Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): It is good to see you again, Peter. Thanks very much for attending. I am sorry that, because of circumstances associated with the processes today, we are a wee bit light on numbers and a wee bit late in starting, so please forgive us that. It is good to have you along today to contribute to the inquiry into growth and jobs.

For the Committee members, we have a briefing note at page 13, an earlier written briefing by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) at page 15 and a supplementary paper by ICTU at page 26 in the tabled papers. With us today is Mr Peter Bunting, the assistant general secretary of ICTU. I am sure that you are well known to most people and everybody in the room, Peter. The format, as you have probably been made aware, is that you have the opportunity to present your opening remarks — we have the papers here anyway — and then we will have a q and a session with members. Thank you for coming along today. The floor is yours.

Mr Peter Bunting (Irish Congress of Trade Unions): Thank you, Chairman. We are probably a unique organisation in relation to the issue of corporation tax. We currently represent around 215,000 people in Northern Ireland. It is our view that the devolution of corporation tax powers and, furthermore, the introduction of it would be detrimental to the welfare of the citizens of Northern Ireland. We base that on the empirical data in two reports: one by Sir David Varney, commissioned by the then Government of the United Kingdom, which played down the whole issue, and one by Richard Murphy. At that time we distributed a paper titled 'Only Fool's Gold' — I think that was the title — to all MLAs. If you need that paper, we can redistribute it again to the Committee. It is our view that it is a huge gamble in Northern Ireland to implement lower corporation tax. The conclusion that Varney reached was that the cost would be too severe. It is reckoned that it would cost somewhere in the region of £350 million to £400 million. What that will do, primarily, is redistribute wealth from the poorer sections of society and those in need of public sector services to the rich, without a guarantee of the creation of one particular job. To those who suggest that we need it to compete with the Republic of Ireland, let us be clear: the Murphy report — not only that but our empirical data — indicates that the effective rate of corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland is between 2% and 3%, so, no matter what you do with corporation tax, you will never compete with the Republic of Ireland, in the sense that it is currently a tax haven.

The difficulty that we have also relies on the phraseology of the Stormont House Agreement. Most of us from the trade union movement, certainly the leaders, have been around for a long time and have negotiated agreements. What staggers us is the fact that, according to the Stormont House Agreement:

We were all very aware of that. It goes on:

That is the problem. Nobody knows what that means. What does "behavioural effects" mean? For example, if Tesco's head office were to relocate to Northern Ireland to benefit from the reduction in corporation tax, would that mean that we would then have made 700 or 2,000 people redundant in its head office? Would we in Northern Ireland have to take up the slack and pay for the benefits then accruing to those staff? We do not know. What we do know is that not only could Tesco relocate its head office here as part of the United Kingdom but other companies could also do so. What does "behavioural effects" mean in that context?

The other issue is that the people who will monitor the agreement will be Treasury officials. You can be guaranteed and you are experienced enough as politicians in Northern Ireland to know that, when the Treasury comes after you, it will seek to get every penny and will interpret the agreement to the benefit of the Treasury. That is one of the difficulties that we have. Sammy Wilson was right. He opposed this agreement for many years. I quote from our paper which states that, when he was the Finance Minister, Sammy Wilson said:

One of the issues is that the proponents of the measure reckon that, by 2035, they will have created 34,000 to 38,000 jobs. I do not know about you guys, but I probably will not be around in 2035 to prove them right or wrong. It is a wonderfully long projection in time to see whether they are right or wrong.

One of the difficulties — I keep coming back to the point — is that there are no sanctions and no prohibitions. If, for example, Bunting Enterprises was in receipt of the differential between the 21% and the 12·5%, there is nothing that would make me put the difference of that payment into creating jobs or research and development or increasing exports or employment. I could do whatever I liked with it and could invest in China or Asia if I liked. It is a huge gamble. It is a gamble about jobs, and it will cost £400 million. Every pound out of that £400 million is a pound less for health, which we will all be talking about today, a pound less for education and a pound less for all the rest of the benefits that we get from the public sector.

Even though we may create jobs, the PAYE and the pay related social insurance (PRSI) will go back to the Treasury. We will not get any benefits in Northern Ireland other than some employment. Even the reduction in benefits will go back to the Treasury, if you want to put it in that context. There are no real benefits to Northern Ireland other than jobs, but it is a gamble. Nobody can create jobs or guarantee x amount of jobs because there are no sanctions in relation to that.

The Scottish Government have refused to reduce corporation tax. If I was an American foreign direct investment company seeking to invest in a country that would be beneficial to me in having access to European Union markets, the last place that I would invest in at the moment is the United Kingdom. Why? It is very simple: the EU referendum. There is no guarantee that, in two years' time, the United Kingdom will be part of the European Union. Why would somebody invest here? Why would they not go 45 miles down the road to the Republic and invest there rather than in the United Kingdom, when there is so much doubt about whether they will still have access to the European markets? Nobody can deal with that problem.

In the European Union, there is a major debate in relation to corporation tax and the taxation systems in Holland, Luxemburg and the Republic of Ireland. We are all aware of what goes on. There is the double-Irish/Dutch sandwich between Ireland and Holland, and there is the furore over Luxemburg being a tax haven. That will be dealt with by the European Union, and I think that there will be more of a convergence in corporation tax rates across Europe rather than a reduction in corporation tax in the United Kingdom.

The other important thing that really bothers me is this: on one hand, we are saying that we are rebalancing the economy under the Stormont House Agreement, and we will reduce corporation tax so that somebody can attract foreign direct investment or our indigenous companies will invest and create jobs. So, we are over here, and we all want to get high-value, highly paid jobs. That is what we need to attract into Northern Ireland. We all agree on that; there is consensus on that. However, on the other side, part of the Stormont House Agreement is a reduction in third-level places right across the education front to upskill people. Then we have a huge reduction in the number of lecturers at Queen's University and Ulster University and in the further education institutions. That is a huge contradiction. Any sane person looking at it would say that you cannot take money for upskilling our young people so that they are part of a highly attractive labour market for foreign direct investment companies and give it to somebody else. It is a nonsense; it does not add up. It is an oxymoron, for want of a better term. I cannot understand what you are all at, but I will leave those matters to you.

