "accepts" in the amendment is a bit stronger than the word "notes", but I would be comfortable with the amendment if it were set in the context of revisiting the subject and examining each recommendation in greater depth.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I too support the report. I commend the Committee for the work that has been done. I thank the Clerks, the Committee staff and research staff who ably assisted us. It was a very interesting and worthwhile exercise, and the vast scope of the report and the number of recommendations made showed how seriously the Committee took its work and how much interest there was in the subject.

The report, and the evidence contained in it, clearly demonstrate the absence of a coherent strategy in our dealings with Europe. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has yet to put in place a co-ordinated approach to the EU, both within the Assembly's jurisdiction and across the islands, through the all-Ireland implementation bodies and the North/South Ministerial Council. That was probably best displayed by the lack of co-ordination with other stakeholders in going forward with the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels. Ken Robinson and Alisdair McDonnell referred to the Committee's broad consensus in agreeing the recommendations and the approach needed by the Assembly to Europe. That is correct. Regardless of whether one is a Euro-sceptic, a Europhile, or shares one of the many opinions between those positions, the majority of our legislation emanates from Europe. That has a massive impact on how we do our business here.

It is clear from the report and our investigation that we need early warning on EU legislative proposals and infraction proceedings that will affect us. We must know which EU Directives we need to act on and their timetables for implementation. We can see the risk with respect to the environmental Directives, in particular, and the serious potential to impose financial penalties on us.

The Assembly must guard against the risk that its approach to the EU might become merely an adjunct to that of the British Labour Party, which is working its way through Westminster, Scotland and Wales. Regardless of which side of the House they come from, many Members agree that an individual, distinct approach would benefit us.

Another weakness that I identified in the approach from OFMDFM - and it emerges in some of the evidence of the report - is the failure to develop an all-Ireland approach to EU matters. Unlike many member states, we have a unique Executive and institutional link to another member state. Not only should we benefit and learn from the success of the South in its dealings with the European Union, but in our approach to the European Union we should reflect our formal institutional and Executive link to the South. I hope that the idea and development of a common strategy could be advanced at North/South Ministerial Council level.

I support the idea of setting up a Standing Committee on EU affairs. As a result of our inquiry and our examination of how other institutions' EU Committees have operated, there is a strong argument for a Committee with responsibility for both the scrutiny of important legislation and conducting broad inquiries into EU matters and their impact on Northern Ireland affairs. However, given the pressure that there is on the Assembly's Committee system, the membership and attendance of our Committees and the number of Committees and Ad Hoc Committees, we must ensure that we do not increase that stress. We must ensure that we do not create a Committee that cannot function due to the workload of other Committees. It must be an effective Committee; it must be able to deal effectively with, and scrutinise, our relationship with the EU and that between the Executive and the EU.

I regret to say that the lack of strategic planning by OFMDFM appears to have been a feature of its approach. That is reflected in many of the recommendations and in much of the commentary of previous Members who spoke. A lack of communication has been another regrettable feature. Those features must be reversed. I accept the amendment to change the report and its recommendations from being "noted" to being "accepted" by the Executive.

The report must be taken seriously, because reports can be absorbed without an effective adoption of the recommendations therein. The report was a serious attempt to look, comment and reflect on our relationship with the EU. It was an attempt to recommend to the Executive what the Committee feels should be done about that relationship. That must be done if we are to have an effective relationship with the EU that would benefit not only those whom we represent in the North, but everyone on the island, through all-Ireland institutional links. Go raibh maith agat.

I welcome the report. I also accept the amendment.

Such a report has been long overdue, and the enlargement of the European Union will be a significant development that will affect our everyday lives.

When the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment was carrying out its investigation into energy it realised the impact that the EU was having on energy policy throughout Europe, including the regions. The Committee receives all European Directives that affect it.

I was a member of the Committee of the Regions for several years, albeit as an alternate. However, it was a significant role. I congratulate those who have been newly appointed to the Committee from Northern Ireland and wish them well during their period in office.

The Committee of the Centre's recommendations are very welcome. Only two political parties from here are involved in the membership of the Committee of the Regions. Four members, two full members and two alternates, would make it broader. In present Assembly circumstances it would include a Member from the DUP and a Member from Sinn Féin. The Assembly needs to take that on board.

