We now come to amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Quill. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related. I suggest therefore that amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5 be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed?
SECTION 3.
No. With your permission I would like my amendment to stand in its own right.
As there is no agreement, we will take amendment No. 2 on its own.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
"(b) In the making of such an order, the Minister shall at all times take full cognisance of—
(i) the emerging needs of young women,
(ii) new and emerging areas of industrial activity,
(iii) the potential for multi skilling.".
The first point I wish to make relates to the measures that could be taken to make the apprenticeship schemes more accessible to women. The current situation speaks for itself. Only 2 per cent of all apprentices are women. The consequences of this imbalance in our training and apprenticeship schemes have been well catalogued.
There is clear evidence that there is a direct connection between low skill levels and high levels of unemployment. In addition when people with few skills manage to find jobs, very often they are the most menial, low paid and of short duration; in other words, they tend to be casual jobs. If people in one sector of society have few skills they inevitably fall into poverty traps. It is important that, at every opportunity, we take measures to rectify this and try to ensure parity of access as between young men and young women. It is grossly unjust and unfair that so many young women are excluded from apprenticeship schemes.
The problem takes on a new dimension when one is invited to attend the passing out of qualified young apprentices or to a celebration of an achievement of trainee apprentices and it comes almost as a surprise that there is even one woman included. This Bill creates the opportunity to rectify that situation and to rectify it from now on because it was unfair and unjust. I ask for all party support for that part of my amendment.
That leads me to subsection (b) where I refer to exploring new and emerging areas of industrial activity. It is a fact that in some of the traditional areas the work was not always suitable for women, though that can hardly be accepted as an excuse any longer because where women do get apprenticeships they have proved themselves to be equally as competent as young men and nobody takes issue with that. However, there is obsolescence in the workforce, erosion of old skills and old work practices and an emergence of new technologies. There are whole new areas of activity that need to be structured and harnessed to create new opportunities for apprentices. It is within those new areas that one might find more opportunities for young women. I am thinking of areas like the retail trade where there is great scope for more structured training. In hairdressing, for example, apprenticeship training can be haphazard; it is good in some places but not in others. Art, crafts and entertainment are areas that are emerging as potentially very strong areas for job creation. I would like to see the training offered to young women, whether in our colleges or under our apprenticeship schemes, geared towards these new and emerging areas because, without question, these areas guarantee jobs in the future. We must look to involving as high a number of women as possible.
I am deliberately trying to be brief because I know the Chairman's dilemma in relation to time. My last point is that it is important to stitch into this Bill the concept of multi-skilling. Whether to put in too much or too little is always the dilemma for people who draft a Bill, but if one does not put in certain matters there is the danger that they will be overlooked. If they have been overlooked in the past there is a risk that they will be overlooked in the future. It is important to stitch the concept of multi-skilling into this Bill because that is the key to training in the future.
If we are to do justice to our young people, create a good workforce for the next generation, which will enable this country to remain competitive, the one thing we cannot afford to have is the kind of once-off training that is far too narrow. The initial training has to such that a skill in its own right is acquired and in addition an attitude that the skill is to be added to. I do not recall the phrase used by the Minister but she took the concept aboard already that one adds to one's training as one goes through life, and that is the concept of multi-skilling. Those three points I have raised need to be taken on board formally in the context of this Bill.
I have a problem dealing with this Committee Stage. I expected that before dealing with the apprenticeship levy we would have a White Paper on manpower policy encompassing apprenticeship within a wider scheme of training. It is a pity that we have not had that White Paper because it would have dealt with some of the issues that Deputies on the Opposition side of the House are trying to incorporate into what is just a fiscal measure reforms that we would like to see. We do not know the direction of Government thinking.
I am sympathetic towards subsections (i) and (iii) of Deputy Quill's amendment. The subsection dealing with the emerging needs of young women speaks for itself though I would like to hear the Minister's views. It has been argued that to date the efforts to support women within the apprenticeship scheme have not been successful in that although significant numbers have been taken on to off-the-job apprenticeship programmes very few of those who were taken in as FÁS-sponsored apprentices are actually working in the trade. While all of us support the thrust, we need to look at whether or not the policy is working.