Even the Chamber of Commerce agrees with the rest of us that our biggest problem in Northern Ireland is that we do not have a highly skilled labour market to compete. The interesting thing about the Republic of Ireland is that, in east Cork and Waterford, where the big pharmaceutical plants such as Bausch and Lomb are, they increased the number of places and changed their curriculums to meet the needs of the foreign direct investment companies for laboratory technicians etc. They invested money in education. They did not decrease jobs. The other thing about that allegedly wonderful place down there — the Republic of Ireland — is that they did not introduce 12·5% corporation tax until 2003. They had a 10% manufacturing tax from 1957 until 1987, when nothing happened. The economy was a disaster in the Republic of Ireland in 1987. Thinking that this miracle — this false idea of having a reduction in corporation tax — will attract people here is a nonsense.

You were quite right, Chairperson, when you made a comment after visiting Stuttgart, that it is about how we do the investment and where to make it. Just in case you think that I am against business, let me say to you that in 2007, I went to the Minister for Transport in the Republic of Ireland, Martin Cullen, on behalf of Wrightbus in Ballymena and got him to purchase all the buses for Dublin Bus from Wrightbus. I did that along with the shop stewards. At that time, he did not go through European tendering systems; he came up immediately and took the idea. I introduced him to the shop stewards. When he came up to the plant, he got a standing ovation from the Wrightbus employees. He was met by the late Ian Paisley senior and Ian Paisley junior, and they will all attest to this, by the way. I brought in an £8 million contract there and then, and that has since increased to over £30 million. So, in case anyone thinks that I am anti-business, that is what I did for this all-island economy and for Wrightbus in Ballymena. Sometimes, I and the trade union movement are accused of being Luddites who do nothing for the economy. We did what we had to do for Wrightbus because it made sense.

There has been an emphasis on the Scottish model and the SNP, which stated:

That competition will happen if we introduce corporation tax and transfer that wealth from those who are in need of public services. That £400 million will go to the business community in a gamble that none of us can say with any positivity will create x number of jobs by whatever date. None of us can say that. It is a ruse by those in business, and, to me, it does not make sense.

That said, we maintain that, if there is some criterion, rather than the blunderbuss approach, through which you could say to companies that if they invest in R&D — having roots in research and development is the wholly best method of retaining any multinational corporation in any state — increase their exports, increase their employee numbers or even build clusters, then, by all means, it is criteria-based and performance-based, and they will be given the money. The clusters I mentioned are the foundation, as you will have seen in Germany, of many of the small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up the majority of Northern Ireland's economy. Unless we introduce sanctions into it, it is a goner. If I had a company, say, Peter Bunting Enterprises, and was a beneficiary of the differential of the reduction in corporation tax, nobody could say that I would not go off and invest it in China or that I would not buy a yacht or whatever. Nobody could contradict that, because there is no evidence. There is no empirical evidence that corporation tax will work for you; in fact, the evidence is to the contrary.

You can read, in my submission, the last 10 points from Tax Justice Network on the effects of corporation tax reduction. By the way, corporation tax is crucial to the success of an economy, because it pays so much towards infrastructure development that allows companies that export their goods and services to get to the ports or whatever from the west of Northern Ireland. Those are issues for which we cannot suck money out of our economy. They are central issues. Corporate taxes can rebalance economies.

Corporations around the world are hoarding cash. By the way, the big economic tome at the moment is that by Thomas Piketty; I am sure you have heard of him. Years ago, the industrial magnates and owners of factories put x amount of their profit back into production, innovation, new technology and creating new jobs and products. Currently, corporations hold the money, invest it in stocks and shares, make gains on that and pay their shareholders. That is where financial — I hate to use a word that reflects that I am a left-wing economist, which I am not, by the way; I am not even an economist. Anyway, that is where Piketty comes in. He won the Nobel prize, I think. Krugman is another one, as is Stiglitz. They all say that that is not the way to go.

I will leave you with that, Chair; I have spoken for long enough. We have suggested alternatives to the Assembly on building and growing Northern Ireland. We have been on about the retrofitting of houses and the Housing Executive borrowing money. The retrofitting of houses will increase jobs in construction. There is also agribusiness, the creative industries, the innovation fund, investing in people, the living wage, skills and education, site evaluation rather than rates, the tourism bed tax and the use of procurement to create jobs. Anyway, Chair, I will finish there.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Thank you very much indeed for that, Peter. It was very interesting to listen to you, and I am glad that, on reflection, you decided to come here today to give that balance to the evidence that we have been hearing. A lot of the stuff around rates of corporation tax is, maybe, for the other Committee. However, I want to tease out some issues with you. You said that it would be detrimental to the citizens of Northern Ireland. You also said that the effective rate in the Republic was 2% to 3%. Will you expand on those two issues before I move on to others, for clarification, please? It would be important for us to refer to reference works that you have drawn those conclusions from before we move on to a few other questions.

Mr Bunting: I suggest you read the business section of 'The Irish Times' from as recently as last Friday. There is an item on Apple's rate of taxation in the Republic of Ireland. Apple did a deal with the Republic of Ireland which means that it pays 2% tax. Apparently, at the moment, it is under investigation by —

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Is that 2% overall tax or 2% corporation tax?

Mr Bunting: It is 2% corporation tax. That is all they pay. There are more, of course. By the way, you do not even have to go the Republic of Ireland. Look at Starbucks in the UK and Next, and Philip Green's range of companies, where his wife is the owner, and she lives in Monaco. All those companies are there, even in the United Kingdom. I will supply the detail in Murphy's paper to you.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Thank you.

Mr Bunting: In relation to it being detrimental to citizens, it is very simple. It is costing £400 million, and that is foregone out of the block grant to pay for corporation tax with no guarantee that a job will be created. That £400 million has to come out of the block grant for Education and Health, and that is why the delivery of public services to those who are in need in the marginalised communities across Northern Ireland will suffer, as will skilling up the people who we want to skill up.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): I have absolutely heard that point. That is a fair anomaly in the middle of it all, given that cuts to those budgets are coming down the line and we are expecting to have a more skilled workforce ready for any foreign direct investment (FDI) projects that might come in our direction. For the record, we had Invest NI before us last week, and its evidence is that the feedback that it is getting from companies, both domestic and overseas — this is the important bit — is that they see reduced corporation tax as an incentive to bring FDI to the North and to increase jobs. It is reflecting through its office internationally that there is a fair bit of interest in it. In that regard, it sees it as a big selling point. Therefore, for Invest NI, the rate and the date is a key issue. Have you met Invest NI to get any feeling from it? Clearly, your members and potential members would be impacted by whatever investment might come down the line.