I am a voluntary member of the board of the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe (NICE), and I share the Committee's concerns about the treatment of NICE. When we had an office in Brussels, the cost of running it was about one third of the cost of running the new office, and that needs to be considered. I do not resent the fact that money is being invested in such an important office, but it is essential that its work be monitored closely. The fact that the office costs three times more would be acceptable if there was clear evidence of greater achievements or a higher quality of work, but, going by the report, the Committee did not find such a quantum leap.

The Committee expresses concerns that the experience of NICE has not been used or built on. As a voluntary member of that board I share those concerns, and it is time that they came out into the open, because the board has faced considerable problems recently.

Over the years NICE has built a substantial foundation of contacts, information, skills and knowledge that has been put at the disposal of the public and private sectors in Northern Ireland. The benefits from the organisation continue, yet there has not been a single contact from the head of the Executive's Office in Brussels to discuss that experience or to seek benefit from it, despite the clear assurances given by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister at the official opening. They stated clearly that the office would work in an open manner, co-operating and communicating with all sectors, and yet for an organisation that was established through a cross-party initiative, there has been absolute silence. That silence sends a clear and resounding message. How loudly it speaks of the attitude of some in the Civil Service. They have more than tripled the cost to taxpayers and have not even had the common courtesy to contact the organisation that has invested so much time and expertise.

It would be bad enough if it were simply a lack of courtesy. It is worse than that. Not only has the head of the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels never contacted the board or the staff of NICE, but there is a clear pattern of behaviour that the Minister should take steps to change substantially. I also note that the Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Poots, recently asked in the House when NICE would begin to be treated in a more honourable way. I echo that question. A considerable amount of successful work was undertaken with genuine, constructive and positive motivation for the benefit of all in Northern Ireland. The attempt that was made to bury that work and cast NICE aside was despicable.

It is time for the officials in that area to cease their petty-minded approach and meet with the staff of NICE, who have acted with integrity and character throughout this shameful period.

There is no doubt that Europe is having a greater impact on our everyday lives. I welcome the fact that Marks and Spencer in Belfast now has a counter that accepts the euro, and several other retail establishments in Northern Ireland are doing the same. The question is not whether the euro will be introduced in the UK but when. I hope that the Assembly can focus on the issues that are at hand concerning the development and enlargement of the European Union.

I would like to thank the Clerk, the Committee and the specialist adviser for the work that they have put into the report, which I consider to be significant. I also want to put on record my thanks and support for the efforts of the junior Minister, Mr Haughey. If the Assembly is to nominate a Minister for Europe, I cannot think of a better person.

I shall declare an interest. I am a former head of the European Commission office in Northern Ireland, and I remain actively involved in a variety of bodies concerned with Europe and Northern Ireland.

I welcome the report. It is obvious that a great deal of work has gone into it. It is excellent that the report opens up the European debate, which has, sadly, been in its infancy in Northern Ireland for far too long. It is timely, and its recommendations are very welcome. The Committee's "knuckle-rapping" on the work of the Executive and OFMDFM and its approach to Northern Ireland is valuable, and its recommendations for changing that are very appropriate. [Interruption].

Order.

I wish to consider the conclusions of the report. Dr McDonnell asked if we were taking the European Union seriously. I go further than that and openly criticise the Executive for not taking the European Union seriously. The report suggests that the Executive should get its European house in order and realise that it is not a chateau for the elite in the Executive and Government Departments.

It should be an open house for all members of the public and the various sectors in Northern Ireland. That has been totally disregarded. There has been a lack of communication and consultation with the experts in that area. The three MEPs are pretty long in the tooth and long in understanding European Union affairs, yet they have not been properly consulted. Members of the Committee of the Regions, members of the Economic and Social Committee, non-governmental organisations, farming unions, trade unions and business sectors are not being properly consulted on what we should be doing on European Union affairs. Why is that being ignored? What sort of attitude is there in Government Departments and in the Executive that those issues are being ignored, and people's expertise is being ignored?