In relation to multi-skilling — and this is a crucial issue — it strikes me that much of what we are seeing in the apprenticeship programme is stuck in the old designated trades area and is not accommodating multi-skilling. We are talking about very specific trades and all those listed are very specific. We are pinning down brickwork, plastering, etc., whereas the future in all trades will revolve around multi-skilling. While I accept that the modular system that is at the basis of the proposed apprenticeship scheme allows for the pulling in of modules that would broaden skills, I have not yet seen a multi-skilling module being put in practice into any of the apprenticeship programmes.
I would like to return to subsection (b) (ii). I would not accept it at present until we see further evidence that the apprenticeship system is working satisfactorily. If we try to say here and now that we want to see new and emerging areas of industrial activity hammered into the old apprenticeship network, we may be stepping back in time. The apprenticeship system has proved extraordinarily intractable and resistant to change over 20 or 30 years. It has also proved highly inequitable in the way in which it has recruited people into the fellowship of apprenticeships. It would be a mistake for us to say that many of the vast new emerging needs should be put into a system that has not proved successful in the past. If the Minister proves to us over the coming years that apprenticeship has become very progressive, very fair in the way people get in, perhaps then we could consider it an appropriate vehicle for new areas of training. As I said on Second Stage, even the reformed apprenticeship system has many of the shades of the past and not of the future. It has been resistant to change; it has not yet built in multi-skilling; it is bound in traditional demarcations. Entry requirements require people to enter at the age of 16 with just junior certificate, whereas the future will require people to go into academic education up to the age of 18, getting a broad education before they specialise in apprenticeships and skills. As things stand, I am not convinced that even the reformed apprenticeship system is yet a vehicle to do the training work that Deputy Quill so rightly points out is needed in many new and emerging areas.
I share the reservations expressed by Deputy Bruton on subsection (b) (ii) of Deputy Quill's amendment. Apart from that, I support the thrust of Deputy Quill's amendment. The point about women does not need to be made. Everybody acknowledges that a 2 per cent participation rate is appallingly unreflective of the make-up of the workforce, notwithstanding the nature of the occupations that are designated at present. The Minister in her Second Stage address made the point that she has targeted a number of additional occupations to bring within the scope of the Bill. I appreciate that some, but only some of those additional occupations will provide an opportunity to recruit additional women. That is an acknowledgement of the situation that obtains at present. The Minister hinted earlier that she has tabled an amendment and I have been trying to find it.
It will be tabled on Report Stage.
Some legislative provision is necessary if we are to change those traditional attitudes. The trade union movement is as much to blame as the traditional attitude of employers for the low participation of women in industry. Until recently the traditional craft unions in particular have been resistant to the notion that mere females might be takene on board in some of the craft industries. It is not surprising that in the areas where the craft unions have changed their view they have found that women have been able to demonstrate equal aptitude in the trades to which they have been accepted. For that reason the amendment is important.
I thank Deputy Quill for putting down the amendment and hope that when we discuss it she will see my point of view and we might reach an accommodation. To put Deputy Rabbitte's mind at rest, the amendment which I will table on Report Stage relates to what I promised on Second Stage, namely, a code of practice for access to the scheme. I may have misled the committee this morning.
There are three parts to Deputy Quill's amendment and the first relates to the emerging needs of young women. In regard to the code of practice and the amendment in relation to equity which I will table on Report Stage, one of the provisions will relate to the participation by groups who have not already achieved equitable participation. Women participants represent 1.52 per cent, not 2 per cent.
Since I started to have a keen interest in this matter at the beginning of the year I have met people from FÁS and many other groups. On Second Stage we referred to a workshop where there are 11 men and one woman. We do not want that kind of a situation to exist. I have spoken to many lone female apprentices in workplaces and while they get on well with their work mates they find it difficult to cope with the oddness of their position and to find their niche. I have spoken to career guidance people who have been pushing the concept of women going into non-traditional areas, but they are faced with a major conditioning process associated with expectations inculcated in girls as children and young women, in the home by peer groups and so on. Such expectations are still quite intractable. As we are trying to take full cognisance of equal treatment for men and women and as it was stated when establishing FÁS that it would have a policy in that regard, to insert such a provision in legislation now would not be beneficial. It would be much better to go down the road we are heading and apply it to the emerging areas of industrial activity.
While welcoming the new system, Deputy Bruton expressed fears that we are still locked into the old way of doing things. He talked quite tellingly on that matter on Second Stage. I agree with him because I want training extended into other areas, for example, the retail trade. Recently I visited a premises in Tallaght where a retail sales FÁS training scheme is being run by a Mr. Rapple which will last for approximately one year. The younger people there are placed in stores and shops in the Tallaght Shopping Centre and in other services in that area. I was very impressed with the practicality of the course, the curriculum, the on-and-off-the-job training and the fact that it will last for one year and that the participants will receive a certificate which can be linked to further training if necessary.
