Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): This item is in relation to Cantor Fitzgerald and the proposal that Invest Northern Ireland be invited to the Committee. I am going to open the floor on that. Declan, are you content that we invite Invest Northern Ireland along on that? Is that what you intended?

Mr Kearney: In the first instance, Phillip, we could write to Invest NI to ask whether it has further detail that it can share with the Committee. If it can confirm that that is the case, then it should be invited to present evidence. If it indicates that it has nothing further to advise us on, based on the material that we have already received, including the redactions, then the matter can rest. In the first instance, however, I would write to Invest NI on the basis that that is a logical next step towards bringing the agency in to provide evidence.

Mr Delargy: Yes, that is a prudent step to take. We want to ensure that we have an effective session. This issue has rumbled on in the Committee. The Minister has told us very clearly that there are commercial sensitivities around this, and I imagine that Invest will say exactly the same thing. Therefore, I do not think it would be appropriate to invite Invest without having that clarification first. I am happy to do invite Invest, if it thinks that there is something more than it can add. We should take that step of writing to Invest in the first instance.

Added to that, we need to ask Invest whether this has put other businesses off investing. What we have heard time and time again is that businesses are fearful of speaking out when instances such as this occur. A number of weeks ago, we heard from Invest that many businesses do not want to talk about the benefits that they are receiving from the Windsor framework because of political views and so on. I think that it would be pragmatic to ask Declan's question, but also to ask whether this has had an impact on other businesses. There are commercial sensitivities here, but as the Economy Committee we should be ensuring that businesses feel supported to invest here. We need clarification on whether or not this has actually put businesses off investing here.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Do any other colleagues want to comment?

Ms Forsythe: What Pádraig is saying is quite anecdotal. I do not know that Invest NI can speak on behalf of all businesses as to whether or not they are going to invest here on the back of all of this. I want to come back to the heavy redactions that we have here. We do not have a lot of information. I do not feel that we are that much further along. To keep putting it off, or to write and wait until something comes back before inviting people in —. Surely we could write to Invest NI with an invitation hand in hand with a written briefing, rather than dragging it on week after week. This has got a lot of attention, and the Committee needs answers.

Ms D Armstrong: I want to address the minutes of the meeting at which the withdrawal happened. Those 300 jobs represented a significant investment, and for an investment of that significance — it concerns me that 58 words is the record. I want to seek more clarity on that. Is that the standard that we are working to? Is that what happens with other commercially sensitive negotiations — that you get such brevity? I would like to put that on the record and get more detail on that.

Ms McLaughlin: I concur with Diane. This has taken up far too much space in the Committee. It has been extremely contentious since it was first raised, and there has not been a lot of clarity. What we have in front of us now does not give us very much more than we had on day 1. It is time that we got to the bottom of the matter and put it to bed so that we can move on. The Committee has a lot of work to do. Let us bring Invest NI in, have a good conversation on this and put it to bed so we can move on with our work and not keep being dragged back to the same issues, about which we are none the wiser, to be honest.

Ms Nicholl: I feel exactly the same. It is becoming quite tedious. The Minister said something in the meeting, and some people seem to know what that is, but it has not been said outright. There is so much speculation about it. Was it something to do with Palestine? Was it because the former chief executive of Cantor Fitzgerald was part of Trump's cabinet? We can speculate about all of those different elements, and it is taking up so much time. Of course, as there has been a loss of jobs, we, as a Committee, need to understand why that happened and how we can mitigate it happening in the future, but it feels as though this is becoming political drama when, as Sinéad said, we have so much else to be getting on with. Get Invest NI in. If it will not answer, write to Cantor Fitzgerald and ask it why it pulled out. We need to move on with this.