Mr Bunting: Absolutely. Primarily, I want to say one thing to you. I am not against the creation of jobs. I am all for the creation of jobs. I do not see this as the mechanism or vehicle for doing it. That is the first point. When Invest Northern Ireland goes abroad, it is competing with the Industrial Development Agency in the Republic of Ireland, and there is a differential there. The other aspect of that is this: why are the overseas companies not in the Republic of Ireland or somewhere else? The Cayman Islands does not pay any tax. I have never been there, but, from what I have seen of it, it is not a hub of new technology. There are not thousands of jobs in it. That is the problem I have with this. People analyse the Republic of Ireland. I will supply you with papers on what happened in the Republic of Ireland. First of all, it had the most educated labour market in the European Union. It also spoke English, and, despite what some of us may think of it, it had a common currency with the rest of Europe. In Northern Ireland, we have sterling and a low-skilled labour market. Listen to some of our businesspeople such as Bro McFerran. They are all saying that they cannot get the necessary skills. We do not have a skilled indigenous population for the jobs that they are creating in technology and computer programming. By the way, I am not suggesting that Invest Northern Ireland is being disingenuous. I am just saying that, obviously, people would say that to you. There is another point, and I will dig this out from my resource. I recall a survey being carried in the Republic of Ireland a number of years ago on the major attraction that brought businesses to the Republic of Ireland, and the main points were labour market and access to Europe. Corporation tax was about seventh or seventeenth; I cannot remember which. Obviously, there is a huge gap there, but it was way down the list. The labour market, infrastructure and all these other issues were terribly more important than anything else. I will dig that out for you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): That will be very helpful. One theme that has been broadly running through our inquiry is the necessity for a more joined-up approach by government that is cross-departmental and cross-sectoral.

Do you have any particular thoughts as to how things could be done much better in delivery? We are thinking about the foundation stone. It has been clearly outlined in all evidence given to us that corporation tax is not the silver bullet, but, if it is to operate, it has to operate in circumstances where other things are put in place, not least an Executive who are seen to be working in a very joined-up manner and delivering on the items that you referred to earlier, such as skills, infrastructure and all the things that have to be in place so that, when people come here, they will say, "Ah, good place to make the decision". That seems to be the broad theme of what we are hearing so far. Do you have any ideas — I am sure that you are well skilled from being around, dealing with and being associated with government for a long time — on how that could be done much better?

Mr Bunting: I think that you overestimate my leverage. I may have been around for a long time, but I am not making any progress.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): I am sure that you see the weak points, Peter.

Mr Bunting: I accept that there are a number of issues. You could say that government is too big. We could work in a tighter frame. However, as you said, our investment has to be strategically placed. What are we going to do with it, and where are we going to put it? The blunderbuss approach is not going to yield what you think it is going to yield. There should be an innovation fund for small and medium-sized enterprises to cluster together, in which they get economies of scale, the sharing of market technology and skills, and savings from inhabiting the one building and whatever. It is about learning off each other. How could, for example, a small manufacturing plant, a marketing company, a PR company and whatever all work together? Somebody would engage an expert, because we all have to learn off each other. Some of our small, indigenous employers, which comprise about 97% of our economy, have a fear factor of growing in case it is going to cost them.

It is not about regulations, reducing the minimum wage and having a race to the bottom. Richard Barnett, who was the vice chancellor of the Ulster University, launched an Invest Northern Ireland investigation about four or five years ago. His said that we competed with Bangladesh and we lost. So, the low-economy, low-skill and low-investment base lost. You will see that in the Ageas factory in west Belfast that is going to close on Friday. You can throw it in with the one up in Derry, which will close. We have to be on top of our game. Wrightbus is a perfect example. It is one where we have the export. It is done on quality. It is done also on the all-island economy; the money from Dublin Bus sets it up and gives you that steady employment. That allows it to invest and innovate. If you look at the buses that it is supplying to London, you will see that they are probably the most innovative buses in any city at the moment in Europe. Those are the things that we can do.

Sometimes, I hesitate to link education with business. When you do degree or a master's degree, it is about the discipline to think as opposed to giving back to lecturers just what they want. I did economics and business in Trinity. At one stage, there were 240 middle-class kids behind me, and I was in a bus worker's uniform, doing the same degree full time. They all gave back what the lecturer wanted. I was probably the odd person out; I suppose that is why I am here today. It is about opposing and thinking differently. I suggest to you that business, third-level education and innovation places, which we are doing in Queen's and Ulster University, should not work in silos. Some of them are united and working together with some of the universities on the island and across the water as well. Those are crucial.

It is all about the labour market and upskilling it. That is the biggest attraction for any company coming here.

One of the other big attractions now is the creative industries, with the films, 'Game of Thrones' and blah, blah, blah — I do not mean "blah, blah, blah" in a derogatory way; I mean etc, etc. I should have said that, in case somebody pulls me up. However, we could do with specific faculties of creative industries. Everybody in Northern Ireland — middle-class, working-class and even some kids — wants to become a lawyer, an accountant, a doctor or a dentist. When you walk around Belfast city, you see that every second building is a solicitor's office or an accountant's office. However, we need to move into the innovative industries and utilise them. What is happening at the moment because of the cuts? The Belfast MAC is closing down and moving out to Bangor somewhere. You saw Dan Gordon on the television. Those are industries that we can grow and have something of added value in Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): I have two final questions. We have all those restraints that we talked about, including the cuts and those awful things that are coming our way and that already have impacted. How do you see the Executive and all their offshoots — the public agencies — integrating much better to drive forward change for economic development, particularly in the context of a reduced taxation environment, which is what our inquiry is about? Secondly, and this is the bit that is important specifically for you, how can they do that, and how can the trade union movement work to be another important lever for better integration and better economic development?

Mr Bunting: One of the most important elements that we are missing from that planning and strategic way is something like a national council on social and economic development. I do not mean something with casts of thousands, because we have tried casts of thousands. We had the Civic Forum with casts of thousands. That failed because there was a cast of thousands, one assumes. OFMDFM had a group. By the way, we did away with the Economic Development Forum, which we should never have done away with. What was the other thing that we had that Peter and Martin ran at one stage? Anyway, there was a cast of thousands, and we all came in. There were hundreds of people all talking. We should set it down very specifically and bring in elements of the trade unions. Workers do not leave their brains at home when they go to work.