Initially FÁS called such schemes further areas for apprenticeships. The word "apprentice" has a particular meaning and it is rigidly constructed, but we hope to break that rigidity. Although in its correct translation it means a person learning a trade, we are inclined to associate apprenticeship with specific trades and find it difficult to associate it with others, for example, the retail trade, hair dressing, banking, office skills, and so on. Salespersons, telephone operators and so on should be properly trained in their skills and receive a certificate to that effect. If they wish to progress and move into a different area such certificates will stand them in good stead. If they do not wish to move on, they have gained a recognised qualification.
I do not want to bore Members talking about Germany; I was there for only two days but I learned a great deal in that time. Everybody leaving school at 18 goes into a proper training area and obtains a qualification. Some may say that the German race are used to being structured, ordered and programmed. We will never reach the ridiculously low wage rates which obtain in other countries, such as the Pacific rim countries. We will be left behind if we do not provide the professional training which I envisage by opening up other areas to the apprenticeship scheme. We are addressing that under the provision for emerging areas, but I do not intend to address it within a structured scale of four years. It can be done in a more open and flexible way than is the case at present in regard to trades requiring specific skills.
In the next few months I hope to announce additional apprenticeshps in which young people will be able to secure positions. The number of students sitting the leaving certificate examination has increased and some go on to third level to obtain further qualfications. That is very welcome. However, a large number of young people want to learn a skill quickly and I want them to obtain properly structured certification skills in the modern areas to which we referred, the arts being one of those areas.
There have been rows about interpretative centres but, regardless of what one thinks about them, people will be employed in them. The opening up of museums and areas of historical interest will lead to a demand for young people who are properly trained as travel guides or who have completed archaeological and historical courses. In the future young people will have to be multi-skilled; in other words, they will have to be able to adapt and change and be open to receiving more knowledge and learning more skills.
I appreciate the philosophical trust behind Deputy Quill's amendment — it is entirely sound — but, bearing in mind that that is the remit we are now engaged upon, that every effort is being made to achieve that aim and that the intent of paragraph (i) will be encompassed in the amendment which I will table on Report Stage, I do not see any need for the amendment.
The question is: "That the amendment be agreed to". Is the Deputy pressing her amendment?
May I reply to the points made by the Minister?
I have asked if you intend to press your amendment.
It is my intention to press the amendment.
Question, "That the amendment be agreed to" put and declared carried.
Amendment agreed to.
On a point of order, I understood that the rules in regard to Deputies coming in a second time applied only on Report Stage. Surely Deputy Quill was entitled to respond.
The Deputy should have indicated her wish to reply prior to my putting the question. No doubt she will be a little wiser the next time.
You mean you shortchanged me, Chairman.
If you had indicated your wish to reply prior to my putting the question I would have allowed you to get it. There was no question of shortchanging you.
I formally apologise. My remark was made in jest.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) An activity usually or frequently carried out on a sub-contracting basis may be a designated sector under subsection (1).".
Earlier I referred in passing to the purpose of this amendment and to the phenomenon of the proliferation of subcontracting in many areas of the economy. When we had that discussion we referred specifically to the building industry and the extent of subcontracting in that industry. I am trying to focus attention on the fact that there is not much point in formalising a system and imposing a levy on employers for the purposes of this apprenticeship system if we end up with a very high rate of compliance among employers who have a good track record on the question of apprenticeship and a very poor level of compliance among those employers who have traditionally evaded their contribution in this area and who would continue to seek to do so. I believe the phenomenon is highest in the so-called "wet trades" area. It ought to be made clear that the construction industry in particular and other areas where sub-contracing is present — we have talked about expanding the number of occupations that may be covered in the future and so on — may be made designated sectors under this section of the Bill.
I am afraid that the particular employers to whom I am referring here will say. "That section was never really aimed at us". Deputy Kemmy in his contribution seemed to say that that might well be the case. He pointed to the historical evidence that employers in this area have behaved very badly and have made a very poor contribution and, in so far as they have taken on apprentices in the past, it was a source of cheap labour. Apprentices were regarded as a source of cheap labour in certain areas in the past.
