I welcome Michael D'Arcy to the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. He was commissioned to do some work for the Centre for Cross Border Studies. I am delighted that Andy Pollack is here today. He is the inspiration behind it and he is very welcome. Mr. Pollack has entrusted Mr. D'Arcy to get the message out about what the Centre for Cross Border Studies is aspiring towards as well as the range of work undertaken. Mr. D'Arcy might use this as an opportunity for a good, interactive question and answer session. There will be many questions from the members.
Report on North-South Public Service Provision: Discussion
Mr. Michael D'Arcy
I thank the Chairman and the committee for this opportunity. This is an important committee on the island of Ireland because it is one of the few formal spaces where all-island thinking must be paramount. That is important, especially at this time. I am here to discuss my scoping study, Delivering a Prosperity Process: Opportunities in North/South Public Service Provision. It is not said often enough that North-South interaction has delivered substantial benefits for both jurisdictions on the island. This is something which, perhaps, we do not appreciate or look to often enough as we consider what we have to do in this new era. Why can I say that? Essentially, I know this because I was there, as Max Boyce says. In the early 1990s I first became involved in North-South economic and enterprise policy development. When I reflect on the difference between then and now, I realise it is substantial and significant. There is peace and there are agreements, institutions and a wide range of other interactions. Above all, there are relationships that did not exist in the early 1990s, especially at political level and among politicians.
This leads me to one of my themes today. Given the important decisions that politicians are making this week in the Houses, typical of the choices that have to be made in these times of serious budget adjustments, it is important the relationships in place between North and South that can deliver the types of recommendations I am making are used beneficially and productively on behalf of all the citizens of the island. I have always been involved in the thinking related to how to go about that. New thinking is needed because we are in a new era. The great recession has left us in a completely different place from where we were even five or six years ago. Governments are engaged in adjustment programmes. The report notes that in this jurisdiction we are 65% through the adjustment programme required by the troika. The United Kingdom is only 12% through its programme. In his budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, said that he pushed out the end of their project until the latter part of the decade.
We are discussing public services. Public expenditure is under pressure and reforms and adjustment are required.
New thinking will be needed if North-South co-operation is to be part of that. I put forward ten suggestions in that regard. I place them in the context of a prosperity process. In the early 1990s, everyone spoke about peace and prosperity but we ended up with a peace process. Now that economics is dominating thinking, surely it is time we moved the focus onto the prosperity side. I suggest that could be captured in a prosperity process.
Last October I presented the study to the enterprise, trade and investment committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly and there was very good interaction at the meeting. The prosperity focus seemed to be a comfortable space in which to discuss opportunities for co-operation and interaction. The areas of most interest in my suggestions were to do with jobs, energy, education and the EU, especially the Presidency. There is a sense of the necessity to move on. There has been much talk and now is the time to do something.
Senator George Mitchell addressed this committee earlier this year. I noted he said that in brokering a lasting peace the process requires endless perseverance. I can attest to that. He also said that the role of a mediator was to establish a context for reasonable discussion to occur, often simply by listening, being patient, imaginative and practical. I am here to listen to members of this committee and to answer any questions as best I can. I am happy to give further details about the study and its recommendations.
I thank Mr. D'Arcy. This is a scoping study containing ten areas which have been identified. I will list the areas for the benefit of members. They are, work and jobs from economic growth; the single energy market; off-island tourism research projects; cross-Border health service provision plan; the case for a cross-Border economic development zone - this will be of interest to Border Deputies; higher education initiatives between third level institutions; North-South co-ordination on treated water; memorandum of understanding on all 21st century infrastructure upgrades; Ireland's EU Presidency - a vehicle for the North-South collaboration will be the North-South Ministerial Council; and a practical system-wide support for public sector managers.
I welcome Mr. D'Arcy to the meeting for this important discussion. This is an area of great interest to people living along the Border. They have been affected negatively by the lack of joined-up thinking between both sides with regard to the provision of health services, education, water, telecommunications, industrial development or the creation of jobs in the region. Much of the focus has been on Belfast and the larger locations. The development of prosperity along the peripheral Border regions needs a lot of work. I am interested in teasing out Mr. D'Arcy's views on the importance of local transport networks in the peripheral regions and their effect on the development of business and job opportunities.