I want to quote some comments, which I found incredible, made by officials from OFMDFM justifying the problems that they have in trying to convince Departments to get involved in European affairs. One of them said that

Wait a minute. Think about that. It is said that many Departments have not realised that they need to get into Europe. First, could someone please tell those people that we are in Europe now. Secondly, we have been in Europe since 1973. Where have those civil servants been since 1973 if they did not realise that we were already in Europe?

It is stated that officials noted that resources were needed. That comment relates to the implementation of Directives. As Members know, there has been a backlog of Directives, especially in relation to the environment. As the Chairperson said, it is costing the Italians around £50,000 a day. I would love a response from the Ministers - [Interruption].

It is costing the Italians 50,000 euros.

Excuse me. Thank you. I would love a response from Ministers stating how much the backlog of Directives is costing Northern Ireland. Ministers are looking at monitoring that, but I would like to have a figure to see how much it is costing us because we do not have our house in order on implementing the Directives. The excuse is that

I assume that refers to devolution. Another excuse is that

That is very good, but it is 25 years too late. We are talking about the legal expertise and resources necessary to implement Directives into the law of Northern Ireland. We were supposed to have that in place when we joined the European Union, and not so many years later. The excuses are legal expertise and resources, and I suppose that we should appreciate that those aspects are being recognised now. However, we have been in the European Union for a quarter of a century, and some people need to wake up to that fact.

I shall highlight a few valuable recommendations. There is the recommendation that a Standing Committee on European affairs should be established. Members may recall that the Committee that looked into the impact of devolution made that recommendation. But what happened about it? Zilch. When it came to the formation of the Committee of the Centre, it was assumed that we would have a committee on European affairs, a Minister on European affairs, a committee on equality and a Minister on equality. Suddenly the tables were turned, and we found ourselves with a Committee of the Centre and two junior Ministers covering the works. How can we possibly take Europe seriously if it is done in that way? We back the recommendation to have a Standing Committee.

Greater use of expertise is vital. The expertise of all the representatives in the European scene is important, as well as the expertise in non-governmental areas and that of the people who have been working with European peace money, the business sector and the trade unions. It is vital for that expertise to be channelled properly.

Another issue is ministerial attendance. The Committee is disappointed that we are losing out on key opportunities to influence European policy-making. How long have we been doing that? Ministers from Northern Ireland should be at those ministerial meetings.

I want to add two more recommendations that I did not see in the report, and the Chairperson will hardly be surprised by that. Something has been ignored.

On this occasion it is not the euro, it is young people. Members will appreciate the influence of young people. The Executive have not done enough to get the debate on European awareness into the public domain in order to get the public more actively interested in European affairs - especially young people.

Secondments should not only be for executives or senior officials of the Departments. They should be for non-governmental organisations and they should be for young people. There is in-service training - stages - which is a superb course in the European Commission for graduates - that is what started me on the European road. Why is that sort of thing not being pushed to allow more young people to get involved?

I realise that I am running out of time, but I have much more to say. I want to look at departmental priorities. I was flabbergasted by the section at the end of the report in which Departments were asked to categorise their European Union affairs as high or medium priorities. I want to go through a few of those. The EQUAL programme and lifelong learning are only medium priorities for the Department for Employment and Learning. Access to environmental information is a medium priority for the Department of the Environment. Wait until you hear this - the Department for Social Development rates non-governmental organisations and the voluntary and community sector as medium priorities. Wow.

Economic and monetary union, as well as consumer protection are medium priorities for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and investment. Organic farming and food labelling are medium priorities for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Department. Last, but not least, the Department of Education only has two areas of responsibility for European affairs, and both are medium priority. What is going on? Does the Department of Education not realise that we are in Europe to stay? All those Departments should realise that.

I have had my say, although I would have liked longer. We have to start taking Europe seriously. Politics aside, we are in the business of doing what is good for Northern Ireland. Unless the parties in the Executive that are not interested in being a part of Europe are prepared to say that they want us to withdraw from it, they should be working hard to ensure that we reap the benefits and also offer our expertise to others in the European Union.

I welcome the debate, and I want to congratulate the Chairperson and Members of the Committee for producing such an extensive report. It is substantial and impressive. In the detail in which it has examined the topic, it is one of the most far-reaching reports published by the Assembly to date. It serves as an example of how an Assembly Committee - a non-Statutory Committee, by the way - holds the Government to account. More importantly, it finds the Government wanting on the key issues that they ought to have been dealing with in the past three years.