I am merely trying to highlight how this is a problem and to make it expressly evident in the Bill that just because a person is a subcontractor in an industry like the one we have been talking about that does not exonerate him from making a contribution. The Minister will presumably say that these subcontracting areas or activities that are prone to subcontracting are not excluded by the Bill, but I would like to see them expressly included and that is the purpose of the amendment.
I think we all agree with the sentiments behind the amendment. It is a matter for the Minister to decide whether it is necessary to specify any area in the designated sector. In general terms it is probably not the best idea to list areas. I am sure I could come up with other areas which should be included — for example, the one dealing with franchises. In any event I certainly support the theory behind the amendment.
In that respect I should like to bring one area to the Minister's attention. We have a certain degree of control over contracts awarded by the State sector. A major house building programme is being undertaken at present under the Programme for Government and many local authorities are carrying out residential and office development programmes. Subcontracting is at its worst when people are brought in to do the work, which is fragmented. We have some legal problems in terms of specifying conditions in relation to a contract. Nevertheless we should examine the whole question of State or local authority tenders where very large sums of money are paid for particular projects.
We spoke about that this morning but I am very interested in what the Deputy is saying.
I missed that debate as I was not here earlier. Consideration should be given to specifying certain conditions in relation to contracts. We are very anxious to ensure as much local employment as possible where contracts are given out and obviously in the case of a substantial contract there is room for a certain number of apprentices with the particular skills required to fulfil the contract to be taken on. That is particularly true in the house building area. All of us are concerned that employers do not seem to regard the training and education of apprentices in the craft area in which they are involved as one of their primary responsibilities. That is one area in which we can usefully play a role.
The other area I want to mention in the context of this amendment is similar or parallel to subcontracting, that is, the granting of franchises, which has become very much part of the service industry. Many people are now employed in what are called yellow pack jobs, for which they are allegedly underpaid. The young people employed in these jobs are given no training. We should look at this practice, which is being pursued by more and more companies, as there is no adequate monitoring or proper State control in terms of standards required. These are always mentioned in regard to the fast food industry but this practice is carried out in the catering industry as a whole, the entertainment industry and many other areas which should be looked at. The Minister should look at those two areas.
As I understand it, Deputy Rabbitte in his amendment is alerting us to the possibility of substantial evasion. However, I am not sure that his amendment deals with the issue because the term "industrial activity" is broad enough and obviously includes the construction industry. Therefore, a future Minister will not be involved in designating some subcontracting area within that sector. In that sense I am not sure the Deputy's amendment deals with the issue. Nevertheless, his point that there is a danger of substantial evasion is well made. I would be very uneasy if the amendment created a situation where sole traders were subject to the levy. It has been suggested that every element, not just employees, should be subject to the levy. I am not sure one could justify imposing a tax on sole traders if they do not intend — or are not equipped — to take on apprentices. I am not sure that the amendment fulfils any useful purpose, apart from alerting us, correctly, to the dangers of evasion.
As I said earlier, I would be uneasy about building new regulations into our tendering procedures. It is difficult enough for contractors to compete for tenders and if they were obliged to give the percentage of people employed on apprenticeships this could put them at a disadvantage vis-�-vis those from other countries contracting for work where the legislation in that country does not require them to give this information. How in practice can we demand that a Northern Ireland contractor tendering for work must have apprentices when we have no control over whether they do and we do not make any contribution to their employment of apprentices? We will not get people to take on apprentices through a back door method of trying to trip them up when they apply for tendering for public contracts. If we want them to take on apprentices we will have to do it some other way. We spend £300 million a year on training, the vast bulk of which goes to apprenticeships. In her reply to an earlier amendment from Deputy Quill the Minister showed she is conscious that the apprenticeship structure has not proven to be the best for training in new areas. I honestly wonder whether her determination to draw into the structure of this Bill these new and emerging areas will unwittingly trap her into all the intractable problems involved in apprenticeships. When people pay the levy they will want to see their representation and system of vetting, to have control over entry and to have partnership committees. All that paraphernalia will come in on top of the Minister when she decides that emerging areas of training will be drawn into the apprenticeship levy area.
Proper training standards and methods should be established. If after five years the Minister believes the method of training in, for example, the retail area should be made into an apprenticeship with a levy then by all means she should do so at that stage. We should not go down the road of imposing levies on the hairdressing or retailing sections only to find this closed shop.