Mr Buckley: I thank members for their indulgence on this. It is very important, given that we are talking about the loss of 300 highly paid jobs. I would expect any Member to act in the way that I did if somebody came to them and said that 300 jobs had been lost that we were not aware of and that there had been concerns around the Minister's position that potentially lost those jobs. I would expect them to ask the Minister and her Department those pertinent questions. The problem that I have is that, since I asked the questions, there has been no clarity from the Minister on the exact rationale.

Diana made an interesting point that should concern everybody. Three hundred jobs were lost. The Minister met people in this Building, and they were happy with the investment and its progress and were about to launch a recruitment campaign, yet, two weeks later, the meeting happened in New York and the investment was off the table. If all we have is a 58-word meeting note with no rationale for that decision, that should concern everybody.

This has the potential to be the largest loss of FDI in the history of Invest NI. We have had a lot of freedom of information requests. I beg the Committee's pardon that we have had to take up so much time, because there has been a lot of reading, but talk about being none the wiser. This is some of the FOI material. How on earth can anybody get to the bottom of exactly what is going on with foreign direct investment when the information is so heavily redacted? I agree with some of the sentiment expressed. Let us get Invest NI in, ask the pertinent questions, try to get to the bottom of it, ensure that we do not hide behind obfuscation of particular words, get to the facts and ensure that Northern Ireland is a place in which everybody can feel comfortable investing.

Mr Kearney: Well, I agree. I introduced the logic of engaging directly with Invest NI. To repeat what I said at the previous meeting, it is Invest NI that carries out negotiations with foreign investors. It is Invest NI that is the lead body that will close on a negotiation. Let us get past the hyperbole. There have not been 300 jobs lost, because 300 jobs were not actually put on the table. When Cantor Fitzgerald received a letter of offer from Invest NI, it did not confirm that it was prepared to proceed with the investment of the jobs. We need to correct that point. We did not have an investment. What we had was a letter of offer that was not accepted by Cantor Fitzgerald. In fact, to repeat what I said before, Cantor Fitzgerald, on 7 May, referred to the mutual agreement with Invest NI not to proceed with the negotiation that could have landed 300 jobs.

It is key that we set aside the hyperbole, the assumption and the misperception and engage directly with Invest NI. I agree with you: where there are redactions that do not give us a full and clear picture, let us ask Invest NI why that is the case and whether it is in a position to disclose what lies behind the redactions, if, in fact, that does not compromise its ability to proceed with its lead role in carrying out negotiations with foreign investors.

Mr Delargy: I agree with what has been said. Given the fact that this has taken up significant Committee time, as members have mentioned, it would be pragmatic to write to Invest to understand what information it can provide to the Committee and what it cannot. Understanding the scope of what it can do is a pragmatic step to take prior to inviting it in. We should keep that proposal on the table. I am also interested in the information. Jonathan mentioned that he has received this information. I have had no clarity on where it came from. It would be helpful for the Committee to understand where the information came from so that we can get a better picture and understanding of the issue that we are dealing with.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I am going to try to draw a line under this and get some consensus. I think that it is the view of the Committee, with the exception of two members, that we invite Invest Northern Ireland and get this done and dusted. What Invest NI is able to provide to the Committee and what questions it can or cannot answer is a matter for it. That will allow the Committee to flesh out all the issues. I realise that there are two members who think that we should write to it in the first instance, but my concern is that that will drag out the process. I therefore suggest to the Committee that we go ahead and issue the invitation. Obviously, members may wish to dissent from that.

Mr Kearney: This is not actually a point of dissention, Phillip; it is simply to correct you on a point of nuance. Do not pigeonhole me as someone who is opposing the idea of bringing in Invest NI. It was me who raised that idea originally. I simply suggested that there may be merit —. We are going to have to write to Invest NI in any case in order to invite it in to provide evidence to the Committee. I am simply saying, in the process of writing to it, let us establish whether it has further information to disclose. At the end of the day, Invest NI is the body — the agency — that can, in fact, bring clarity to this. If we are not getting that through correspondence, clearly we should have Invest NI sitting with and meeting members. I want to correct that point.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I apologise; I did not mean to pigeonhole you there. I put it to members that we invite in Invest Northern Ireland to draw a line under this. I am happy to move to a vote if we need to.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): OK. Thank you.

