Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 2000

Vol. 528 No. 2

National Training Fund Bill, 2000: Report and Final Stages.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

Mr. Naughten

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, line 47, after "Fund" to insert "and shall only be used for the development of training within the sector from which the levy was collected".

We had detailed discussion on this on Committee Stage. The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, said he would look at the case we had made and return to us on Report Stage.

In a nutshell, we are talking about the moneys collected to date from separate levies which were to be used for training in the construction industry or other relevant sectors. That money is now being amalgamated into an overall pool. We want the moneys collected to date to be ring-fenced until they are spent. We are not talking here about any new moneys that come into the fund. The Minister should accept the amendment in order to show commitment to the industries from which those funds were collected.

Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Ms Harney)

I am not in a position to accept the amendment. Overnight my Department carried out a detailed analysis of the surplus funds held by FÁS from the levy and grant scheme. The facts are very interesting.

The surplus levy funds held by FÁS have been reducing very slowly. At the end of 1999 surplus funds held by FÁS from the levy grant scheme amounted to £11.2 million. This compares to a surplus of £11.7 million at the end of 1997. The amount of surplus funds committed for grants to employers' industrial training projects at the end of 1999 was £5.6 million.

An analysis of the payments made from the fund in recent years shows that, on average, payments amounted to less than 70% shown as committed at the end of the previous year. It is reasonable to assume this trend will continue. Therefore, we expect that only about £4 million of the current £11 million surplus will actually be spent. This £4 million will include a sum of approximately £2 million for the administration of FÁS schemes.

I am sure the Deputy will be interested to know that over the past four years payments to FÁS for the administration of the levy grant scheme have amounted to between 45% and 58% of all expenditure from the levy grants fund. He may be further interested to learn that payments for administration have exceeded payments made to training projects in two of the past three years. For instance, payments for industrial training projects in 1999 amounted to £1.88 million. The administration payment to FÁS in 1999 amounted to £2.071 million.

In 1999 the construction sector received £1.77 million for training projects, but the sector only contributed £11,000 in levies. The food, drink and tobacco sector received £3,000 for training projects, but contributed £746,000 in levies. In the same year, four of the seven sectors covered by the levy grant scheme received £3,000 or less for training. The print and paper sector contributed only £3,000 in levies but received £18,000 for training projects.

I do not dispute the need for training in all sectors of industry, including those not covered by the levy grant scheme. I recognise, also, that the construction sector has been paying the apprenticeship levy since 1994, which explains the low yield from the sector under the levy grant scheme.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 6 and 9 are related to amendment No. 4. Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 9 may be discussed together.

Ms Harney

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 8, lines 20 to 22, to delete all words from and including ", after" in line 20 down to and including line 22.

Mr. Naughten

Will the Minister elaborate on this amendment? I understand it relates to a clarification in relation to an amendment that was accepted on Committee Stage.

Ms Harney

I have tabled amendments Nos. 4 and 9 in response to Deputy Rabbitte's amend ment, which was inserted on Committee Stage. As with Deputy Rabbitte's amendment, this amendment addresses the issue of consultation. I also believe this amendment addresses amendment No. 6, which is now proposed by Deputy Naughten.

My concern with the wording inserted by Deputy Rabbitte's amendment is that it ties consultation to the making of payments from the fund. As indicated on Committee Stage, this would be enormously unwieldly. As drafted, every payment from the fund would require such consultation.

Furthermore, in our discussions with the social partners, they indicated that they are not anxious to exercise a fiduciary role in relation to the fund. Their real concerns lie in having an opportunity to have a voice in the overall direction of national training policy and strategy and to ensure that the policies and programmes pursued reflect their needs.

I have already indicated that I intend to establish a national training advisory committee to address this issue. In this amendment I am providing that the Bill will specifically provide for consultation with employer and employee representatives in relation to the fund. I envisage this consultation taking place within the context of the proposed national training advisory committee.

