RECORD OF MTSPs SUB-GROUP MEETING – 24 MARCH 2006
| Present: |
||
| Bob Barbour (Chair) | Centre for
Competitiveness |
|
| Jim McCusker | NIC/ICTU |
|
| Michael Maguire | Institute
of Directors |
|
| Nigel Smyth | CBI |
|
| Richard Ramsey | DETI |
|
| Richard Johnston | DETI |
|
| Stephen Moore | DETI |
|
|
Apologies: |
||
| Seamus McAleavey | NICVA | |
| John Gilliland | UFU |
|
| Raymond Mullan | Further
Education |
Minutes
of Sub-Group meetings
1.
The
minutes of the meetings on 11 November 2005 and 15 December 2005 were agreed,
without amendment.
Review
of Action Points from meeting on 11 November 2005
2.
EDF Communications Strategy – Stephen Moore reported
that a final draft of the communications strategy was circulated to all members
following the Forum’s plenary meeting in December. He noted that some further comments had been
received, which had been incorporated into the draft and that the strategy had
been published to the Forum’s website.
3.
NI Priorities and Budget
2006 – 2008 –
Stephen Moore reported Seamus McAleavey had written to DFP as agreed.
Regional
Forecasts Ltd – Update on Progress
4.
Members
discussed the refinements of the indicator framework recommended by Regional
Forecasts (RF) and agreed the following:
Public sector
employment: NI public sector employment
to be reported relative to total NI employment and compared to the public
sector share of total employment in the
Public sector
expenditure: NI
public expenditure to be reported as a proportion of GVA relative to the
Private
sector employment: The framework will be
revised to show (1) the relative share of employment in business and financial
services and (2) the relative share of employment in manufacturing.
Employment in
tourism: the
framework will be respecified to show employment in tourism relative to the
Skills
Levels: RF proposed this indicator
be reported as relative to the
ACTION – EDF
Secretariat
to ask Skills Sub-group to discuss RF proposal.
Essential skills for living: The Sub-group accepted advice from Regional Forecasts and the DETI, DEL, DFP and OFMDFM Steering group that monitoring this indicator is not essential and it could be removed.
5+ GCSE’s A*-C: The Sub-group declined Regional
Forecasts recommendation that this indicator be revised to show the proportion
of school leavers with A level qualifications relative to England and
Wales. It was noted that the proposed A level
indicator would exclude the young people who qualify via Further Education for
entry to Higher Education. It was agreed
however that whilst the current indicator should be retained, the indicator’s
value would be enhanced by revising it so that Maths and English are
included in the 5+ GCSE’s A*-C.
ACTION – DETI
Economists to
ensure Maths and English are included in the 5+ GCSE’s A*-C indicator.
Changes in
employment of people from NTSN: The Sub-group accepted the recommendation
that the employment rate in NTSN areas should be used rather than the actual
number change.
Deprivation Theme
& relative measure of the level of income support claimants: RF recommended consideration is given to a separate
deprivation theme and a relative measure of the level of income support
claimants. The Sub-group declined the
proposal as the additional indicator would not be essential and would possibly
complicate the existing Vision framework structure. The Sub-group also declined a proposed
relative measure of income support claimants, but did agree that
a
measure, with a particular focus on poverty, may be useful and proposed that
this be scoped for inclusion next year.
ACTION – DETI
Economists to
scope a measure, with a particular focus on poverty, for inclusion next year.
Business
R&D as proportion of GVA: The Sub-group agreed this
should be re-specified relative to the
Product
innovation, process innovation and % BERD devoted to commercialisation: The Sub-group agreed to remove the existing
indicators due to data difficulties and adopt two very similar measures from the
Community Innovation Survey (CIS). These
indicators are the percentage of firms with novel product innovations relative
to the
Percentage of
BERD devoted to commercialisation: The Sub-group agreed this
indicator should be removed, as it overlaps with the novel innovations
indicators to be adopted from the CIS.
Proportion of
manufacturing employment in high-tech companies and proportion of employment in
knowledge based tradeable services: The Sub-group agreed to the
recommendation that these indicators should be presented alongside equivalent
Definition of
Knowledge Based Tradeable Services: The Sub-group agreed to the
recommendation that the definition of knowledge based tradeable services be
realigned for the purposes of consistency to the definition used in the
International Trade in Services survey.