One of the most successful companies in the world was Honda. When Honda started up post-World War II, he started up in Japan on the remnants of second-hand World War II bikes, and he gave 25 yards — probably metres now or whatever it is — of spare space to every employee on the line so that they could be innovative and creative. That is why it became successful. It is about getting away from this command-type structure; people have to be more participative and more innovative at work, along with the employer. I think that, at the moment, Northern Ireland is too adversarial. That is not just in politics but in everything that we do. We need to get away from that. If we are really talking about the benefits of everyone putting in something to grow Northern Ireland we need to be more progressive. I am as patriotic as anybody else here about growing the economy in Northern Ireland; it is not about being a Luddite. We need to raise taxes to give better services to pay for education, but everybody has to pay their fair share in that context. It is very seldom that you hear people from my profession saying that. It is not about getting into government to reduce costs here and there; it is about how we can build an equal society that is beneficial in productivity terms for everyone for educational purposes. At the moment, we are bartering off one another and killing young people's aspirations and hopes.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): I hear what you say. Can you bring to a conclusion your suggestion for a cross-cutting —

Mr Bunting: It is for a national council on social and economic development that plans, strategises and advises where money should go. It would not do that on a party political basis or a locational or geographical basis. It is about how we can build up a labour market that is the biggest attraction that we have, as opposed to a reduction in corporation tax. It is about that labour market and those skills.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Thanks very much for that, Peter. Agus anois, Máirtín.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Peter, thank you. I am sure that you are glad to get a rest from talking — or maybe not. Thanks for falling for the charms of the Chair and coming in after all the talks. I think it is very useful to have this discussion and debate. Before that, Chair, I give my congratulations to Mr Kinahan. This is the first meeting that I have been to that he has been at since his election as MP for South Antrim. Well done.

Mr Kinahan: Thanks very much.

Mr Bunting: I share that as well, Mr Kinahan.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Of course.

Peter, a few yards away from where we are sitting, they are debating the very future of the Stormont House Agreement. We maybe need to be careful what we wish for; we may lose everything today. We will see how that goes, and we travel in hope, of course. You have gone on to wider issues, so talk to me about this assault by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition as it was but now by a Tory Government on our budgets. We are told to pencil 8 July into our diaries, which is when Mr Osborne will come forward with what his side is calling "eye-watering" cuts. What is your advice to those of us who say that continuing to run government here will become unsustainable if we are forced to endure this blitz on our budgets? You have looked at the future and are trying to imagine what the economy would be like with or without corporation tax: how do you see the next few months unfolding? I am giving you a platform here. What is your advice to those of us who have to deal with this assault and say that things are perhaps becoming unsustainable?

Mr Bunting: I am very loath to give politicians advice.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: You just have for half an hour. Go ahead; I am only joking.

Mr Bunting: With the election of the Tory Government, Northern Ireland could well become an economic wasteland. The difficulty arises from their view of life that we need to take people off welfare etc. Let me suggest to anybody who is interested what the interesting thing about welfare is. The UK Government pay £170 billion in welfare. Thirty-eight per cent of that goes on pensions. The next highest part, 14%, goes on tax credits, which you have no responsibility for. The next major part, 11%, goes on housing benefit. Three per cent goes on jobseeker's allowance. That has gone up by £40 billion in the last 20 years, by the way. Tax credits have risen by £25 billion in the last 20 years. That is primarily due to what? The explosion of low-pay, zero-hours contracts and people not being paid the proper rate to live on. There is the damage in the economy right away. That is why our big spend has gone up. The Tories have talked about another £12 billion, but we do not know whether they will ever touch pensions. Will they touch pensions, or are they afraid of the grey-haired brigade? They are the only people left to be touched.

Eleven per cent goes on housing benefit. There have been the same number of claimants in the last 10 years. The number of claimants has increased by about 2,000, so there are around 5,000 or 7,000. However, £10 billion extra has been paid in the same period. Why is that? There has been no building of social housing, and private rental landlords have been pushing up the prices. I will send you a document that has an analysis of where the money goes under welfare. It is not about a huge coterie of people who are all out there on Benefits Street or wherever robbing us, the workers. In 2013, two years ago, there were 60,000 on the unemployed register and a total of 5,000 jobs being advertised in Northern Ireland. Where were all the jobs that they were going to go to? If they all came off welfare and willingly surrendered it for the good of the nation, where would they go to get a job? You hear all these people on television talking about this, that and the other. It is absolute, utter nonsense. There is nowhere for the people to go. We have had an analysis of the welfare cost done by our economists. I will send you the papers. The continuum of the spend on total welfare benefits is a curve; it is not a spike.

There has not been a spike in it; it has been a progressive curve. I will send that stuff to you at some stage when I get back to the office. Sorry, Máirtín.

The other point was about it being unsustainable. We put a paper into the talks process about Northern Ireland. I do not agree, by the way, that Northern Ireland is a post-conflict society; it is a society emerging from conflict, but it is not there yet. It requires additional funding. I heard somebody on the wireless this morning saying that the Canary Wharf bomb cost the British Government £1 billion. To get back to Northern Ireland, I say that it is emerging from conflict because, as Paul Givan knows very well, I still deal with some elements from the dissident republican movement in the prison and the Prison Service.

I also have to say to you that you should not to listen to me saying that austerity does not work: you should listen instead to Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate on economics, speak against austerity. Austerity does not work. You should also listen to Joseph Stiglitz, another recipient of the Nobel award for economics. Those are the people who regularly say that austerity does not work. We are in a situation where we provide £700 million to put 20,000 civil servants out of work. By any economic ratio that you want to use, that will have a knock-on effect. Some economists use 0·3, which means that for every job that goes in the public sector, 0·3 of a job will go in the private sector. Some economists use 0·5. Take whatever ratio you want. If 20,000 jobs or 17,000 jobs go on the £700 million, you can be guaranteed that 6,000 will go in the private sector. Why is that? It is simple: you are sucking 20,000 disposable incomes every month out of our economy, and that will reflect as a negative spend on goods and services throughout Northern Ireland.

In many ways, we are fighting for the retention of private-sector and public-sector jobs. Say you have a son or daughter who is not part of the brain drain going off to get work somewhere else. If they were in Northern Ireland and aspiring to get a job in the public sector, they would find that there would be none. There will be none for the next 20 years. Where do you get a job? That is even allowing for natural wastage through retirement etc. We are spending £700 million out of the £800 million of the reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI), which we could have utilised for creating and investing in jobs.

We got no extra money out of the Stormont House Agreement. We got £500 million for T:BUC and for integrated and shared education, which is a good thing, and we got £150 million for the historical enquiry unit. That is all we got. We lost money. There is all this business of these fellas going around saying that we got £2 billion. I do not know who you are all trying to bluff. You did not get £2 billion. You are chancing your arm, the whole lot of you, in saying that you got £2 billion. I can prove that you did not get anywhere near £2 billion. That is the sad situation that we are talking about in Northern Ireland. I will send up the figures on that to you as well. Our economists say that you did not get anywhere near £2 billion. It is smoke and mirrors. You used the £700 million, which you are borrowing to get rid of people — 20,000 jobs — and you are adding the £650 million, and then you are getting another £350 million, but instead of the £800 million for borrowing, you are getting an extra £350 million to borrow, and we have lost the £800 million. Right? That is what you have done. And then you come out with, "But we got £250 million." By the way, I have attacked all the parties in that — all the parties. It is nonsense. Anyway, I think it is unsustainable. You had better believe it. I will not be around, unfortunately. I hope that many of you will not be around looking for re-election, because five more years of Tory rule in Northern Ireland will decimate it.