The inquiry caught OFMDFM napping on the serious and important issue of Europe, and the approach of the devolved Government to European issues. In the annex we have the first published paper by OFMDFM on European issues, which shows that the Committee was able to force the Government belatedly to respond to some of the key issues that have been before them for the past three years.

One got the impression from the OFMDFM submission that it was a case of bolting the stable door after the horse had gone. There seemed to be several issues that it was trying to catch up on or that might have been reported to it - not necessarily by Committees members. It appears that OFMDFM was trying to put a brave face on the situation, and to plug an embarrassing leak.

As Ms Morrice said, it is to be hoped that the report serves as a serious wake-up call to the Government here on how they intend to deal with Europe. If European policy is not scrutinised closely, European Directives will be imposed on Northern Ireland that are contrary to the will of our people. It is important that Northern Ireland has its say on those Directives, that when they are just ideas in the minds of bureaucrats and Eurocrats they are shaped according to our wishes. It is important that we have early warning and early influence in Europe. I agree with the Committee's view that our Government must be proactive on Europe. The scathing criticisms in the report show that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has been at best, reactive and, at worst - which is most of the time - inactive on European issues. A plush office in Brussels must not be the be-all and end-all of Government policy, but I get the impression that that is the role that the Northern Ireland Executive seek for themselves. They have ticked the box, they have an office in Brussels, but the Executive must do considerably more than that. It is to be hoped that they will start to deliver on some of the promises made, as there is very little to show for their work over the past three years.

Criticism of the Executive has been universal. They were not given the most auspicious of starts, given that when the Assembly travelled to Brussels in 1998, some members of Sinn Féin used the opportunity to attack the paymasters and to insult the people of Northern Ireland by their approach. The Executive could nevertheless have built on that low point, but unfortunately they have not done that.

I refer to page 199 of the report and to the written submission of Mr Nigel Smyth, the director of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Northern Ireland. He states that

CBI's criticisms are echoed by the Federation of Small Businesses, which also made a written submission. Time forbids listing all its recommendations.

Both Ms Morrice and Mr Neeson noted some criticisms voiced by the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe (NICE). It is important to record the criticisms of Mr John Kennedy, the chief executive of NICE. His recommendations, on page 244 of the report, stressed that

There are major gaps in the Executive's approach to European issues.

The Department of Agriculture and Regional Development must spend 46·7% of its budget according to European Directives and yet, it is clear to me as a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Regional Development, that it is difficult for Committee members to grasp some of the European issues that arise. That is because the Minister does not bring those issues to the Committee; officials relate them in an ad hoc fashion and on many occasions bounce them on the Committee. The Committee is told that if it does not act immediately the money will be lost, so there is no co-ordinated, strategic approach for dealing with money, for which we are accountable as public representatives.

All Committees must have a much more detailed knowledge of European Directives, the way in which they come to us and how the Government influence those Directives at the beginning. The report shows that all the Committees are concerned at the apparent lack of knowledge of the role of the European Union, and its extent, on our affairs. It is a serious criticism of the House and the institutions that have been established that there is no driving force to change that situation.

In his submission the European Commission's representative, Mr Jim Dougal said that he is prepared to arrange training seminars. However, it is not his job to do that - it is the job of the House and the officials here to put in place those recommendations and training mechanisms. We do not want to get our steer totally from the European Commission's representative. Members may not necessarily share his agenda, which accords with that of the Commission, and it is important that we ensure that our approach is in the interests of the people whom we represent, rather than in the interests of the Commission with its own detailed agenda.

There are some other criticisms to which I would like to refer. I note that only one MEP made a written submission to the report, although Jim Nicholson made himself available to the Committee for an extensive verbal briefing. Both MEPs had the same stark criticisms, and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must address those instead of just taking them on the chin, because they are serious. For example, in his submission on page 284 of the report, Dr Paisley said that he would like the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister

That does not seem to be being done, and it is essential that OFMDFM picks up on that.

The report gives an interesting insight into the role of OFMDFM and its links with MEPs:

Dr Paisley continues:

That is a stark criticism, and, brushing aside its political content, it is a very serious administrative criticism, which the Office of the First and the Deputy First Ministers should address seriously. Ken Robinson, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, also made that point, and I am happy to echo it.