Manufacturing
and tradable services exports: The Sub-group accepted the recommendation
that the indicators for manufacturing and tradable services exports be revised
to show exports as a proportion of GVA relative to the
Tourism
visitor numbers and tourism expenditure per visitor: The Sub-group agreed with RF that, as currently
specified, these indicators, whilst giving an indication of trend, give little
indication of whether existing numbers are satisfactory. The sub-group agreed the indicators should be
re-specified relative to population and presented alongside equivalent
indicators for
Job quality –
inward investment income compared to NI private sector: The Sub-group noted the difficulties RF was still
having in sourcing data for this indicator.
However, in light of information that Invest NI would make data
available in March 2006, the Sub-group decided to decline RF’s recommendation that
the indicator be dropped.
Take-up of broadband: The Sub-group concluded
that, in the absence of any better alternative, the current broadband
availability indicator should be retained.
However, the Sub-group agreed with RF that, now NI has 100% broadband
coverage, the use of broadband rather than its provision is more important. It was agreed an indicator that measures
uptake or usage would be more appropriate and should be sourced. A number of data problems were discussed, in
particular the fact that the sample size of the ONS e-commerce survey does not
permit a regional breakdown. It was
agreed that EDF, via its Infrastructure Sub-group, might consider pressing ONS
to enhance its e-commerce survey to permit a regional breakdown, by enlarging
its sample size.
ACTION – DETI
Economists to
consider Sub-group’s proposals.
Average road
speeds: The Sub-group agreed that a
composite indicator should be created to track the trend in average road speed
on NI major routes.
Share of inward investment in NTSN areas: The Sub-group agreed that ‘employment rate in NTSN areas’ is a better measure of the impact of inward investment on people living in NTSN areas.
Additional public transport
related infrastructure indicators: The Sub-group discussed additional indicators relating
to the usage of public transport that might be included within the infrastructure
driver area. It was noted that bus and
rail passenger data is available from Translink for a number of years to 2004
and it was agreed that an aggregate indicator should be added, to the
infrastructure driver area, to track the number of passengers on public rail
and road transport.
Energy Costs: The Sub-group agreed with RF’s view that energy
prices are another important infrastructure indicator and that an indicator
could be added, if sufficient data were available. It was also noted however that forecasts
would be difficult for a number of reasons.
The Sub-group agreed an energy indicator would not be pursued at this
stage.
Scenario
Planning
5.
Richard
Johnston highlighted a number of key points from Regional Forecasts’ Interim
report.
–
The
primary objectives of RF’s contract in 2005 were to advise EDF on how the
original ‘long-list’ of indicators and targets should be refined and then to
develop a forecasting model for EDF based on a more manageable and meaningful
structure of indicators.
–
Only
a small proportion of the 2005 project’s budget was invested in actual
development of the model for scenario planning.
This was due to the complexity inherent in the set of indicators and the
effort needed to build a model incorporating some of the complex linkages and
interdependences between the frameworks 46 indicators.
–
The
2006 contract provides more scope for developing the model and this should
allow NIPS to be improved and structured in such a way to facilitate scenario
modelling.
–
The
forecasts and simulation results produced by the model are intended to inform
discussion of trends in indicators and future policy options.
–
The
programme for further developing the model has two main strands:
o
Development
modules: Distinct elements of the
modelling framework that will be analysed to ensure the relationships built
into the NIPS framework are appropriate; and
o
Scenario
capabilities: Development work to ensure
the model is capable of running a number of useful scenarios.
–
Due
to the complexity of the NIPS model RF cannot guarantee the success of any
individual changes. The model contains
approximately 4,000
6.
It
was agreed that DETI will identify and advise the Chairs of the Sub-groups of
scenarios that might be run on the model and seek their guidance on the levels
that might be set scenario indicators so that these are as realistic as
possible.
ACTION – DETI
Economists to
identify and advise the Chairs of the Sub-groups of scenarios that might be run
on the model.
7.
None.
8. To
be advised by EDF Secretariat.