The last point I will make is this: we put in a paper to the talks. Let me suggest to you why Northern Ireland has a case. We called it a Troubles premium. We have the highest rate of poverty of all regions of the United Kingdom. We have the highest rate of mental health issues of all regions of the United Kingdom. We have the lowest rate of educational attainment of all regions in the United Kingdom. We have the lowest level of investment of all areas of the United Kingdom. There was one more, which I cannot recall. I have just been reminded that we have the highest security costs of all regions in the United Kingdom. That is why we need additional funding. That is why we need a Troubles premium. That is why we need to get out of the mess we are in. We are still only emerging from conflict. We are not there yet.

The last point, which I will finish on, is that I have a strange worry that, despite the work that I do with all those ex-combatants and so forth, we will leave a huge cohort of young people with no hope, no aspiration and no jobs. You see them in the lower Shankill or in east Belfast. Where do they go? They go on a drugs run and get £300 from the local gangmaster, and other eejits are acting as recruiting sergeants. There is no hope, failure, low prospects and peer pressure. Where will they go? They will go to those dissidents and everybody else. That is where they are going. That is what we are creating. We are acting as a recruiting sergeant for dissidents all over the place in Northern Ireland, rather than attempting to build a positive society where everybody is equal and has an aspiration of getting a good job.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): I think I share that theme with you. Máirtín, maybe that has answered some of your concerns.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: No, it did not answer the only question I asked. Just help me with this, Peter. Some parties in here, without even naming them, are opposed to the implementation of the welfare cuts. Do you stand with those parties on that issue?

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Wait a minute now. We are getting into an area. Máirtín, I am not opening a debate on welfare reform.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Fair enough, Chair, but let me ask it in a different way.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): I will decide whether —

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I do not want a 30-minute answer. Peter has brought it out, and we are looking at the future prospects of the economy. I am asking this: where will ICTU stand on 8 July if some parties and people here say that the next round of cuts is unacceptable?

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): That is a fair question. You answered it a good bit earlier, but go ahead, Peter.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Maybe we will let it go, Peter, because you are not going to answer it.

Mr Bunting: I will answer it.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Can we make this answer pretty concise, as other members want to ask questions?

Mr Bunting: I will be as concise as I can. ICTU has a policy of opposing austerity cuts wherever they fall, and it will oppose them. Where Máirtín's problem is concerned, as I understand it, all the parties here say that, at some stage or other, they voted against austerity cuts, whether it was in Westminster or wherever they voted. That is all I am saying. ICTU will oppose austerity cuts, because we do not see them as the means of progressing our economy or the welfare and inclusivity of all the people.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Thank you, Peter.

Mr Dunne: Thanks, Peter, for coming in. I feel, mind you, that you are out of step somewhat with so many, including the parties included here. The Executive and the all-party groups in the Executive have supported the devolution of corporation tax, so I feel, Peter, that you are going very much against the tide. We have had the CBI, Invest NI and many other people in here on corporation tax. In fact, Invest NI was in last week with a report. It has had a record performance, and I am sure that you recognise that and have no hesitation recognising it. At the top of its priorities on the way forward is agreeing a rate and a date for corporation tax. Surely that is what you should be supporting here today, rather than talking with the negativity that you put across, which I find most disappointing.

The vast majority of people who come to the Committee come with a positive message about Northern Ireland, the good things that are happening, how people are investing, how businesses want to invest and how we want to move forward. Most people encourage us as politicians to move forward and to get agreement on the issues that, in many ways, hold us back. If it is not resolved today, I am sure you will agree that it will hold us back and will show this place as being unstable. It will certainly have negative effects on investment.

Peter, you are out of step with what is happening, and you need to catch up.

Mr Bunting: Could I reply to that, please?

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Yes, you can respond, surely. I think Gordon invited comments from you.

Mr Bunting: I respect your views, Gordon, but let me suggest to you that I do not mind being out of step with the business community. The business community at one stage said that the national minimum wage would put thousands or millions of people into unemployment. That never happened. Nobody was put into unemployment with the introduction of the national minimum wage. I also suggest to you that, when the chambers of commerce welcomed the Stormont House Agreement, people in that same business community went on to say that during the rest of the year they would look for the introduction of water charges, the elimination of free prescriptions, an increase in student fees and the elimination of whatever senior citizens get on public transport.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Bus passes.

Mr Bunting: Look at the business page of the 'Irish News' on 6 January. These are the people who want to do all this. I have no problem with competing with their view of life. I do not think they are there to help anybody except themselves.

Mr Dunne: Do you appreciate that it is not just them?

Mr Bunting: I will come to that, but I will just say that I heard a very good quotation the other day that sums it up. It said that there is nothing as eloquent as a vested interest posturing or posing on a point of principle. I will just leave that with you as a thought.

Mr Dunne: Right, a couple —

Mr Bunting: Sorry, I just want to say one thing to you. I recognise the work of Invest NI, but I still differ. You have not identified my main problem, Gordon, which is that these people are all promising you thousands of jobs by 2035 — I will not be around by 2035 — and I suggest to you that, in the interim, they will take £400 million per year off the education budget, the health budget and public-sector delivery and will give that money to the rich people. Despite what they say, none of them can guarantee you that they will create one job, 10 jobs or 20 jobs. None of them can guarantee you that, because there is nothing to stop this — you have not answered my question or my theory that I can put the differential in my back pocket.

Mr Dunne: Surely it would be regulated and controlled.

Mr Bunting: It is not being regulated and controlled. I suggest that you read the Bill. Where are the sanctions? Where are the criteria? Where is the performance appraisal? It is always what the business community demands of its workers. Where is the performance rate that it wants? Nowhere. It is not in your Bill. It is a blunderbuss approach that people like me oppose. What you are saying, in effect — I assume many working-class people vote for you — is that it can come off the marginalised, whether from their welfare, health delivery, social housing or education. It can come out of there so that it can be given it to some rich fella who said to you, "Give it to me, Gordon, please. I will create a job". Rubbish. It does not stand up.

Mr Dunne: Just a couple of other things, Peter. You are one of the few who criticised research and development.