Finally, I wish to draw Members' attention to the comments of Mr John Simpson, Queen's University and the Ulster Farmers' Union, all of which make the same criticisms that there is neither the scrutiny, the strategic vision nor the proper policy approach to Europe that there should be. The Assembly is grateful to the Committee of the Centre for carrying out this brave task and for identifying the issues in the way in which it has.

Order. We have now arrived at the moment of interruption.

Oral Answers to Questions

Enterprise, Trade and Investment

TOP

It is time for questions to the Ministers. First, we have questions to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey. Question 3, in the name of Mr Eugene McMenamin, has been withdrawn. The House will be aware of why that is the case. Mr McMenamin is not able to be here today because of the appalling attack on his home last night. Our thoughts are with the Member and his family in consequence of that. His question will, of course, receive a written answer.

TOP

1.

asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to outline the progress made by Tourism Ireland.

(AQO 1066/01)

Before answering the question, I want to say that I deplore last night's attack on Mr McMenamin and his family. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that all Members will share your view that it was an outrageous attack. We wish the Member and his family well in coming to terms with it.

Hear, hear.

Tourism Ireland Ltd has achieved its core objectives of being operational in 2002 and of launching and implementing a challenging international marketing campaign. In accordance with the direction of the North/South Ministerial Council, a corporate plan has been developed to guide the company through the period from 2002 to 2004.

Is the Minister confident, given that the body's full complement of staff is now in post and that it is fully operational, that all the views from all sectors of the tourism industry, North and South, will have adequate representation in Tourism Ireland Ltd?

There were industrial relations problems concerning staff who were transferring from Bord Fáilte in the Republic. Those problems have been resolved. A full complement of staff is being assembled in the Dublin office. The Coleraine office is in temporary accommodation at present. Five out of the possible 15 or 16 members of staff are in post. The remaining staff will be assembled between now and the autumn. It is hoped that the new Coleraine regional office will be available later this year, when all staff members will be in post. That is the current plan.

I assure the Member that although at the time of appointment to the board there was criticism that not every section of the tourist industry was represented - bearing in mind that we had to have a small operational board with the capability to start off a multimillion pound organisation - the views of all parts of the industry are now being taken on board. That is being done through the creation of groups involving industry representatives and Tourism Ireland Ltd representatives to work out the operational plans. All sections of the industry will be able to convey their views to the heart of the organisation and have those views reflected in future marketing campaigns.

The Member must, however, bear in mind that although there has been criticism in that respect, the significant achievements of creating a new organisation from scratch and starting its first marketing campaign, have taken place against the background of two of the worst events to have affected tourism on these islands in our lifetime - foot-and-mouth disease and the events of 11 September 2001. Tourism Ireland Ltd's response has been positive, and I congratulate it.

TOP

2.

asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to outline (a) any elements of e-government which have been introduced within his Department in each of the past three years; and (b) any plans for e-government development in the next three years.

(AQO 1091/01)

In the past three years my Department has developed an e-business strategy, including an Internet presence providing information directly to the public. We have also upgraded our IT infrastructure, completed a pilot study on electronic document and records management and developed a project in Companies Registry that has converted paper systems to electronic access. The Department intends to extend that approach to other areas.

I thank the Minister for those details of positive and obvious progress. The corporate strategic framework for electronic delivery of Government services specified that Departments would consult their customers to ensure that needs are addressed. Can the Minister outline any processes that businesses in his Department use to identify customers' electronic services needs?

There is significant potential in such processes. The first requirement is to understand customer needs, as the Member correctly identified. We must then ensure that both staff and customers understand the approach and are confident with the systems and the proposed changes. Provision of self-service facilities for customers, supported by a contact centre, is one project that we are following up. That should ensure a more joined-up approach, with delivery through various media: Internet, e-mail, fax and perhaps kiosks. It depends on what the service is and where it is required.

An editorial board has been established, with responsibility for providing a customer-focused web presence for the Department. Exploiting knowledge management relies on maximising the corporate memory through good information use and management, of which an electronic record and document management system is an essential component.