I support the principle of the amendment but I am not clear how it will work in practice. There is a common thread running through all our comments, we are very conscious of the difficulty of getting apprentices into any trades, particularly the construction industry, an area that seems to be totally framed around the principle of subcontracting. Therefore any mechanism, in legislation or negotiation, which ties subcontractors into apprenticeship training is welcome and should be implemented.
I suppose we need to create a culture of apprenticeship training. When one looks at the success of apprenticeships in Germany one can see that that culture is vastly different from ours. The very strong German philosophy of training young people has not been applied very strongly in this country for a long time, even when it did it was defective in many ways. Nonetheless we should not be locked into what happened in the past. We should regard this legislation as a measure which will help us to look to the future and at evolving situations. When I talked about new and emerging areas I was not talking about locking new areas into old practices. I was talking about exploring new areas, evolving new practices and ensuring the apprenticeship scheme grew and developed in accordance with the times in which we live. That was what I had in mind. I do not see this as a static issue, it is ongoing.
I understand the purpose of Deputy Rabbitte's amendment, and it is important that it is included in the legislation. After all, we are dealing with what is before us here today, we are not dealing with what will be before us when this Bill is debated on Report Stage; that is another day's work. The Minister has asked us to take a lot on trust today. On balance, the country will stand to gain more than it would lose if the amendment was incorporated in the legislation.
I thank Deputy Rabbitte for putting down this amendment. I am certainly at one with him in his assumptions about the state of the contracting business and, in particular, the subcontracting aspect. As Deputy Rabbitte is aware, employers and subcontractors must pay the levy because it is taken from their reckonable earnings through the PRSI system. I think the Deputy is talking about a single, self-employed person. A subcontractor who employs somebody, which you must do if you want to gain any subcontracting, will be liable for the levy. That is the way Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare structured the system. My officials have had very extensive negotiations with the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare on this matter. Subcontractors and employers are liable for the levy because it is a designated sector. I think the point the Deputy is making is whether a self-employed person should also be subject to the levy. I have had discussions with the CIF on this point and if I feel there is a need to extend the levy into that area sometime I shall do so. As of now, what the Deputy has proposed is included in the Bill.
I am merely trying to make it known to people in the subcontracting area that they are expressly included. I am referring to the latter person the Minister referred to and also to activities that may not at this stage be considered as designated sectors.
I am sorry, I forgot to say that earlier.
The word can go abroad that this levy is not for us, that it does not apply to us. I am seeking to ensure that the Minister will have the power to identify such an activity in the future, if she so wishes, as a designated sector. That situation could arise and it is important that it is expressly included rather than taken as read for compliant employers.
In section 2 we have agreed that the levy would apply only to employed contributors. Deputy Rabbitte's amendment does not include the sole trader. Even if a subcontractor, in order to evade all responsibilities, takes on many people on contract, section 2 exempts that person from paying in respect of those people. He would have to pay only if the people are employed by him. That is where the problem arises. We would have to reopen section 2 to deal with this matter. The amendment will not deal with it. It is not fair to impose an additional levy on someone who is employed by way of contract. That is what would happen and the person who would be taken on, not as an employee with full rights but as someone on contract, is the one who would be left carrying the can. I am not sure if that is what Deputy Rabbitte is suggesting.
Deputy Rabbitte's wish is met in the Bill because if the person is an employer he will have to pay the levy. The four areas — construction, engineering, motor and printing — agreed in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress negotiations and outlined in the Bill are expressly stated as designated areas. It is not that we are confusing the word “designation” but we are applying it to many areas. Designation is outlined in the four distinct areas of activity, but the Deputy is interpreting designation as a type of employer also. The amendment is catered for within the Bill.
I was not so much using the term designated as it relates to the person but as I understand it the Minister may from time to time by order designate a particular extra activity. I am saying that such extra activity could be in an area where subcontracting is the norm and therefore the right to make that decision should be reserved. I accept the point Deputy Bruton makes and I think Deputy Quill would agree that it might be desirable that we come back on Report Stage on that point and have a look at it again in terms of the definition of employer and in terms of it obviating the need for this kind of amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may be taken together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, subsection (2), between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
"(d) ensure that under the proposed apprenticeship arrangements for the designated trade, all suitably qualified applicants will have an equal chance of obtaining a place on an apprenticeship, decided against criteria which are clearly set out and available for public inspection.".