Mr Bunting: No, I have not criticised it. I —

Mr Dunne: You do not see it as a way forward, and yet, certainly in the last four years since I have been on the Committee, there has been a huge emphasis on it. It is in government, and it is a priority. It is in the Executive and is a priority. People see innovation as a way forward. You came back later talking about an innovation scheme for SMEs, and it is the case here that we have been fully supportive of that. Surely the whole drive on R&D is a way forward to innovate, come up with new ideas, make progress, design and bring things through to manufacture. Is that not the way through?

Mr Bunting: Sorry, Gordon, I must have been very poor in delivering that. I actually praised research and development. I thought I stated that it is the best way of maintaining foreign direct investment in your country and that the best way to stop these fly-by-night companies that come in and leave is by them investing in research and development. Sorry, you must have got me wrong. I believe totally in the concept of research and development. I am sorry if I confused the message. I am with you on research and development fully, as well as on innovation. It is the only way ahead.

Mr Dunne: This might be an easier question. The last point is that many organisations here complain about the amount of regulation that is imposed on businesses in Northern Ireland. Do you feel that there should be a drive, coming through from the Executive, towards deregulation for businesses in Northern Ireland to try to make life much easier and to try to attract more business here whether you want it or not?

Mr Bunting: That is such a broad thrust — deregulation for businesses. That could mean anything. I am not so sure.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Maybe I should expand a wee bit on that.

Mr Bunting: Planning was a problem. I appreciate that.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Yes, some of the stuff related to planning. Gordon, if you do not mind, I will just expand on this a wee bit.

Some of what we heard in evidence said that, where regulations are concerned, people see them as coming from Europe and they seem to mean that, in one nation state they could be interpreted one way and in other nation states, they could be interpreted another. There was a broad-brush approach, if you like. Some of the evidence was having a bit of a whack or a poke at Europe, but in actual fact, as we explored it further, we found that Europe may have been the source of some of the regulation, but a bit of the problem was its interpretation by the Westminster Government. It was very broad, Peter, and I am sure that you will have your own concerns about workers' rights and entitlements and so on, but, in a nutshell, that was where we were getting the evidence from.

Mr Bunting: I am very pro-European, because I believe that, without Europe, we are all knackered. That is access to our market. If we do not have the European market — if we leave the European Union — we are finito, dead, dead as a duck. No American company and no other foreign direct company will invest here in Northern Ireland. However, the number one issue with David Cameron at the moment is not austerity; it is about whether we get out of Europe. I think that it is nonsense, but it will frighten off direct investors.

I think that Gordon is right in that planning is a quagmire that makes it difficult for businesses to expand and grow. The other point I agree with is that a big problem for a number of our businesses in Northern Ireland is the black economy. The people who threaten legitimate, good businesses are those who operate in the black. We know, you know and I know that, because we are all from Northern Ireland. We can go to different parts, and we will know what is operating out there. We sat on a committee with the CBI that came out of the Economic Development Forum. It was attempting to stop oil — you know, the red diesel or whatever they use in cars. It was about all that sort of stuff. We need to stop the black economy, because I think that the messing around that goes on in the black economy is the biggest threat that we have to legitimate business expansion here in Northern Ireland. We need to stop it, and I think that it is hugely more detrimental to legitimate businesses than anything else of the regulatory type.

I am all for the regulatory-type measures, such as the minimum wage and a living wage and stuff. The interesting thing about it all is that research done at one stage or another stated that, if you invest in the education of your workers and upskill them, it is worth a 50% increase in productivity, confidence and loyalty to your company. Ask how many companies are attempting to upskill their employees, because it is reckoned that around 75% of our current businesses and workforce will still be in situ in 2025. Think about what will happen between now and 2025. The whole place will evolve, not hugely but incrementally, in innovation, technology etc. If we are not up with that, we are finished. Employers and employees need to do that. I also think that we can do more here with employment rights to protect employees from exploitation by employers. It goes on. We see that problem, particularly with a number of the migrant companies and with some of our own people.

Overall, deregulation it is too broad for me to comment on, other than to say that the black economy is the biggest problem that we need to deal with in the context of what happens here in Northern Ireland. That is the biggest threat to legitimate, good companies.

Mr Flanagan: Peter, thanks for coming. We are glad to have you here. There is a danger that, in sitting around this table, we engage in groupthink. Too much of that goes on in institutions like this around the Western World, so it is good to hear differing opinions. You referenced Richard Murphy's report on a number of occasions. We heard from Richard shortly after his report came out, so we heard what he had to say. Once again, it was good to get a differing opinion and one that we do not often hear around this table. Do you support the transfer from London to Stormont of the power to set a rate of corporation tax?

Mr Bunting: I am not sure about that — not the way that it is set because, first, it has to come out of the block grant. The other point is that, after you pay £400 million to transfer wealth to businesspeople, even if a certain number of jobs are created, the only beneficiary is the Treasury because it gets the PAYE, the PRSI and the reduction in benefits. Northern Ireland does not get that. I do not know whether you are angling for me to answer on whether I agree with the full restoration of fiscal powers to Northern Ireland, and I do not particularly want to comment on that now because ICTU does not have a policy on that. That is probably what you wanted me to answer on, was it?

Mr Flanagan: No. If I had wanted to ask that, I would have. Do you think that, if a decision is taken to implement a lower rate of corporation tax here, and that creates new jobs, reduces welfare payments and brings all the things that everybody has promised us, should we, morally and ethically, get the secondary benefits? I suppose that, to answer that question, you need to accept the premise that it will create more jobs.

Mr Bunting: Exactly.

Mr Flanagan: That might cause you difficulty.

Mr Bunting: Yes, you are pre-empting the view that it will create more jobs, and my view is that it will not. Therefore, I am loath to reply. If a lower rate came into being, I may not be here, so it would be up to you. The best of luck to you if you want to take a chance on that.

Mr Dunne: After all, it will be 2035, will it not?

Mr Bunting: I know, Gordon. I do not know about you — you might have greater longevity than me — but I certainly will not be around.

Mr McKinney: He is only 25.

Mr Bunting: I believe that, overall, it is detrimental to welfare. There is a net welfare loss to Northern Ireland, and I mean that in terms of society, not in terms of welfare packages. There are other ways: for example, if somebody could convince me that we will have the four crucial aspects: if "Kinahan Enterprises" or "Bunting Enterprises" were to invest the differential in research and development; if it would create additional exports, if it would upskill your workers; and if it would increase employment, I would say, "Fair play to you". However, if the differential is not invested, end of story, and you do not get it the year after.