I visited Companies Registry a few months ago and saw the records that are held there. Massive circular document holders are dug into the ground, and a huge amount of paper is collected. The office will be altered so that customers will be able to access much of that information electronically. Of course, it will be stored.

We must remember that there are many legalities involved; companies are involved in court actions all the time. Therefore, we are grateful that we are making progress on giving legal effect to electronically generated materials. I am satisfied with the progress that is being made. A target has been set of ensuring that services and advice are offered not only via current methods, but by new methods, by the end of the e-business programme in 2005. By that time, all key services are to be available online. That is quite ambitious.

The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has taken a great interest in the development of e-government. The Minister said that the Department had established targets. What monitoring procedures have been established to ensure that those targets are met?

A committee in the Department is charged with exactly that. A quarterly report informs me of the progress that has been made across all targets that the Department sets, including the development of e-government. That is entirely consistent with the commitments in the Programme for Government. The target date of 2005 is ambitious, but it will be worth it. The Committee is interested in e-government. Indeed, many services across Government and local government can be provided in that way, such as licence applications and the provision of information, which is where, for instance, kiosks and so on come in. They are very ambitious targets, but I assure the Member that monitoring is conducted on a rolling basis and quarterly reports are sent to me.

Does the Minister agree that the principal pitfall of e-government is the e-mail congestion that it creates? What steps are Departments taking to address the proliferation of an unnecessary duplication of e-mails in the Government machine?

I am not sure whether it is generational, but the first thing that people seem to do on receiving an e-mail is to copy it in triplicate in hard copy. If I am aware of any particular problem, it is that one. People are still afraid that when material is transmitted electronically, it will run away unless it exists as hard copy. Perhaps I misread the expression on your face, Mr Speaker, but you give me the impression that you know what I am talking about. There is a substantial proliferation of e-mails - I see it in my office all the time. However, the problem is that in addition to those e-mails, there is also hard copy, or e-mails are automatically printed out as hard copy. One successful company in Northern Ireland makes the point that over one third of all e-mails are not answered, and it has employed people in Belfast and Londonderry to deal with that problem.

I do not have a technical answer to the Member's question, but that will come with experience. When credit cards were first introduced, people were reluctant to use them. However, people are now familiar with credit cards, and some people have taken to them very well. We will all learn how to handle it.

When does the Minister expect to publish the comparative costs of electronic service delivery versus the cost of the more traditional paper transaction service?

I have no current plans to publish comparative costs, because those matters are cross-departmental. The motivation for the provision of that type of information is not simply speed of transfer, and if it is managed properly, it has the potential to involve fewer people in the transmission of larger amounts of information. That is the rationale for undertaking it. I will take advice on the Member's question and will write to him if such figures are available in detail in my Department. A central Government unit is charged with the process. Government-wide figures may be available, and I will inform the Member accordingly.

TOP

4.

asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment how he assists local companies that engage in outward investment.

(AQO 1067/01)

Invest Northern Ireland's mission is to accelerate economic development in Northern Ireland. Financial support will be offered towards investment in Northern Ireland to achieve that goal. Direct assistance is not offered towards companies' investments overseas.

Do the Minister and his Department recognise that, when businesses express a wish to develop overseas as well as at home, it is an indication of a vibrant economy? Does he recognise that businesses do not necessarily require financial assistance, but back-up assistance to develop international links in order to improve their chances of bringing further investment and profitability to Northern Ireland?

I recognise the Member's point. The Department offers assistance in different ways. Invest Northern Ireland has several overseas offices, including one in the Dubai Internet City. Before Christmas, it opened an incubator centre in Boston, and it is hoped that a follow-up office will open in New York shortly.

Those measures are designed to help companies that are establishing themselves in overseas markets. Primarily, of course, their objective is to sell their products and services in those markets. However, the Member touched on an issue that, as I have said before, Members must come to terms with. A growing number of our companies are acquiring, or entering into arrangements with, overseas companies. They have transferred a significant amount of manufacturing to those overseas locations on the grounds that it enables them to become more competitive and in some cases they send partially finished materials back to Northern Ireland for more added-value work. That is spreading across sector after sector.