A particular bugbear of mine is the lack of development in the local road structure between the counties on each side of the Border, between the towns of Armagh and Monaghan. I am sure it is the same between Donegal and Tyrone in the more rural areas compared with the Derry-Letterkenny side. This development of local roads has a part to play in the creation of growth. There is a lack of joined-up thinking between the road service in Northern Ireland and the local authorities in the Republic when it comes to the development of those local transport links.
This also affects the health policy. There have been some initiatives to develop co-operation between both health services such as cross-Border ambulance and emergency services. Many people living along the Border on the Republic side may go to a doctor in Armagh or in Fermanagh. When they get sick they may want to go to Craigavon hospital but the ambulance will not cross the Border so they will need to be transported by a family member. At a practical level we need some movement in this area to ensure these people are not inconvenienced in this way. This is a very important report which I look forward to reading in depth. I may revert to Mr. D'Arcy to tease out some points.
I am conscious there may be a vote at 2 p.m. so I will take a group of questions together.
Ms Michelle Gildernew MP, MLA
I welcome Mr. D'Arcy. I will be brief. There is a lot to talk about in this report. A lot more is being done but there remains much to be done. Like Deputy Conlan, I will focus my questions on the issue of health. He referred to John Compton's Transforming Your Care programme. Enniskillen has a new state-of-the-art hospital with the potential for cross-Border working in co-operation with Sligo and Cavan hospitals. This is not an attempt to empire-build but rather we have an opportunity to provide a quality service for people living in that region. However, there is an issue because that hospital is not recognised by the health insurance companies. I commend Mr. D'Arcy's report and I suggest it is circulated to all Departments, North and South with a note requesting Departments to provide a response to this committee on how they propose to address the recommendations outlined in the report. It is a very impressive piece of work. We can do so much more to benefit all the people on the island.
I ask for a seconder for Ms Gildernew's proposal.
I second the proposal.
I welcome Mr. D'Arcy to the meeting. I also welcome his presentation and the report. Like Deputy Conlan, I intend to read the report. We suffer overloads sometimes, as the Chairman will confirm. We are in receipt of so many documents on a given day and, sadly, one cannot read them all. However, in this case it is incumbent on us to read and study it because of the region we represent. I see merit in what Deputy Conlan said about follow-up discussions with Mr. D'Arcy as we read the report.
I will focus briefly on the area of cross-Border co-operation, the economy and the prosperity agenda that everyone can buy into, to use that phrase. Tourism holds great potential. We have lakeland areas and heritage sites which have been under-exploited. There is a potential to create a branding for the area to market it abroad more effectively. We have more potential to market our Border area. There may be a need for some flagship events. I refer to the impact of the all-Ireland Fleadh Cheoil held in Cavan which is difficult to quantify. Apart from its cultural and aesthetic merits which are unquantifiable, there is the purely economic impact with €40 million coming into the area as a result. We need to look to organise flagship events in the Border region and also to create marketing brands for the lakeland areas. We seem to have missed out down the years. We may be the Cinderella area in terms of the national tourism product and tourism numbers. We have been on the periphery. Our Chairman's County Donegal would not have suffered to the same extent. However, in the other Border counties we are on the periphery in terms of marketing for tourism purposes. I refer to the beauty of the Cavan-Louth area and the Fermanagh-Tyrone area. The attractions offered by those areas were not packaged very well over the years. I look forward to Mr. D'Arcy's comments in this regard.
I welcome Mr. D'Arcy and thank him for his contribution. I regret, however, that it seems unlikely his report will be given any real, serious consideration in the course of this meeting. I accept that we are operating under time constraints, but it seems clear to me that the committee needs to be allowed time to give the matter further consideration. The form that consideration might take can be discussed in private session. By allocating only today's meeting for discussion of the report, we are not giving it due attention.