Patsy mentioned Europe, which is a wonderful place. I always find that the United Kingdom is too strict on implementing and transposing directives. Go to the French or the Italians. When it comes to state aid for indigenous companies, that is no problem. It is illegal here, allegedly, but go to France and Italy and have a look around. Go to companies there and ask them how they get that. Their Government give them grants hand over fist. All over the place, companies are given European money, but you could not do that here. Why? I do not know whether it is an anti-European feeling, or whatever the view of life is, but think back to what I said to you about Wrightbus, which would never have benefited to the tune of £30 million had I not convinced the Minister for Transport in the Republic. He did not go through the blue book, the tender book and so on. Within three weeks, he was up here giving the contract to Wrightbus in Ballymena, and that was when a line was in danger of closing.

Even Gordon's view of me is that I am out of step, but I will do what I can do to boost business in Northern Ireland, irrespective of where it is and whose constituency it is in. I will do whatever I can. I suggest that as far as EU regulation is concerned, state aid and the all-island economy were rolled into his bailiwick. It was the right time and the right place.

Mr Flanagan: I do not necessarily accept that your views are out of step. A considerable number of people do not agree with setting a low rate of corporation tax because they do not think that it is in the best interests of society. It is, therefore, perfectly valid for you to present that view on behalf of not only your members but those in the community who do not agree with it.

You talk about stipulating that companies benefiting from a reduced rate of corporation tax reinvest savings, hire more staff, carry out research and development or maybe even pay staff more — heaven forbid. Are you confident that that would not happen without some form of stipulation? Do you not think that companies would do that voluntarily?

Mr Bunting: It would not happen. I mentioned Thomas Piketty, whose book, 'Capital in the Twenty-first Century' was an 'Economist' book of the year. In his immense study, he suggested that corporations do not now reinvest their profits in developing innovation or creating new technologies and innovative products for the market, as they did in the past. They are holding on to their profits and investing them in stocks and shares. That is a very succinct précis of his tome. You need to develop your arguments. Look at Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, who are probably the most prominent economists in the world. That is what they are saying.

America, by the way, did not get out of its recession through austerity. It was quantitative easing, which is a wonderful phrase, that did it at some stage. That is also a reflection on the UK economy, which, and this is the difference, was supposed to be doing well. It is a bit of a nonsense, in that the UK prints its own money, which it then owes itself. So, you need to be very careful about how all that is witched into and presented as UK growth. I think that Germany is still the major growth country in Europe.

Mr Flanagan: Do you think that, in the last few years, wealth redistribution and income equality have got worse or better here? The trend identified in reports from Oxfam is that they are getting worse globally, but very little work has been done locally.

Mr Bunting: Very little work has been done locally, but I refer you to the recent publication of the Methodist Church and a number of other churches in Scotland and Wales on the catastrophic impact of welfare reform there. In 2011-12, Trussell Trust food banks gave, I think, 128,000 people emergency food for three days. Last year, they fed 1,084,000. If that is the decent society that Mr Cameron is building for us all, I want to opt out. I want to be out of step with that type of society.

The findings of the Methodist Church on what is happening to people in GB because of austerity are very significant. Homelessness and food banks have increased. More importantly, there are sanctions. If you are dyslexic, have changed address or are on drugs or alcohol, and they cannot contact you about a job interview on such and such a date, you can be sanctioned by foregoing your welfare benefits for five, eight or 10 weeks, which means that the people who need the money do not get it. You can read the report: there were 1·4 million sanctions in 2012, I think, and, in 2013-14, there were 10 million. Ten million benefit recipients were sanctioned and had to live for weeks without any money. If that is the good, caring society that we all want, the best of luck to us all.

Mr Flanagan: My final question is about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Do you think that it will have a positive or negative impact on our local economy?

Mr Bunting: It is a disaster. Talk to the farmers about it.

Mr Flanagan: Do you want to expand on that?

Mr Bunting: The biggest problem with it is the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) section, whereby a group of lawyers, whether they be American or whatever, can come over and sue the state. They are suing the Peruvian state for something like $10 billion because it nationalised a mine. It is the lawyers who have the say, not Governments. It will be detrimental in the end. Northern Ireland is a very small, open economy, a regional economy if anything, so, to a certain extent, we get the hind tit, if you will forgive the phrase, of what goes elsewhere. I cannot see TTIP being a success. That said, I was in Colombia recently with Jeffrey Donaldson and others. Our visit related to the peace difficulties there. They had an American-Colombian pact, which contained a lot of clauses that would give working people an opportunity and reduce the power of multinationals, but nothing has happened, even despite the American thrust. With the Americans and Europe, we are way out of our league.

Mr Flanagan: Do you think that it will benefit American suppliers getting into here and Europe or will there be —

Mr Bunting: It will certainly, particularly in beef and areas like that.

Mr Flanagan: Will it be beneficial for any sectors of the economy here to try to get a foothold in the American economy?

Mr Bunting: I do not think so.

Mr McKinney: Thanks for coming in, Peter. Do not worry, I will not be too long.

Mr Bunting: I have another meeting at 12.00 pm, guys.

Mr McKinney: I will try to be brief. By your measurement, the output from lowering corporation tax — reinvestment and the employment of more people — is questionable. Surely there is another measurement: the number of new companies and new jobs that come in as a result.

Mr Bunting: You could say yes, but that poses a number of questions to me. First, why are they not somewhere else currently?

Mr McKinney: You are asking me — you tell me why you think that that is the case.

Mr Bunting: I worry sometimes about people saying so definitively that this will create jobs. How come, for example, Wrightbus is not in the Republic of Ireland? How come Glen Dimplex and that other company down in Newry are not in the Republic of Ireland? Why are they not over the border, 10 miles away?

Mr McKinney: Wrightbus employs the local population.

Mr Bunting: Go round the border areas then. Why are they not there? I am just suggesting to you that, if it is a silver bullet — people say that it is not really a silver bullet — what do we need it for, particularly when it can damage the other side? What are the consequences of having it?

Mr McKinney: Yes, but, with respect, you have not answered my question: whether or not we get the result, is it not right that another measurement of its success or otherwise will be the potential jobs that it will bring? It is not just about whether the money is reinvested. That is all that I ask you to accept.

Mr Bunting: I could accept that, except for one thing: what is the cost of my acceptance?

Mr McKinney: I find myself being asked the question. Obviously, that depends on how big the company is, the size of its profits and the number of jobs that it brings in. In any event, you accept the point that there is another measurement. Let us say that a company wants to employ 5,000 people making widgets for Bombardier. Let us face it: Bombardier has a £500 million supply chain and sources most of its widgets and everything else associated with the production of wings in America and has to ship them here. It is in Bombardier's interests, potentially, to have local people skilled up and trained so that it can provide jobs here and reduce the costs of the supply line.