Mr. Rabbitte

I am sorry I was taken unawares by the expedition with which the previous issue was put through the House. I wanted to indicate that my amendment No. 1 has been met by the Minister. That probably indicates that Committee Stage is still valuable in identifying a flaw in a Bill. The Minister's amendment of last night corrects that flaw.

With regard to the amendments in the Minister's name, the slight modification of the amendment agreed to on Committee Stage, as now advanced, meets the purpose I was seeking to achieve and I do not dispute its restationing in the Bill. It would in some circumstances be impracticable if every disbursement from the fund, no matter how small, had to be the subject of consultation with representatives of both sides of industry. The Minister's amendment will involve the appropriate representatives in the manner I had intended.

The Minister said it is her intention to establish an advisory committee. Will she elaborate on the role of the committee and who is likely to comprise it? Her amendment differs from the one in my name on Committee Stage, which was accepted. That amendment referred to consultation with such organisations as appear to the Minster to be generally representative of employers and employees. The Minister's amendment refers to "with such representatives of employees and such representatives of employers as he or she considers appropriate." Will there be an overlap between the person the Minister might consider appropriate and those likely to end up on the advisory committee?

I deliberately omitted inserting IBEC and the ICTU in my amendment. We dealt with this on Committee Stage. If it is a matter to do with the building industry there is not much point talking to anybody other than the CIF and the building group of unions. I presume that is what the Minister intends. I am not unhappy with what is being proposed here. Will there be an overlap between the membership of the advisory committee that will advise the Minster of the day and, if so, will there be an overlap between that and the persons contemplated by the amendments she proposes?

Mr. Naughten

Amendment No. 9 in the name of the Minister provides that "the Minister shall, from time to time, consult with such representatives of employees and such representatives of employers as she considers appropriate." It is good to see a proposal to give recognition in the Bill to employers and employees. On Committee Stage we debated the problem associated with the words "from time to time". The Minister of State gave a commitment to proposing an amendment referring to an advisory committee. He appears, however, to have overlooked his commitment to consider a number of amendments for Report Stage.

Beyond the terms of this legislation there is no commitment to consultation. Amendment No. 6 in my name proposes an insertion to section 7. It would ensure that when a scheme referred to is established and funding from the National Training Fund is provided, consultation would take place with organisations generally representative within that sector. This is a fair amendment. It does not put any additional burden on the Minister of the day and I ask the Minister to accept it. The amendment is similar to amendment No. 9 in her name, except that it seeks to ensure that consultations take place. It deals with the issue raised on Committee Stage that the legislation marginalises the trade unions and contradicts the life long learning element of the PPF. While I accept amendment No. 9, amendment No. 6 strengthens its provisions with regard to the new programmes and schemes to be established.

Ms Harney

The intention of the National Training Advisory Committee is to have workers' representatives, the ICTU, employers' representatives and, I hope, independent expertise in the training area. That is important. Enormous work has been done by the established expert skills groups in recent years. Some individuals on them are not directly involved as employers and employees but would have much to offer.

With regard to consultation, it is not the intention that there would be separate consultations before money is allocated to a programme. Many of the applications to the fund will be made by FÁS. The board of FÁS is representative of employers and employees, including on the employers' side the construction industry and on the employees' side employees across the board, especially those from the apprenticeship area. Other representations will come from Skillnets, which was established as a joint employees-employers led approach to training at ground or sectoral level. That is very much a consultative approach.

I have an open mind to this. If new initiatives are to be taken it would be natural to consult the interested parties, as happens all the time in this area. However, I do not want a situation to arise where no money can be allocated from the fund for training purposes unless specific consultation takes place. That would be unwieldy and impossible and those involved would find themselves in a very difficult position. The amendment in my name marries as best it can the views put forward by Deputies Rabbitte and Naughten. It is a good amendment.