What stands out from Mr. D'Arcy's statement is his indication that all participants in the study agreed that opportunities for cross-Border co-operation in the provision of public services are being under-utilised. He referred to several areas in which there is potential for practical co-operation, including higher education. There have been some positive developments in this area recently, such as the co-operation at ministerial level in respect of the survey on small schools in Border areas.
Mr. D'Arcy also observed that 90 years of development has resulted in an ingrained institutional separation of public services which has the potential to block the types of initiatives he discusses in his report. We must give careful consideration to how those difficulties can be unblocked. Would he recommend, for example, the establishment of additional North-South bodies, for which there is scope under the Good Friday Agreement? Earlier in this meeting we discussed the opportunities for co-operation in the area of youth work. Is that an area in which Mr. D'Arcy sees scope for enhanced co-operation under the terms of the Agreement?
In regard to the overall response to his report, North and South, will Mr. D'Arcy indicate whether any individual Departments in either jurisdiction have acted on any of its recommendations? I presume, after all, that he wrote the report on the basis that there would be follow-up on those very clear recommendations. Have Departments been in contact with Mr. D'Arcy to discuss how they can best move forward in this regard?
Finally, I would appreciate if Mr. D'Arcy could expand on the economic development zone issue. I reiterate my apology that the committee is not giving the report the consideration it deserves. I am strongly of the view that we should have another meeting to continue our discussion of the issues raised therein.
I take the Deputy's point. Perhaps Mr. D'Arcy and Mr. Pollack would agree to return on another day to explore the report further. We can discuss the issue among ourselves at the end of the meeting. I agree that further consideration is desirable.
I welcome Mr. D'Arcy to the meeting. I have to smile when I hear his name, because it has such romantic connotations.
We should keep this strictly professional, Senator.
It is the name of the ideal man.
(Interruptions).
I thank Mr. D'Arcy for the excellent document he has produced. Of the ten areas he has highlighted, the first and fifth seem particularly relevant. We are all in favour of measures to support economic growth and jobs creation. I am particularly interested in the proposal regarding an all-Ireland tourism infrastructure research project. A concern for me in this regard is that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Fáilte Ireland are working independently of each other. This committee has a great opportunity to push for greater co-operation between the two bodies and the development of a single marketing plan for the island as a whole.
More specifically, there is great potential in the hosting of the G8 summit in County Fermanagh next year. The marketing of that event could include information on tourist activities in, for instance, County Leitrim. There is enormous scope in this event for tourism on both sides of the Border.
The Senator should not forget County Cavan.
Of course. Fermanagh is such a beautiful county and the resort at which the meeting will be held is amazing.
I would like to see a greater level of co-operation generally between the two tourist groups on either side of the Border with a view to enhancing the tourism potential in both jurisdictions. This committee supported funding for the construction of the Narrow Water Bridge in Carlingford, which is due to be up and running in 2015. There is great potential in that development for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Fáilte Ireland to work together to devise a joint marketing plan for the Mourne Mountains and the Cooley Peninsula.
There are many other opportunities for North-South co-operation, but tourism is a particularly logical and beneficial one. It is an issue about which I am very passionate. The committee should encourage the two tourism agencies to work together to produce a joint marketing plan for the Border area. The hosting of the G8 summit offers an exceptional opportunity in this regard and the committee should push hard on the issue.
The Senator's suggestion is a good one. I am sure Mr. D'Arcy will refer in his response to Tourism Ireland and the work it is doing.
A division has been called in the Dáil. I propose that the meeting be suspended to allow Deputies to vote, after which Mr. D'Arcy will have an opportunity to give a comprehensive reply to points raised by members. This is preferable to asking him to respond in the two or three minutes available before the vote. Is that agreed? Agreed. Mr. D'Arcy might like to engage with the Senators in our absence.
Sitting suspended at 2 p.m. and resumed at 2.50 p.m.
We are now resumed in public session. I think we have broken the world record for having had the longest time to reflect on questions and therefore I am sure we will be inspired by Mr. D'Arcy's contribution.
