Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 7 October 2004
9 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the steps his Department intends to take arising from the report of the enterprise strategy group published on 7 July 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23644/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra27 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he intends to implement the recommendations contained in the report of the enterprise strategy group (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23606/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 27 together.
I do not want to repeat all I said in response to Question No. 9 during Priority Questions. The high level group was established on foot of the recommendations of the enterprise strategy group which will report to me in the next week or so. I have met the chairman of the strategy group and the next step is to bring an action plan back to the Government to develop the issues contained in the enterprise strategy group report.
I accept that the Minister answered Question No. 9 in Priority Questions although I could not participate. The strategy group recommended joined-up government to ensure that any decision of a Department would not adversely impact on Ireland's enterprise culture. Unfortunately, there are many examples of this, for example, when the Department of Social and Family Affairs restricts access to participants in education and training as it did through some cutbacks. This runs counter to the need for upskilling. How is the joined-up government concept to be achieved? Will there be an overarching committee chaired by the Minister? Government memoranda refer to the implications for women of any Government decision, should the question of impact on enterprise strategy be posed in response to any Government decision or Minister's change in policy? This could ensure that we are at the cutting edge of winning jobs, growing our economy and making it competitive and fit.
The report recommends an overarching structure involving six Departments with six Secretaries General and four outsiders to advance the recommendations. No decision has been made on that. I had a good discussion yesterday with the chairman who outlined the background to the proposal. The committee refers in the report to the benefit Ireland has derived from having an agile Government. That is the Government's capacity to get things done quickly, a can-do attitude when multinationals or other outside players want to invest here. In those cases there is a good relationship between Departments and we resolve these cross-cutting issues fairly quickly. That achievement is attributed to successive Governments and the political structures.
The report said there is no longer a clear focus on enterprise.
Sometimes society does not give credit enough to the political system in terms of economic progress. Politicians are the last group ever considered to have an impact on any aspect of the economy and the political system.
Except when it goes wrong.
Except when it goes wrong. The report identifies the significant role played by agile government in the past in getting rid of obstacles and advancing matters. There is concern that we retain that agility and even enhance and improve it.
That is why the Taoiseach appointed Deputies O'Dea and Roche as Ministers. They are the agile wing.
The Minister, Deputy O'Dea, is very agile — he always has been. I told the chairman that I am interested in a structure that has an impact on a joined-up group. I am open to the issue but there is no point in simply forming another committee that has no impact. Whatever structure or mechanism we put in place must have an impact in terms of outcomes and involve genuine proofing of the issues as Deputy Howlin suggested. The group should have an effect on decision-making in each Department responsible for creating the enterprise environment we require. I am very positive about this. It is a matter of finding the structure that will get us the best result in terms of joined-up government.
I welcome what the Minister has said but I fear structures, meetings and Secretaries General.
So do I, that is my point.
I would like to hear that when a decision is made in the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Department of Transport or elsewhere, it must go through some vetting procedure to say that it has no impact, or some impact, on enterprise culture or on Ireland Inc. in enterprise terms. It would act as a sort of clearing house from which the proposal goes to the Department of Finance whether it resides in the Department of Finance or another place. There must be a box that someone must tick to weigh that against its impact. It is daft to make an economic cut in training that looks good on the balance sheet at the Department of Social and Family Affairs but is bad for preparing people who are unemployed for getting jobs.
As Deputy Howlin knows from his experience as a member of Government, when a memorandum goes to Government there are several items included, such as gender-proofing or the impact on poverty. We could apply that to the impact on enterprise. There was a ceiling on all the social welfare and back-to-education schemes. From my experience in the Department of Education and Science we never quite reached that ceiling even in the good days. The take-up rarely matched the estimate.
That is not something of which to be proud.
No, it is a reality. People try to save face about the estimations made when it was a fluid marketplace. I suppose the Celtic tiger also reduced the numbers. However, I take the Deputy's general point, if something is happening in the education area how does that affect enterprise and so on. I have no difficulty with that idea. We do not want to create an obstacle that blocks Department decision-making or initiatives.
I wish to address the competitiveness element of the report. Is it not the case that the report fails to address the house prices which have a sharp negative impact on our competitiveness in a host of areas, for example, the obvious pressures on wages or the hours people must spend travelling to and from work because they cannot afford a house close to their workplace? The same applies in terms of the need for child care. For example, the lack of child care resources prevents people from being involved in the labour market. Does the Minister propose to deal with that? Will he talk to the Minister with responsibility for housing? We have talked about cross-departmental relations, does the Minister have any plans in that regard or does he accept that it is an important area that must be tackled?
The Deputy is correct that the cost base is a significant issue in terms of our competitiveness going forward. The strategy group identified that, as has the Competitiveness Council which will be publishing its report next week. The report refers to wages and energy costs, particularly those relating to electricity, and states that Ireland is a very expensive location for food and drink. The latter probably reflects that we have a very developed economy.
There is clearly an issue as regards young people, particularly those living in this city and other major centres of population, being in a position to purchase housing. The level of house construction in the past decade has been phenomenal. In the past five to seven years it has outstripped anything that happened in the past in terms of the number of houses built here. We will again reach record levels this year. There is major demographic pressure on the system at present in terms of the numbers coming forward to purchase houses. Housing policy is designed to try to reduce prices and the rate of increase attached thereto. That is the clear objective of Government policy on the housing front. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government has particular responsibility in this area and is pursuing a range of initiatives that is designed to increase supply. The latter will then reduce the rate of overall increase.
I am concerned by the Minister's answer. He is stating that we will allow the construction sector to produce more houses and that this will hopefully resolve matters. It is clear that it will not do so. I refer, for example, to the Ninth Progress Report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution which deals with the price of building land. Does the Minister agree it will take a proactive policy on the part of Government to reduce house prices? I agree with him regarding the other elements — fuel, etc. — which are damaging competitiveness. However, house prices could be tacked quite quickly. The Minister does not seem to have proposals for a cross-departmental task force to deal with the issue in general terms. Is simply allowing the building industry construct more houses the only answer at our disposal in terms of reducing the cost of housing? Such a policy is unlikely to solve the problems.
I assure the Deputy that I am not going to become Minister with responsibility for housing but I accept that we have a cost-cutting role and responsibility for highlighting the issues. Anyone who considers the past five years will know that the rate of construction has been phenomenal — they will also be aware that people are under huge pressure — and if one looks at it from one perspective it has been a significant achievement. On the other hand, it is extraordinarily difficult for young people to purchase houses.
Prices are still going up.
They are slowing down.
Marginally.
Compared to the position in 1999 and 2000, it is evident that there is a difference now. That will continue to be the case. As we move on, the level of increase will ease. A range of initiatives has been undertaken to date in terms of trying to increase supply. The rate of supply will ultimately affect the price.
As regards land policy and trying to set aside sites, all Departments were asked to offer up land to ensure the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and local authorities could develop new social housing units. Efforts are being made on a range of fronts to try to improve the situation. I have no doubt that those efforts will continue in terms of trying to improve matters for those purchasing houses. I accept this is a significant issue.