Deputy Naughten is more keen to keep the industrial training committees. I would not be keen to do that for a host of reasons. Some sectors, such as the retail sector and the services area, have no industrial training committee, where training would be important. The approach taken in the Bill is modern and flexible. It is important that greater emphasis is placed on the need for upskilling, training and lifelong learning across all sectors in our society, including all industrial sectors. The establishment of this fund and the ring-fencing of a proportion of the moneys paid through employers' PRSI for a national training fund will be of enormous help in focusing on the new needs of the economy, which are very much training based, especially in some of the more traditional sectors.

Mr. Naughten

The Minister referred to the industrial training committees. Perhaps she might get a briefing from one of her officials regarding the content of the debate on Committee Stage because I did not say what she said I did. I said there was a need within the services industry.

I am concerned with the protection of a consultation process. Sadly it appears the Minister's Department is still unaware of the argument made by Deputy Rabbitte and me. It is a huge disappointment to note the Minister's assertion, despite my spending four hours on Committee Stage.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 5 is out of order.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Mr. Naughten

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 8, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

"and after consultation with such organisations as appear to the Minister to be generally representative of employers and employees within the sector.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 7 is out of order.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.

Mr. Naughten

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 8, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

"(3) The scheme referred to in subsection (1) shall receive the approval of the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland.”.

We discussed this amendment in great detail on Committee Stage yesterday. There should be a role for the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland in the dispersal of funding from the new fund. The National Qualifications Authority of Ireland and the two awarding councils must not only become informed about the education and training needs of industry but it must also promote them. The moneys allocated from the fund will dictate what programmes and courses provide this training. The National Qualifications Authority of Ireland should have a role to play in this regard. It ties in with the issue of lifelong learning and the principle of the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act which was introduced by the Minister in May 1999. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

Ms Harney

I am not in a position to accept the amendment. There is some confusion in relation to the issues. We have new modern legislation in relation to certification and qualifications. I recently nominated a representative to the new authority. However, that authority's remit is to certify particular training programmes. There are many areas where the certification may go outside the remit of the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland. For example, I understand that in highly technical areas, such as aircraft maintenance, there are external industry-wide certification models which might continue to apply. Qualifications awarded by private bodies will not necessarily come within the remit of the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland.

As regards ongoing consultations which my Department has had with the various stakeholders in enterprise training, it is clear there is a strong desire to promote certified training and develop certification models which are appropriate to industry. Issues of scale, modularisation and cost, for example, arise here, as does the critical area of accreditation of prior learning. However, in the legislative context, we must relate this welcome goal and aspiration to the practical reality. It will be some time before the framework of qualifications is fully established and before the new structures will have dealt with the existing training and education schemes.

Under paragraph (c), the schemes will involve skills research, not training per se. I assure the Deputy that my Department will continue to pro mote the importance of certification and, within the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, to promote the focus on work-based training. However, I cannot accept the amendment which requires every facet of activity, funded or supported by the national training fund, to have NQAI approval.

Mr. Rabbitte

I am disappointed with the Minister's response because I felt after the argument last night that it was feasible for the Minister to bring forward a resolution which would take account of the changes to which she has adverted and also the thrust of Deputy Naughten's amendment that some role and involvement for the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland would be desirable. We are caught now in the classic situation of a Report Stage debate that is guillotined in its totality, guillotined amendment by amendment because the rules of the House are extremely strict.

While I would not go so far as to accuse the Minister of a breach of faith, it is disingenuous to find that the list of amendments does not contain a reference to one of the major focuses of the debate last night, namely, the role of the industrial training committees. We facilitated the Government in terminating this legislation before Christmas and we came into the House on Report Stage in the full knowledge that it was not in our control on the assurance from the Minister of State that he would consider the arguments advanced.

The Minister seems to have got a fuzzy impression of what went on last night if she thinks anyone made an argument on this side of the House for the retention of the status quo. We did not do that. We sought to draw to her attention and to the attention of the Minister of State that there are distinctions to be drawn between the performance, achievement and contribution of some of those committees and other committees which may have outlived their day. We discussed with the Minister of State whether the opportunity would present for us to be able to come forward with some formula which would permit of the continued existence of such committees, as an independent evaluation would suggest they were of merit and still relevant today.