Mr. Michael D'Arcy
Being a sportsman, I take that as a challenge and my response had better be good. In case I did not mention it earlier, I should say that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is the supporter of this study. It was commissioned by the CCBS and it is important to put that on the record. When I was preparing this presentation and the fact that it was to be made to the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, I reread the Agreement, particularly the declaration at the start of it. I took note of the wording of what was the task of the Agreement and I give a few selected references from it. It states: "We are committed to partnership ... between North and South" and "we will endeavour to strive in every practical way towards reconciliation and ... agreed arrangements". In responding to the questions, I would like members to keep that sense of agreed arrangements in the back of their minds as to what this committee and politicians in general can do. Ultimately, when one talks about public service provision, one is talking about matters which are under the discretion of politicians and of Ministers in exercising power. If we are to have two jurisdictions co-operating with each other, we need agreed arrangements. In terms of the "what can we do?" question, which is always the first one that should be tackled, agreed arrangements are perhaps a good starting point.
I was just talking to Michelle Gildernew about the question of health and health insurance and I will start by dealing with that question. We are talking about the NHS and the HSE in any agreed arrangements. I am often amused when those in the South talk about economies of scale. If we think about the NHS and about the HSE, the economies of scale are the other way around. The benefits from this jurisdiction plugging into the NHS is to plug into those economies of scale, as they are deployed within Northern Ireland. That is the perspective to which we need to get used.
The question of insurance goes to the heart of the matter when we think of what we insure against and it is against the occurrence of a catastrophe. My life is insured. When one talk about health insurance, there are two aspects. One is if something goes wrong and the other is the payment mechanism when one is getting something done. If one thinks about both, co-operation, or even co-ordination, will not be enough. These arrangements will include collaboration. When something goes wrong, it cannot be a case of: "Would you like to look into that, please?" People have to come and work together to figure out how this can done.
In a Border context, are there different arrangements for different parts of the Border? This is a point Michelle Gildernew raised. Is there one arrangement in Enniskillen hospital, another in Altnagelvin hospital and another in Daisy Hill Hospital? How does that make sense? The arrangements must be co-ordinated and coherent between all the facilities. That is the only agreed arrangement that fundamentally makes sense, namely, that some basic principles would guide the application of the insurance right along the Border. What was mentioned in the Compton report in this respect? It was the fact that there happen to be three acute hospitals in the Border region on the Northern side of the Border whereas they do not have a mirror in the South. The acute hospitals are further south. For the convenience of people in the Border regions, tapping into that economy of scale makes a good deal of sense. The Compton report is interesting in the sense that it allowed for the possibility that around Daisy Hill, unless patients were coming from the South to it, it would not maintain its position in terms of economies of scale within the Northern system. That is a real challenge and opportunity in the South to put the agreed arrangements in place that would make that happen.
What is the role of politics and politicians in this? It is to sit on that in a way, to keep asking the questions whether we should have those arrangements, where they are, how we can put them in place and how they should happen. We are not the experts, we need to be given the answers and then we can evaluate. That is the reason this forum is so important because the members bring both sides of that equation together. If we were in the other committee rooms with just the public health forum operating in the South, we would get only side of the equation. Here we have the opportunity to bring the two sides together and to seek co-ordination and coherence between them in terms of all along the Border and not just in the middle, the north west or wherever. That is an interesting question but these are tough challenges and they are complex. If one were to ask administrators to do this, they would have a lot of work to do. I will come back to that question in terms of the administration and what that might involve.