Anyway, I just need you to accept that there is another measurement.

Mr Bunting: There is another measurement, but you are asking a question like, "Have you stopped beating the wife?".

Mr McKinney: No.

Mr Bunting: If I say yes, I was beating her; if I say no, I am still beating her. Do you know what I mean? That is the type of question that you are asking me.

Mr McKinney: Peter, you said that your opposition is around whether the money will be used appropriately or used just to provide individual purchases for owners and not reinvested. What I am asking is whether you can accept, and you have, that another measurement is the number of jobs that could be provided by new companies.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Or new investment.

Mr Bunting: I am saying that it could be a measurement, but what I suggest to you is that, if you are to do that, it has to be on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis.

Mr McKinney: That is a different argument. I just need the measurement.

Mr Bunting: Yes, but the interesting thing about it, Fearghal, is that it is not your money or my money; this is about the people in Northern Ireland who rely on welfare.

Mr McKinney: That is why I want to get to the next point. You made the point earlier that we are being cast against each other, in that the corporation tax reduction comes off somewhere else. The other day, I heard the shocking figure that something like 400 life science degree places are being cut here, yet, we know, Gordon, exactly where the new jobs will come from — biomedicine, new research and so on. I will jump to the point: we have not agreed what the big problem is. As Patsy said, we think that corporation tax is not a silver bullet. It is an answer, but it is an answer to an undefined problem. What is the problem that has to be solved? I suggest that it is the need to transform the economy, as opposed to tinkering round the edges.

Mr Bunting: You are saying that it is an answer, but the answer that you received is from vested interests. I gave you a quote earlier about that. Sir David Varney came out with a report that suggested something different. Our friend Murphy came out with a report that is totally different again. I suggest to you that you have received an answer that is plausible to you. I can understand why you would willingly accept it — good, bad or indifferent — because you would all hang on to it as something that we have created in Northern Ireland. The difficulty is that you will not have to forgo the costs of whether it fails or succeeds. I hope that it would succeed, but I cannot see it. It is not Peter Bunting saying that: I am relying on the views of people such as Richard Murphy and Sir David Varney, who was tasked, by the way, by the then Prime Minister to produce the report.

Mr McKinney: The point that I am making, Peter, is that you are saying that you have a particular view on corporation tax. I suggest that the issues with training, life sciences and so on have to be solved elsewhere because they are part of a bigger problem. A reduction in corporation tax may have an impact on the potential spending in those areas, but we, as politicians, Ministers and the Executive, surely have to identify future issues in a more joined-up-government way. This might play against some of that, but it is not entirely contrary, because a reduction in corporation tax will, potentially, provide the opportunities. I am just saying that by coupling the two, it presents itself, on the face of it, as a zero-sum game. However, the problem is bigger and different and needs different answers. In fact, a reduction in corporation tax could be an answer or part of an answer, and resolving to invest in training would solve part of your problem.

Mr Bunting: It could solve part of the problem, but I suggest that the first thing that anybody looks for is a skilled labour market. If you do not have a skilled labour market, you will not attract any investors. The other point that I still think that you have to get over by 2017 is whether we will be in Europe, because nobody will come here —

Mr McKinney: That is a different problem.

Mr Bunting: It is a different problem, but it has to be taken into consideration. The other point that I made is that there is a move in Europe — good, bad or indifferent — to converge corporation tax across Europe. Another point is that surely the first thing that we should do is ensure that we upskill the labour market properly. We then have a cadre of people who, by their very nature, are so well skilled that they will attract the foreign direct investment without costing deprived people their public-sector services.

Mr McKinney: I want to ask one final question.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Sure. I am conscious of Peter's time, though, Fearghal.

Mr McKinney: I know. If we had a national council for social and economic development or some such body, could it lift off the shelf a solid understanding of how our economy is performing?

Mr Bunting: No. The biggest difficulty in Northern Ireland is that you cannot extrapolate from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) data the extent of the wealth in Northern Ireland and who has it. One of our big problems when we look at, for example, increasing domestic rates and having a cap of £400,000, is that we do not know about the greater wealth in Northern Ireland. We talk a lot about parity of esteem, but, unlike agencies in the rest of the United Kingdom, NISRA is not allowed to ask that question in Northern Ireland. It can be done in Scotland, England and Wales, but we cannot do it in Northern Ireland, so we have a huge problem raising additional money through valuation rather than the regional rate. I say that because we know the value of properties. The other point is that we had a system — I do not know whether it is ongoing — whereby there was no rate bill for vacant properties. All that did was allow speculators to leave properties lying until they increased in value and then sell them off rather than utilising and investing in them.

We have a lot of problems in Northern Ireland, and we are not tackling them. Some might think that it is small fry in comparison with a reduction in corporation tax, but we could do so much more in Northern Ireland. I have been touting procurement around this place for donkey's years and, until recently, had got nowhere. I proposed using it as a tool to tackle long-term unemployment in different areas, to skill people through apprenticeships and to utilise public spend as a plus to tackle lots of the issues in constituencies. I have proposed another idea, which is not new. In Barcelona and Manchester, there is a bedroom tax of £1 per night from Monday to Thursday. That would not break anybody, particularly businesspeople, which is why I have proposed it for those days. The money would be pooled and put into the Visit Belfast centre, which would use it to subvent conferences etc in Northern Ireland and as a tool to attract and boost tourism. These are small things; they are not massive ideas. Retrofitting all public housing and public buildings is another idea. You could have 5,000 people retrofitting Dundonald House tomorrow. Initially, it would cost you money, but, in the long term, because it is retrofitting, it would save on light and heat and enable you to pay back the cost. We have lots of ideas, but who listens in the Northern Ireland Assembly?

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): On that point, Peter, I hope that we are listening. That is why we are really glad that you reconsidered and were able to be here.

Mr Flanagan: May I make one very quick point to Peter? I raised your point about the £1 bedroom tax for people who come here for conferences with Tourism NI officials the last time that they were here. They are coming here after you, so I will ask them again to get their point of view. We listen to you the odd time.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): I really appreciate your time. Thank you very much for coming along, Peter. I am sure that we will hear from you again.

Mr Bunting: I am sure that you might have wanted to keep going, but I have to roll.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): No, you are grand.

Mr Bunting: If you want me back, I will come back for more —

Mr Dunne: No doubt.

Mr Bunting: — if you can put up with more from me.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Thank you.