I do not know if amendment No. 10, for example, has been ruled out of order because I have not been given a piece of paper about the grouping of amendments or about what is ruled in or out. Perhaps that is because I was in late. We raised this specifically with the Minister of State last night. The suggestion was that the Minister would table an amendment. That amendment sought to ensure that all sections of the Bill would not be implemented together. We would invoke different sections of the Bill at different times. Paragraph (b) of amendment No. 10 would leave it in the Minister's control to say that she would not implement X or Y until such time as she was satisfied that a transitional arrangement was in place based on evaluation. We would then leave that to continue as appropriate.

If I am not falsely anticipating, it seems the Minister has got hold of the reins today and that her officials are back in the saddle. She is saying we will not go anywhere with this. She is saying she is a bright, new, shiny Minister and she will get rid of all that social partnership nonsense. We will move on to Michael Porter and the competitive way to do things and we will not have any of the partnership stuff. It might be all right for the Taoiseach and the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, to tell the social partners when he wants them to agree to something but when it comes to something practical, such as training, there will not be a role for them.

The undertaking given to us in good faith last night by the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, was that he would burn the midnight oil and come back to us with some formula which would give expression in the Bill to a willingness to retain in place some of the more valuable, pertinent, relevant and modern committees and allow the Minister make whatever changes she wanted. I am disappointed that does not seem to be provided for.

I would not have agreed so readily last night to the repositioning of my amendment, which was carried by the committee, if I had known we would not get a quid pro quo. I would have preferred to have forced the Minister to come into the House and say she would overturn it by a decision of the House having cocked up on it last night. She is doing that now in a more diplomatic and effective way, while at the same time discounting all the arguments we made which are related to this point.

Perhaps everyone at the central organisation of the trade union movement or the employers movement, that is, IBEC or the ICTU, might not be too upset about the industrial training committees. However, those at the coalface on both sides of industry are concerned. They were not aware that matters were proceeding at this pace and are just catching up with the game. They were not told at congress and, if they were, it would have intruded on the rescue job done recently on the PPF. They would have piled it into that agenda but they did not know because congress and IBEC did not tell them. They could not have known that it was the Minister's intention to fast-track the legislation through the House. Deputy Naughten and I agreed with that purely to facilitate the Bill. It seemed the sensible thing to do but we did not think the social partnership would be entirely excised from the Bill in the fashion now proposed.

Mr. Naughten

It is unfair to Members on this side of the House who tried to facilitate the Bill that three separate Ministers responded to our queries. It makes it extremely difficult to get continuity and this has been highlighted by way of the Minister's misrepresentation of what happened on Committee Stage. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, failed to respond to our queries on Second Stage. The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, responded to the Bill yesterday and the Minister got an inaccurate briefing for today's Report Stage. It is extremely difficult for Members who have facilitated the Minister and her Department in relation to this issue and it will make us think twice about facilitating Ministers again. Commitments were given yesterday on Committee Stage that amendments tabled by Members would be considered and addressed on Report Stage. This has been completely ignored and no reference had been made to these amendments today, which is very disappointing.

On the specific wording of the amendment, it is fundamentally important that consultations take place with the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland. The Minister could take a leaf out of the authority's book in relation to the structures for consultation which it has put in place. It includes representatives of people involved on the ground right on up. For some reason the Minister is afraid to put the advisory committee on a statutory basis. It is a great disappointment that this is what we are left with at the conclusion of Report Stage. The Minister is not aware of the facts and must have received a bad briefing on what took place on Committee Stage.

Ms Harney

I am confident I received a thorough briefing on last night's debate, as I am sure Deputy Rabbitte is aware. I apologise for not being able to attend yesterday because of President Clinton's visit. I appreciate the support of Opposition Deputies to have the fund established this year. However, I do not have to accept every amendment tabled.