The benefits are clearly evident. If one looks from the top down, in terms of the element of the health budget that is within the discretion of the Northern Ireland Administration, if economies are scale are dependent upon usage, then across the health system there are benefits form acute hospitals down to centres catering for specialist conditions. If one decides to set up centres to cater for specialist conditions on this island, be it cardiac care, a very rare form of cancer and let us say there are 100 sufferers, on the law of averages, ten of those will be in the North and 90 will be in South. There is a choice for the patient and his or her family. If the specialist centre is set up in the South, the choice is if they wish to have treatment in London, Liverpool or Manchester whereby they would have to board a plane or boat or if they wish to get into a car and drive North and vice versa. A centre of excellence is being developed in Belfast, involving Queen's University and Belfast City Hospital around cancer care. Is there a benefit in the South in being able to plug into a UK centre of excellence by driving in a car for the two and half hours to the North instead of boarding a plane or a boat? These are the practical issues that need to be injected by politicians into the more complex challenges of the two entities, which are engaged in enormous internal reform process and have many other things on their mind. Unless this is pushed, I fear it will not happen.
Another way this can happen is through communities. General practitioner services are driven by patients. As I understand it, the NHS is moving towards a more GP-paid-by-patient model, more like the model we have here. That puts the power somewhat into the patients' hands. If communities in the Border regions can come together to drive this again from a bottom-up approach, that would be helpful as well.
In terms of the study, it is proposed that someone should put forward a plan to do this. There should be a plan somewhere. If one wants to implement something, one needs a plan. Who will be responsible for that, where is the plan, how can it be done, what are the issues around it, what are the costs involved and what are the benefits? Those are the practical suggestions made in the study.
I will move on to tourism and the issues raised were interesting. All the conversations I had were informal - Chatham House rules. There was a sense that we have structure in that Tourism Ireland sells Ireland across the world and invites people to come to Ireland and in that way it increases its share of the pie. We also have Fáilte Ireland and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and they compete for their share of the pie. Structurally, one might say that is not optimal. In answer to the specific question of how do we get around that, my practical suggestion was to ask can we move beyond the agencies to the people in the field, the providers of tourism products and services. I thought back to the late 1980s. Unfortunately, I can go back that far. For a long time the tourism industry had depended on coach tours from UK and there was a desire to increase tourism from the Continent. The industry commissioned research and asked people on the Continent what they wanted, what would bring them here in the first instance, and what would have to be invest in to provide an experience that would be worthwhile for them to travel here. It is time to go back and think about that.
The scenery is beautiful but what will someone from Beijing, for example, want to do there? What would bring them to those lakes as distinct from lakes elsewhere in Europe? We should think about the G8 summit in that context because if it is on Chinese television, that is one of the few opportunities one gets to be on mainstream Chinese television. My proposal for the people in Fermanagh, Sligo and north Leitrim is that they should not just wait. The community should mobilise and consider that ahead of the event. They should identify the gap, go to the agencies and ask them to do some research to find out if this could be more broadly popular in that market.
That leads me to the next question on the Border development zone. The concept of a Border development zone was first proposed by Mr. Padraic White at a conference run by Andy Pollak, and it is so self-evidently worthwhile it is something one could think might happen. I got some push back in the research from a policy perspective, however, in terms of the danger of creating another special region. There is always a risk to that. The Shannon Development region is now being wound up 30 years later because it passed its purpose. There are also the Gaeltacht regions. There is always a risk in creating specialist regions. I suggested taking another step and pushing this out to the communities. What do the 1 million people - Mr. White did the mathematics - who live within 20 miles of each side of the Border share? They share two peripheralities. They share regional peripherality within both jurisdictions and they share the peripherality of being on a border between the two jurisdictions. In terms of anything that requires a decision at the centre in Belfast or Dublin that has universal effect, why not mobilise universally to get that decision made?
In terms of health services, why talk about a particular case in Altnagelvin hospital which is different from Enniskillen hospital or Daisy Hill Hospital? All the groups around the Border should have a common set of principles and say to both centres that this is what is needed in the Border region. I pushed it back, so to speak.
I was talking to Mr. Pollak during the break. The centre will launch a series of scoping studies to drill down more deeply in terms of the implementation of the zone, but regardless of the number of studies done, local leaders must come together to bring it forward. Looking around this room, obviously representatives of the Border region play an important role in sending signals. Politicians can always send critical signals to their constituents and their communities. This is important. We must step outside the local and see what we share in common if this zone is to work, and these are the issues we can work on collectively around the region.
