John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to change the terms of reference of the National Competitiveness Council which require it to report to him on key competitiveness issues. [1222/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - National Competitiveness Council.
Under its terms of reference, the National Competitiveness Council is required to prepare and submit reports to the Taoiseach on challenges facing the enterprise sector and the policy responses required to meet them. Technical amendments to the terms of reference proposed by Forfás are currently being considered by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and my Department.
The sole purpose of any amendments that may be made will be to reflect the role and functions of the council with greater clarity. They will not impact on the council's ongoing programme of work.
When the council members were appointed, the term of office of members was not specified. Proposals to clarify the position are also being considered.
Does the Taoiseach agree that while the council's report on information technology and telecommunications was quite specific in its recommendations, the report on skills was not? Will he consider asking the council to make specific recommendations, even if they are controversial and all may not be adopted? Specific recommendations provide a better focus for Government action and our debate than compromised generalities.
We discussed this matter before Christmas, and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has been following up some of those issues. Some of the statements made can be implemented; the Department of Education and Science, FÁS, the Business-Education Partnership programme and graduate courses are working on these. Others are not so clear, and Deputy Bruton's points have already been raised with the council. I will make sure that that happens.
One understands that a council like this, which is multi-representational, has difficulties in reaching consensus. However, it might be better off saying it has not reached a consensus and that there are two specific views rather than trying a verbal fudge to reconcile both positions. That is of no use to anyone.
Decisions have to be made on the skills issue, given its importance. If there are two points of view it is no harm to know them, but in fairness to the chairman, I know he has been doing his utmost to drive this issue forward, to get decisions and recommendations that can be implemented and then to pressurise the Government to implement them.
Will the Taoiseach consider asking the council to do a specific report on the competitiveness of Irish agriculture with particular reference to the fact that some current EU policies may be inimicable to competitiveness in the widest and most vigorous sense of that term? Will the Taoiseach consider asking the council to do a long-term study of what is necessary to ensure that Irish agriculture is competitive not only in the post Agenda 2000 world but after the next round of World Trade talks?
There are two aspects to this issue. I understand Forfás provides the secretariat of the council, and that body has done some research on this matter which will be discussed at a forthcoming council meeting. I have had many meetings with the agricultural social partners, and the Minister and I have had preliminary discussions on the post-Agenda 2000 situation and the round of GATT talks, which commences towards the end of this year. We should be doing a study that looks at the next ten years and beyond, and my Department has been looking at this issue. However, that will not take away from some of the preliminary work Forfás has done, which will be discussed at the next council meeting.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the approach to agricultural policy and competitiveness, in Europe and Ireland, has been driven exclusively by short-term considerations, that there is currently no long-term perspective for European agriculture, and therefore any young person contemplating a career in farming has nothing to go on?
The difficulties in agriculture, not only in this country, need to be addressed, there is no argument about that. I spoke to Commissioner Fischler on Friday and he would argue that the Commission's extensive examination of agriculture into the medium term shows far better prospects than are visible in the short-term, and with Agenda 2000 and the GATT round stretching into early next year, he believes the policy framework will be far better. The Government would like to see a comprehensive study to cover the next ten to 20 years. This has not been done for a long time. It should be along the lines of the Culliton report on industry which was done about ten years ago. That study would be well worth doing.