During the past few months, I have spent much time considering this issue, particularly the management and organisation that would be associated with the national training fund. The industrial training committees served a purpose in their day. They were established in the old style manufacturing sectors. The retail sector did not have such a committee, nor did several other sectors. Given the pace of change in the economy and industry, the last thing we need now is rigidity and inflexibility. Some of the best initiatives recently in the area of training have no statutory basis. The skill nets development, for example, involves approximately 60 different networks throughout the country. Some of these are based on firm size, some are based on cross sectoral training and others are based on geographic location. It would be a nightmare to try to legislate to put that aspect into effect. As someone who has been in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment for approximately three and a half years – Deputy Rabbitte was there before me – the system is falling down with committees. It is rare to find an official who is not coming from or going to a committee. I am not opposed to committees if they are necessary and meaningful, but I am totally opposed to them if they exist for the sake of having them. The non- statutory approach which allows greater flexibility and allows us to make things happen much more rapidly is the appropriate one.

On the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, I am certain the advisory committee will establish close consultation with the authority. However, I do not believe it is appropriate to include this in the legislation. We would do many things differently if we were doing them all over again. FÁS has the capacity and is a very representative board. Of the 19 members on the board, two were appointed by the Minister and the remainder are appointed by various nominating bodies. They have the power, if they so desire, to set up various sub-committees, advisory committees or sectoral committees. So too has the board of Enterprise Ireland, therefore, it is not the case that we cannot already do these things. However, it is the case that we cannot write into legislation or mandate ourselves to do something that may not be necessary where there may be a better way of doing it.

Mr. Naughten

What we have been trying to say for the past 24 hours is that there should be some form of statutory consultation in place where required. That is of fundamental importance for the delivery of these programmes and the success of the fund. At the end of the day we are all trying to achieve the same goal. We are not saying the industrial training committees must remain but that some good elements within these committees can be built on. We are not talking about officials running here, there and everywhere to every committee under the sun. However, there should be some recognition in the legislation in relation to employers and employees regarding consultations that should take place. This was not included in the legislation until last night when the Government suffered an embarrassing defeat on Committee Stage. Otherwise there would be no reference to consultations with representatives of employees or employers.

Another fundamental element of the National Qualifications Authority is that it is representative of the very bodies the Minister does not want included in the legislation. Perhaps there should be one or two members on the advisory committee because that in itself is representative of both sides and is built on the whole partnership model. Sadly, the lack of consultation structures in the Bill flies in the face of the whole ethos of partnership. The Minister would be the first person to come in here and talk about how well partnership is being used to set the country on a sound foundation. Yet, when it comes to introducing legislation, she is not prepared to copperfasten the requirement for statutory consultation.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Ms Harney

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 8, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:

"(5) With respect to the performance generally by the Minister of his or her functions under this section, the Minister shall, from time to time, consult with such representatives of employees and such representatives of employers as he or she considers appropriate.".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.

Mr. Rabbitte

In that case, I wish to speak to the section.

Acting Chairman (Ms Fitzgerald)

The Deputy cannot do so on Report Stage.

Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.

Acting Chairman

In accordance with the order of the House today I call on the Minister to move that the Bill do now pass.

Ms Harney

I move: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Rabbitte

I had thought that one could speak to a section on Report Stage.

Acting Chairman

Only on Committee Stage.

Mr. Rabbitte

That was not always the case.

Acting Chairman

There is not a section by section discussion on Report Stage. Such a discussion can only take place on Committee Stage. That has always been the procedure.

Mr. Rabbitte

Is one allowed to speak to the Bill?

Acting Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Rabbitte

I will not revisit the matters with which we dealt on Second Stage and, at some length, on Committee Stage. Training is more important now than in the past, particularly when one considers the way our economy operates and the pace of developments we are experiencing. This Bill will improve our capacity and ability to upskill people who are already in employment. However, in framing this legislation, it was not necessary to dispense – in the manner in which it was dispensed – with the existing social partnership framework.

