Vol. 444 No. 6
11 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment his views on the position of IBEC in relation to the lack of sufficient resources for incompany training in industry; his further views on whether there is an imbalance between the amount of money spent in training unemployed persons compared to the amount spent on training for the retention and consolidation of existing jobs; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
15 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment his views on the position of IBEC in relation to the lack of sufficient resources for incompany training in industry; his further views on whether there is an imbalance between the amount of money spent in training unemployed persons compared to the amount spent on training for the retention and consolidation of existing jobs; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
18 Mr. Noonan (Limerick East) asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment whether he has satisfied himself with the emphasis within our training budgets on training for those at work in industry.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 15 and 18 together.
I have seen the recent IBEC report on the training of the employed. The conclusions in this report correspond to those contained in reports such as those of Culliton, the NESC and others which, as Deputies will be aware, also highlighted the importance of training in industry and the need for Irish companies to place a greater emphasis on training. These reports also pointed to the role which the State might play in encouraging industry in this regard. In response to the conclusions in these reports the Government have developed proposals in the National Development Plan and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
While the ultimate responsibility for training in employment must rest with individual employers, I accept that the State will continue to have a role to play in ensuring that industry recognises the importance of training. For this reason, I recently set up a working group in my Department to draw up a clear policy statement for training of the employed and to put forward programmes and structures to achieve the policy aims. This group comprises representatives of FÁS, Forfás, and Forbairt, which are involved in the administration of existing schemes for the training of the employed, and my Department and a number of individual industrialists. I hope to be in a position to take whatever proposals this group come up with to Government by the end of July.
Would the Minister accept that the retention of even one job that is at risk is as important as creating a new job? Will she further accept that jobs are often at risk because of bad management, bad work practices, poor procedures and skill levels that are low or have not kept pace with events in the marketplace? That being so, will she not acknowledge that there is no justification for the imbalance between the amount of money spent on training through FÁS and other bodies and the very small amount of money spent on in-house training within industry? Of the £260 million spent last year on training, only £2.8 million was spent on training in industry. What steps does the Minister propose to take, given that often what is needed is to provide appropriate training at a crucial time in the development of industries, particularly of older industries?
I accept that the retention of existing jobs is as important if not more so than the creation of new ones. I do not accept the Deputy's figures. Many industries are funded by FÁS and other agencies which are not encapsulated in the £2.8 million. I have in mind the training of young apprentices which attracts much State funding and some EU funding which is for employment within industry. There are other schemes, particularly the TSS, which is of great interest to employers. In the main, the IBEC paper which was the subject of intense discussion and scrutiny, put forward many interesting suggestions which I am sure we will be able to take on board, particularly on the need for a crusade on training and the need for employers to take to heart lessons learned in regard to the needs of managers of small, medium and large industries.
There was clear acceptance that strategic decisions have to be taken by well motivated people who have short, medium and long term interests in view. The skills needed for such decision-making are not there au naturel and need to be put in place through self-development and training strategies. IBEC also indicated that it wanted a separate employer-led body which would have a policy and philosophy on training. I accept their desire for separateness in dealing with training but I do not know if the setting up of a new structure is the right way to develop training for people in employment. However, the document is timely, coinciding with our own policy document which we will have at the end of July, culminating in the autumn with the Community Initiatives under which there is scope under various headings for innovative measures for training. All of that will bring about an interesting milieu in which training policy will get much greater emphasis.
There is a danger in being swamped with schemes and not knowing what the Government's basic policy is. Is the Minister aware that the Culliton report was critical of the fact that 90 per cent of the FÁS budget was going into work experience and community work type schemes and only 10 per cent towards training provision within industry? What is the Minister's target? Does she have in mind a ratio of 80:20, 70:30? What is the Government's view on the allocation of training budgets as between industry and those not at work? Let me ask the Minister a specific question. Why is it that her Estimate shows that both the IDA and Forbairt are recording 50 per cent cuts in the training moneys that they make available to industry in this year's Estimate? Is that cut not completely out of line with the philosophy the Minister is expounding, that we should have greater training activity within industry?
We are seeking to rationalise the provision of training. I cannot be specific because I do not have the Estimates here but I would imagine that whatever is conceived within training budgets in individual agencies is a product not of a cut but of a more focused approach to the provision of training. I regret not answering Deputy Quill but I will include an answer in my reply to Deputy Bruton.
The Deputy spoke about the disparity between the amount of money available for training of unemployed people and that available for those who are employed. I do not like to see it put like that because it makes for division and creates a "them and us" scenario. Every penny spent on the unemployed is well spent and we should seek more rather than creating a false dichotomy. Our aim for those in employment is to have a more focused approach within an overall departmental budget for training of people in employment. That is our policy.
Our time is exhausted. I will hear a final question from Deputy Finucane.
This is the second day that Question Time has concluded just before my question was reached. I protest.
Would the Minister anticipate that with all the rationalisation she may finish up with more money available for industry and be able to accommodate IBEC's needs?
Deputy Finucane has cleverly gone on to his own question which we will not reach. There is a rigorous evaluation unit within the Department, funded by Europe, whose measures have been endorsed. They are systematically going through all the training programmes not just for us but for all the other Government Departments that have training programmes. The Department of Enterprise and Employment has responsibility for the overall funding for training. They are systematically going through each of the programmes, making very significant suggestions which have been taken on board, particularly in regard to rationalisation and looking for value for money. We hope to get more money for training for people in employment.