To answer the Member's question, the Department does not give money directly to companies to establish overseas offices. However, in helping companies generally, whether financially or through the provision of advice and other services, the establishment of overseas offices is a growing trend. It is an emotive issue. Therefore, as a community, we must make a judgement in the not-too-distant future on how we choose to deal with these matters. People see the establishment of overseas offices as the exporting of jobs; they see it as encouraging companies to move production facilities elsewhere. The Department does all that it can to avoid that, but the Member is correct to say that we must be extremely aware of the issue, and we must provide as much advice and assistance as possible in the manner that I indicated.

To what extent has InterTradeIreland been able to assist Northern Ireland companies to develop and expand their business in the Republic of Ireland?

InterTradeIreland is designed to increase the amount of trade between the Republic and Northern Ireland, which it does in several ways. It also has objectives to improve the competitiveness of, and to measure, that trade. The first thing that the Department discovered is that the measurement of cross-border trade is one of the most difficult tasks, because the figures did not match. Work has been undertaken to set a benchmark to show the position from which we are starting.

Schemes have been introduced whereby graduates from Northern Ireland companies work in companies in the Republic, and vice versa, in order to exchange information. The Department has encouraged graduates to join companies to help them to develop marketing strategies. In particular, that initiative applies to small companies that hitherto have not had the opportunity to develop their own marketing strategies because they have not had the necessary resources. As I mentioned in answer to a previous question, the Department is keen to expand the grossly under-exploited amount of business that is done through public tendering arrangements in which the public sector buy billions of pounds worth of goods and services on both sides of the border.

Therefore InterTradeIreland has a substantial agenda that it is working through well. I presented its corporate plan to the House following the most recent North/ South Ministerial Council meeting, and I am sure that the Member has read it assiduously.

The Minister has answered my concerns that were provoked by the wording of the original question. For the sake of clarification, can he state that it is the case that no assistance is given to firms from Northern Ireland that successfully take over companies from outside the United Kingdom? Does the term "outward investment by Northern Ireland companies" include investment in the Republic of Ireland, in which there is increasing investment due to the weakening of its currency?

I confirm that the right hon Member's interpretation of my answer is correct, and the answer to the Member's second question is "yes".

TOP

5.

asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to make a statement on the decision of the Rixell Company to expand its operations to Omagh and thereby create 150 jobs.

(AQO 1083/01)

Rixell Ltd is a new subsidiary of the Ritek Corporation. Locations in America, Europe and Asia were considered for this £27 million investment to service the European market. Omagh succeeded because of the availability of staff, suitable premises, the educational infrastructure, proximity to the market and support from Invest Northern Ireland and Omagh District Council.

I warmly welcome and commend the decision of the company to expand its operations to Omagh, thereby creating 150 jobs. As the Minister will be aware, the move is raising morale in the area. The combined efforts are acknowledged. Omagh is the county town of Tyrone and has been identified as a major regional growth centre. The Minister referred to suitable accommodation. Does he wish to comment further on the value and importance of having an advance factory in helping to attract and secure inward investment?

I was pleased to be present when the announcement of the investment in Omagh was made. I hope that 150, rather than 120, jobs will be created. I know that the announcement was well received in the local community because significant time had passed since such an investment had been announced for the Omagh District Council area. The presence of that facility outside the town was very significant. I visited the facility last year, and I was very impressed by its quality. The fact that it was already there and available to be altered for the needs of this company was one of the critical factors in the decision to locate in Omagh.

A similar situation arose at the end of 2000 in Strabane. An investment was located in Orchard Road by Fab Plus, which took over an advance factory. On a visit to Omagh shortly afterwards, I promised that we would take immediate action to ensure that further space was made available on an adjacent site in the area. A development brief has been produced, and I hope that a new facility, suitable for multiple occupancy or for an information and communication technology (ICT) company, will be available by this autumn. I am considering the situation in Omagh to establish whether a similar development should be made there. I will contact my colleagues in Invest Northern Ireland to see what response they intend to make.

I welcome the announcement of the decision. It was a pleasure to be present when the announcement was made. I also acknowledge the Minister's reference to a similar project in Strabane. However, the Minister will realise that inward investment is a cross-cutting issue, involving housing, health provision, education and transport infrastructures. Will the Minister give a commitment to continue to liaise with the Ministers responsible for those other areas to ensure that west Tyrone remains an area attractive to inward investment?

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>