If the Minister is fervently of the opinion, as she appears to be, that the industrial committees have outlived their purpose, are not appropriate, are overly rigid and do not provide for the intersectoral linkages and the other various matters we discussed last evening, it is incumbent on her to state that clearly to the social partners in advance. She may say that she is not responsible for any breakdown in communication between the central organisations representing employees and employers, but there is no doubt that such a breakdown has occurred.

The people who contributed to the work of these committees in the past are in a state of shock because they were not aware that this Bill was being fast-tracked through the House before Christmas. I do not believe the Minister has formally stated – I am sure she would make such a statement if invited to do so – that some of these committees did immensely important work.

Let us consider the position vis-à-vis the construction committee. The construction industry is working at 120% of capacity at present and we ought to be trying to induce British construction companies and their workers to come to this country to help implement the national development plan. In that context, it is critical that our workforce is properly trained. The construction committee has chalked up a number of significant achievements in terms of equipping the industry for the modern age, and to dispense with it in the fashion outlined in the Bill is regrettable.

I do not know if the Minister will give the House a commitment that she will ensure that these committees, which are seen to have done a good job and are still relevant in the modern context, will be put in place on a non-statutory basis. It is important that she place such an undertaking on the record before we conclude our deliberations on the Bill.

Mr. Naughten

Like Deputy Rabbitte's party, Fine Gael fully supports the ethos and thrust behind this Bill. It was for this reason we believed it was fundamentally important that the Department should meet its target to have the Bill passed during this session. The Bill is good, in principle, but, as indicated on Committee Stage, there is a need for consultation. We want a formal and statutory commitment that there will be consultation with interests involved in a particular sector in relation to the funding of that sector.

To a certain extent, the Minister looks at this issue through rose-tinted glasses and she stated that the fund is separate from FÁS and Enterprise Ireland. However, progress will not be made unless these organisations obtain funding for programmes with which they intend to proceed. That is why consultation is important. I hope the Minister will give a commitment to establish a consultation process on a non-statutory basis. She should retain some of the positive elements from the old committees and use them to form part of a consultation mechanism.

Many of her colleagues in Government – they are probably not members of her party – have stated privately that the elements to which I refer should have been incorporated in the Bill. They are beginning to do a "Willie O'Dea" on her in respect of this matter, which is disappointing. I ask her to reconsider this issue to see if we can provide consultation on a non-statutory basis because unless there is a proper consultation mechanism in place, problems could arise in respect of the implementation of the new training programmes. This Bill is of fundamental importance to the future development of the country.

Ms Harney

Last January my Department published a document on enterprise, training and consultation in which we covered, among other things, the industrial training committees and considered their relevance and appropriateness. It would be wrong, therefore, to state that nobody was aware of people's thinking on this subject. The Bill, which will, I hope, become an Act later in the week, was approved by the Cabinet whose members were fully aware that the training committees were not included. In that context, it would be wrong, if that is what Deputy Naughten is suggesting, to say that anybody was kept in the dark.

Clearly there are many models of consultation that work and they do not all have to be placed on a statutory basis. Sometimes those that work best are those which do not operate on a statutory basis, which allows them to exercise the flexibility to which I referred earlier. At present, approximately 1.5% of company revenues is spent on training while the international spend in this regard is approximately 3%. Companies, particularly those in the indigenous sector, have, therefore, a great deal of catching up to do. If the larger Irish companies and their multinational counterparts are removed from the overall picture, the percentage spend by smaller indigenous companies is extremely small. It never ceases to amaze me how companies can identify a need to purchase the latest piece of equipment but cannot see the need to invest in training their employees.

I hope the fund will play its part in focusing the attention of companies on the need for training and that it will help us pioneer many new ways of delivering training to the employed and the unemployed. That is certainly our intention. I thank the Opposition Deputies for facilitating the speedy passage of the Bill through the Dáil this evening.

Question put and agreed to.