Mr. Ian Brannigan:

I move to Deputy Ó Cuív's questions. There was a very interesting question around infrastructure in general and Knock Airport specifically. There is an overwhelming opinion - I have to call it as I see it - that if one builds it, they will come. The attitude is that building an airport in the north west of Ireland has, fortuitously, served us really well. It is just on the cusp of what some of our analysis shows is commuting distance for an international airport. Knock has served the north west reasonably well over the years. I speak not for its balance sheet or operational effectiveness although I believe the former is very healthy now or at least is getting a lot more healthy. Passenger numbers are growing. From our own case, it is an incredibly positive thing to speak of a region with an international airport within it. It is very difficult to put an absolute value on that if one is looking for inward investment. If the IDA was here, I am sure it would say that this gives the region cachet. The net effect for us is that it is an incredibly positive development and asset for the region. On the general question of infrastructure, it proves the point in some ways that there is an attitude of balanced risk management in deciding to undertake some of these infrastructural investments. I point respectfully also to the motorway to Galway. The anecdotal response was to look to the tourism boom that was engendered without ever seeing it simply by building that infrastructure link from Dublin to Galway. That is the sort of thing that motorways, airports and ports engender in a modern economy. We are always surprised after the fact, which is something we should learn from.

Deputy Ó Cuív asked about funds. There is a demand and a need for a scaled fund that looks at patient-investor principles, which is to say longer-term returns, and a wider socioeconomic return. It is a fact that there are challenges for a lot of ideas that are job rich and projects that are probably shovel-ready in that they would find it very hard to meet the criteria for commercial returns that are currently in the market, that is, shorter times and higher return rates. I am not even certain that, actuarially, a pension fund would be capable of doing that but there is absolute demand there in tourism, energy projects and a multitude of cultural events and projects to provide long term returns to the State far in excess of any investment. To answer the Deputy's question, consideration should given to the creation of a regional socioeconomic fund. We have run a venture capital fund for some time now and that market is well served. We have already talked about the transformational growth there. What we are talking about is something that is not looking at early stage seed capital but rather at more returns to a wider region, including rural areas, which is starved of the actual funds to get things off the ground.

Deputy Ó Cuív asked about the three or four biggest things with potential in the rural region. We are absolutely talking about potential. If the point was not made before, the GVA roughly of our region exceeds that of Northern Ireland and Wales. While it has to catch up on the rest of the country in the country's benefit, it actually has very good potential. We are ignoring something by not going after it. As such, the question is what are we going to do. We see infrastructure as key. That is a big question. We have mentioned skills and will come back to that. Access to finance is a major issue, without a doubt. We have addressed it through VC funds over the years and I will come back to microloans, which are something we have also looked at. However, the working capital is not there in many businesses, especially self-employed SMEs. A more mature, flexible model must be developed in that regard. Again, I come back to the point that this must be a place-based model. It is hard to run risk assessments from an office two and a half hours away where one does not understand the dynamics of a business and cannot make the calls on risk mitigation there. I put that into the mix, respectfully.

The next question was from Deputy Cannon and centred around the merging of local authorities. With respect, I will take a pass on that if I may. There was a good answer on it and I will leave it at that. Of course, we could give an opinion, but there are models where it has worked and there are probably models where it could be better. All I would say on anything like that is "Deal with the real issues". When we look at recent mergers, I note that one-stop shops are great but one has to ensure that they increase capability rather than diminish it. I have no point to make on the specifics.

On the OECD question, I hand over to my colleague.