Economically, there are major distinctions. The north west is one type of economy. What is Derry doing in terms of stepping up to the plate and being the economic hub of that north-west region? In the mid-Border region there is no urban centre. It is completely peripheral and therefore people have to work harder. The eastern corridor is between Dublin and Belfast. There are the two economic poles and the motorway, and all the literature tells us that motorways can act as a powerful development tool.
If we look outside of the area, the centre commissioned a very good study from John Bradley and Mike Best that examined business in the Border region. Again, that is taking advantage of the Border in setting up logistical services to serve the island from the Border region with the new transport network. There are opportunities in that regard. On one site a cluster of specialist food companies is developing. This is where we need to go in the future in terms of enterprise development.
In terms of transport, I have driven to the north west - the missing link. One drives to Galway and it is transformed. I live in Terenure. I am ten minutes from the Spawell roundabout and then all of the island, except the north west, is available to me. I used to show a map of the railway infrastructure in 1920 and it covered the entire island, and if one looks at it today, it has a big gap also. A good question for people in the north west to ask themselves is which north west are we talking about. Is it just Donegal or the broader north west? That is a real challenge and is something I hope will be corrected because it is an infrastructure gap that needs to be filled.
In regard to local roads, that is the legacy of history. Again, it is about agreed arrangements. Can agreed arrangements be put in place in terms of the local authorities, the National Roads Authority and the Northern Ireland counterpart to fix those problems? If there are traffic jams due to more economic activity and interaction between the communities, that builds the case. Demand should drive the necessity to upgrade the roads infrastructure. If members can show a progressive demand, that will probably help but, ultimately, agreed arrangements are what will be needed. Someone must allocate the budget to spend the money and it must be obtained from the two centres. That is the real challenge.
Coming back to administration, I am not talking about the joint secretariat in Armagh that essentially has become the experts in North-South interaction. It is almost like a centre of excellence in that regard. In terms of a manager in the broader public administration being given a job that involves North-South engagement, it is a risk. It is outside the day job. We do not normally engage with someone from the other jurisdiction, and it is different from going to Brussels. In Brussels, one is engaging with 27 other member states. It is a big process and a big machine. One has been geared up for it. One has got training and coaching. It is a different experience to jump into a car and drive to Belfast to meet one's counterpart in a Northern Ireland department, especially if it is on an issue outside the agreements and there is not someone from the joint secretariat present.
Being practical about it, there is no real incentive in that regard. Does one get an extra star on one's performance measurement by either Administration in recognition of it? Is one given any extra credit for it? One of our practical recommendations is that there should be a handbook and more support given generally across the system if implementation is to work. Politics and politicians have an important role to show the systems that this is important and that it must be recognised. If they ask for the work to be done, they must recognise there is a need for the benefits to be acknowledged, both for the individual as well as for the system as a whole.
In terms of the agreements, that is a political task. I would make two suggestions. It was interesting that in all the conversations I had with people, two aspects set the tone. The first was when I suggested that this was about thinking about the choices. Decisions in politics are about choices in terms of where the money goes and where and how reform will occur that will still have a significant effect in 2022 when a child who is 11 years old today is 21, because the political horizon is always relatively short. It is about the opportunity to think into the future, particularly in a crisis. That was a useful space that people went into.
The second was when I spoke about the full spectrum of North-South interaction because very often we just hear the narrative, but the Chairman understands that there is a single electricity market on this island. I like the way he referred to a single energy market. That is my suggestion, but technically it is still a single electricity market which makes a difference because gas is outside it, for example. That is a very important matter if we consider the energy security of the island. Gas is being piped in from the west coast which might mean that the entire island would not be dependent on that one pipeline from Scotland for its gas. For those of us who use gas in their homes, it would make quite a difference not to have it. The sense of energy security we get there is important.
