ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FORUM
Meeting of the Infrastructure Sub-Group
held at 10.00am on Monday 25th February 2008
in
Present: Jim
McCusker (Chairman)
Janice
Treacy
Doreen
Brown
1.0
Apologies
1.1 Apologies were received from Mike Brennan, John Gilliland,
Peter McNaney and Bryan Gregory.
2.0
Note
of previous meeting
2.1 The note of the sub-group meeting held on
10th December was agreed.
3.0 Matters Arising
3.1 The report of the Capital Realisation
Taskforce was not yet available.
3.2
Departments had been commissioned to produce
Delivery Plans to set out their approach to delivering capital schemes funded
in the Budget and shown in ISNI.
3.3 The timescale for the
review of the Planning system was not yet known.
4.0 Investment Strategy for
4.1 The
4.2
The Sub-Group made a number of points about the
Report and its use:
·
it appeared to be a summary, without the detail of
the work underpinning it;
·
the methodology used was unclear; it would have
been of interest to understand the criteria and scoring system used to make a
systematic assessment of the capital schemes involved;
·
there was no indication of how it judged “public
good” and “robustness” in relation to the schemes;
·
it was unclear if/how the Report could be used to
rebalance ISNI when slippage inevitable occurred in some schemes;
·
in some instances, the line taken in the Report was
not in accordance with current policy, eg, in relation to Energy, affordable
housing.
4.3
The Sub-Group agreed to seek a meeting with SIB to
cover a number of issues:
·
the way in which any reprofiling within ISNI would
be undertaken, given the absence of criteria for such rebalancing in the London
Economics Report;
·
the latest position in relation to the assessed
capacity of the private and public sectors to deliver ISNI;
·
the use to be made of the London Economics Report.
5.0
Report to EDF
5.1 A
report would be drafted to EDF on the following lines
·
the London Economics Report had only been available
for a matter of days, and would require further consideration;
·
it did not appear to provide adequate means for
making an assessment of the elements within ISNI2;
·
there were continuing concerns about the capacity
of both the public and private sectors to deliver ISNI;
·
there was a continuing need to have agreed criteria
for rebalancing ISNI as inevitable slippage occurs.
6.0
Next
Meeting
6.1 A
meeting would be arranged between the Sub-Group and SIB in April.