Ms Nicholl: Sorry, Chair. It may be worth sending the questions that we are going to ask ahead of the briefing so that the witnesses can prepare.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Give them a general idea.

Ms Nicholl: Yes, so it is not —.

Mr Buckley: On the previous point, we also agreed on Invest NI's talking to us about the trip to Boston. Will we do that in the same session? I am in your hands as to how we proceed.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): We can see who is available. We will obviously need to see Kieran Donoghue on the latter issue, and Anne Beggs, because she was in attendance at the meeting. However, the Invest Northern Ireland official who drafted that advice is based on America, so it may be different officials.

OK. Thank you, colleagues, for your patience and indulgence on that important issue. We will move to the next item, which is oral and written evidence from Community Energy Northern Ireland.

Mr Delargy: Chair, just to go back to the last point —.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Sorry. Yes?

Mr Delargy: I agree with Kate's point — it was a pertinent one — about agreeing the questions that we will ask Invest ahead of that session. One of the questions that we suggested was about trying to establish the impact of this on other businesses. Prior to sending that invite, which will be an outcome of this Committee meeting, this is the time to establish what those questions are and try to get a better understanding of them. I think that we should do that now.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): OK. Do you want to start with the questions that you may wish to ask, Pádraig?

Mr Delargy: Yes. As I just mentioned, I would like to ask questions about the impact on other investment. That is the first question. I would also like to ask, depending on the scope of what Invest can or cannot answer in the Committee, whether or not there remain commercial sensitivities, and, as Declan said, whether or not it can provide any more information on the redactions. If they are not able to do so, inviting them back to the Committee might not be the fruitful exercise that we think it may be. I am happy for members to add other questions to that. At my end, those are the two key, pertinent ones.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Just so that we are clear, members can provide questions in advance if they wish. I will not be providing questions in advance. It is the responsibility of us, as elected members, to decide what we want to ask Invest Northern Ireland. Obviously, it has the right to answer or not answer the questions. If there are members who want to provide questions, either now or in advance of the briefing, they can do that.

Ms Nicholl: The reason why I proposed that is because we have received lots of heavily redacted information so, based on that, I was assuming that the answers would be, "At this time, we do not have this", or "We cannot answer this". I really just want to draw a line under this, so if we provide the questions to them, we will not get that kind of non-answer. That is why I proposed that.

Ms McLaughlin: Having Invest NI sitting before us would give me an opportunity to have it step through the entire process and the entire engagement that it made with Cantor Fitzgerald, and to give us a time frame for when it was hot, when it went cold and what happened in between. It is more than questions, Pádraig, really. It is that I want to understand the investment journey that the Department, Invest NI and the Minister were engaged in. We did not close the deal. What happened that the deal was not closed? That is literally what everybody around this Committee table wants to know: why did we not close the deal? Did we do something wrong? If we know that and there is greater clarity around it, what do we do to mitigate the chances of the same thing happening on another occasion. I just think that that is good governance and transparency. Because there has been a lot of nuance and everything else around this particular investment that did not happen, we all need to know what did happen, and redacted sheets actually make us all the more curious to find out the truth behind the blackness that we are experiencing.

Ms Forsythe: I agree with that sentiment, Chair. I do not agree with our being forced to have pre-agreed questions to try to curb the potential questions that we can ask. As Sinéad said, it is about being inquisitive. We do not know what has gone on. We want to have Invest NI in to give evidence and be able to ask whatever we want. Therefore, trying to agree restrictive questions in advance is not the right approach.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): We are agreed. If any member wants to provide anything to them in advance, they can do so, but I imagine that Invest Northern Ireland will be keen to know that we want to go through the entirety of the process, and we will do that.