We have the agreements, the cross-Border bodies, InterTradeIreland and Tourism Ireland, which has a dotted line relationship to the agreements. We have NAMA, which is outside the agreements. We have the co-operation that takes place between the security forces, the co-operation on tackling diesel laundering and beyond that the money that goes to sport and cultural organisations that operate on an all-island basis. If we embrace the full spectrum of that, that is a fair degree of activity, but it is very rarely brought together and examined in its totality and as a challenge for the two jurisdictions in terms of doing things and moving them on.
I might pose questions rather than answer the Deputy's questions. Are we going about dealing with that and progressing that full spectrum of activity efficiently and effectively?
Are the agreed arrangements that are in place up to that challenge? Are they up to it in an EU context, in particular? When preparing for today's meeting I rang a couple of economist friends who told me the biggest existential threat to what has been achieved is that of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. This has been discussed seriously in London. With regard to the practical movement of people and goods on this island, we could return once again to having a border. It is unlikely that there will be halfway houses. In this regard, one should consider the consequences of a return to our position in 1989 and 1990 before the Single Market programme, bearing in mind the status of the United Kingdom and the question of the Scottish referendum.
Despite these considerations, the European Union is moving on with regard to energy and water. A single EU energy market is approaching. It is really important and there is work going on in this regard. There is a success story in the form of the single electricity market because it involves insured investment. It provides regulatory certainty and has led to lower prices for consumers in Northern Ireland and the Republic. This is challenged by the wider market, into which there must be integration. How do we continue to have success? While there is work taking place at technical level, is there enough awareness among the wider population and business community, who are concerned about energy prices, that holding onto that benefit is one of the important challenges faced by the two Administrations? While there is work at administrative level, are there agreed arrangements between the relevant Ministers that are ambitious and forward-looking in that regard?
With regard to new relationships, the most striking phenomenon in the past 20 years has been the relationships between politicians and decision makers generally. I was involved in an initiative in the noughties, the North-South round table group, which had a role in founding and facilitating that development. We were working with very few relationships at the beginning. Now, anybody present can telephone a representative in Northern Ireland, even if he does not know him. There are no barriers in this regard. We forget that this was not possible ten or 15 years ago. We must consider how this arrangement is being leveraged and how personal trust is being used to take account of the new challenges facing each generation. What is the practical evidence? Are public representatives talking to their constituents enough about this matter? What message is being given to them about the benefits of North-South co-operation?
Let us consider the challenge of prosperity and the need for initiatives. If one stands still in sport, one actually goes backwards. I could quote any number of examples from Arsène Wenger this morning. He stood still for a decade and now has gone back. I am a rugby person. There will be 50,000 people in the Aviva Stadium for an upcoming Leinster game but when I played for Leinster, the spectators amounted to no more than ten men and their dog. One cannot stand still and one must move forward. We must examine the extent to which the agreements and interactions are helping in that regard.
Economists love charting trends with tables and indices. One wakes up every morning and hears the markets have moved or that the price of gilts has decreased, resulting in another crisis. Let us imagine a chart of North-South interaction on new arrangements from 1993 to date. Imagine also a steady line for arrangements on the agreement and a broken line for arrangements outside the agreement. For 1993, there would be only a broken line, rising slowly. For 1998, the unbroken line would shoot up because of the agreements and all the arrangements, resulting in the disappearance of the broken line. For the period 1998 to 2002, the line depicting new arrangements and the agreement would gradually decrease. For 2007, the broken line would shoot up suddenly, with the kicking in of the single energy market. NAMA was established shortly thereafter.
Let us imagine the chart in 2022. Imagining that we currently have a value of ten, we must ask whether anyone is setting a target for new arrangements such that we will be at 50 in 2022. What should the target be? The economist in me would like to leave members with this observation.
As much as the members, including me, would like to contribute further, we must acknowledge that we are under pressure as there is another meeting. The delegation has been more than welcome. We must really consider how we follow up on the economic side. Mr. D'Arcy's message is a refreshing intervention. He has asked us to determine exactly how we take stock of what is occurring. We certainly value his input. I look forward to reading the report.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.15 p.m. and adjourned at 3.35 p.m. sine die.