Mr. Michael D'Arcy:

Absolutely. One of the risks I always face is that I try to give it the big overview and miss out something really important and be misunderstood. The Deputy is absolutely right. Agriculture was in my head. Dare I go back to the sacred text that speaks about animal and plant health? That is the only specific area for co-operation. Of course, that underpinned the single epidemiological area, which was agreed and which helped us deal with the threats from off island that would have undermined the agrifood industry to which the Deputy referred.

Of course, as we found out during the debate around Brexit, it is very much joined up on a basis of supply chains and productive capacity. The whole thing is now a single all-island entity. That is what I was referring to, but I suppose I jumped ahead a little bit too quickly in terms of the challenges now faced from the broader issues of climate change and demands of transformation. There are risks involved. I think it was Mr. John FitzGerald who used to write about how if there is culling of animals in one jurisdiction and there is not in another, that is going to play havoc. We spent decades trying to do a deal with pigs and sheep that crossed the Border countless times under the old Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, regime so, again, the absence of co-ordination and coherence to underpin the existing supply chains that are bringing so many jobs and employment and well-being across the board is a challenge. However, there is no gain in saying there are challenges to that without asking what role the agreement has or looking at structures and principles in processes in the agreement to ensure that is done coherently and effectively, balancing the interests of all concerns both sectorally and on both sides of the Border.

In terms of the Border region itself, Ms Pamela Arthurs and I were on the same panel for the Centre For Cross Border Studies annual conference last week. As the Deputy knows, I am very acquainted with the issues. I am also involved with PEACEPLUS. That has another €1.1 billion that is going to the six Northern Ireland Border counties but also to the functional area because, frankly, sometimes I think the development of the Border area has to also take place in the wider context. How can it be done in a way that plugs into the energy and effort and brings it into the Border region in a way that is needed to lift the Border region? The Deputy's colleague mentioned the mid-Ulster region recently and the fact so much economic activity takes place there. How is that going to be spread out? Where is it going to be spread? Is it Cavan or Monaghan? Is Monaghan a part of that already? If it is a part of that region, where do Sligo, Leitrim and Mayo fit in?

To me, there is always a challenge in how we do this, which is why I will bring the Deputy back to clusters in sectors rather than just geographic spaces, particularly today when transport in the regions is so important. What are our strengths in our particular central Border region? What are the sectors that are going ahead and are the most progressive? How can we develop local supply lines and supply companies with SMEs supplying those? Are they there already? Could their activities be expanded outward into the wider all-island economy? That area perhaps is local services or, as the Deputy said, the co-operation between the local authorities in the region in the absence of there being a North-South Ministerial Council. I suppose that is what I was referring to more with the north west in that this report was composed because it was a pitch entirely to central government here. Therefore, the highlights were always related to what the priorities were here. If, for example, we had a more dynamic North-South dimension, perhaps a big feature of the report would have been a pitch into the North-South Ministerial Council context as well as the central government context.

Maybe the bit I am missing is that we have all very good political relationships between regional authorities in the area, so in the absence of the North-South Ministerial Council, should there be more bottom-up co-operation at local level which drives more interaction with Government, economy, business, civic partners, etc.? Should it always be driven by just the availability of money? Can it be done because it is a good thing to do it for policy reasons and not just because there is a pot of money available? I refer to local services, provision of health, education services, etc. There is much disconnect between responsibilities. Another issue mentioned in the agreement is waste, coming back to environmental issues. Again, it is in the absence of that joined-up conversation and thinking on multiple levels that I am just using the report, maybe unfairly. I very quickly scanned the report but I understand it was pitched more at a national policy level and the national development plan, NDP, here rather than that cross-Border dimension. As I said, there were perhaps references in the detail but I was unfairly highlighting it. It is more to get at my point that when we get into the next phase of our North-South discussion, the next phase is the development of the all-island economy. That is why I highlighted those points.