This is the core issue to which the Minister said she has an answer, although we will probably have to wait until Report Stage to hear it. What disturbs me is that the original discussion paper, "Apprenticeship — A New Approach", set out to tackle the issue of a fair entry mechanism. It refers to FÁS carrying out a series of aptitude and other tests and coming up with short lists. It states that FÁS should do the screening and identifying persons capable of undertaking apprenticeships and employers would then recruit only from this pool. That was the first option outlined by the then Minister. The second option was the alternative where companies would choose the applicants and the only constraint on them would be that they would have to meet certain minimum educational requirements. This discussion document, "Apprenticeship — A New Approach", stated:
Option one is preferred as it is equitable. However the administration of the necessary tests would be expensive. Option two is cheaper but would be inequitable in certain circumstances.
That was not a bad summary of the position. Against the advice of that discussion document, we have gone for option two. In other words, we are saying that the employers will have the determining decision on access. Under the heading "How can someone apply for an apprenticeship", the document states:
An individual must seek an apprenticeship from an employer. FÁS will not sponsor apprentices in the new system. Anyone experiencing a difficulty finding an employer will be able to register with FÁS their interests in an apprenticeship. FÁS will bring this register to the attention of employers on request. The recruitment of apprenticeship will be the responsibility of employers.
The issue is that the Government has opted for the wrong option as set out in its own discussion document. My intention in putting forward this amendment is to try to force the issue back to the original option. We may say to people who want to apply for apprenticeships that they should go to FÁS, that their registration with FÁS is not just a waste of time, but employers will not go to FÁS looking for lists. That is not realistic. Thousands of young people will go to FÁS and write down their names for apprenticeships and FÁS will maintain a register which they will let employers know about if they so request. That would bring FÁS into disrepute. Thousands of people would go to FÁS with no realistic chance of getting on apprenticeship under the scheme as proposed.
An example of the desire of people to get apprenticeships was cited by Deputy Jim Higgins in his Second Stage contribution in which he quoted figures for people who operated fair systems of access to apprenticeships. He referred to the corporation, ESB, CIE and the Army and said that 16,300 young people applied for 171 places. That is the extent of the real desire of people to get on. If the taxpayer is to pay 90 per cent of the cost, we should insist that it is the taxpayer through FÁS who does the screening. I agree that the employers must have a say as these people will be on their premises, but it is FÁS who should define the pool and reduce the selection procedure so that employers have the chance to interview from a very reduced pool. I am not saying that would eliminate all opportunities for unfair access but it would go a great deal of the distance in dealing with it. That is why I stand by my amendment as set out which proposes that the criteria to be used for selecting the people in the pool would be clearly set out and available for public inspection, everyone would know they had a fair chance of getting in and at the end of the day they would have to have an interview with the employer who would take them on. That would be fair to the employer. The present system whereby the employer does the entire selection, even though the 0.25 per cent levy will fund only one-tenth of the cost of the programme, is not fair to young people who want to get on this sort of course.
I support this amendment. It incorporates my own point that would have the very same effect as that put down by Deputy Bruton. If we look at the present system and how it works, the two critical features are, first, the scarcity of places and, second, the lack of transparency in getting access to the few places that are available. Parents in my constituency, when trying to get an apprenticeship for a young son or daughter, say to me, "It is not what you know but who you know". It is in all our interests to put an end to that practice and to do so in the context of this legislation. I will be interested to hear what solution the Minister comes up with to remedy the situation, assuming that it is her experience that there is a lack of equity and transparency in gaining admission to courses.
This new scheme is described as being employer-led, and to an extent that is a feature of the proposed scheme, but it is very heavily funded by public money, by the taxpayer here and at European level. The amount of the levy required from the employers is miniscule in terms of the overall cost of training apprentices. Therefore it is unrealistic to give full autonomy and discretion in selecting apprentices to the employers. It is important that a register be set up by a body other than the body of employers. Experience shows that FÁS is the correct body to do so. Young people who can demonstrate that they are eligible and meet all the requirements for entry to an apprenticeship course would have their names put on a register and that register would be compiled by a body such as FÁS. When employers seek to take on an apprentice they should be encouraged to draw from that list.
Admittedly, this could lead to circumstances where perhaps not everybody on the list would have the same chance at the end of the day. What it would mean is that nobody would be considered unless first, they are fully eligible in every way, second, they have equality of opportunity and, third, they are eligible for interview. After that it would be the responsibility of an individual applicant to prove himself or herself at an interview to be successful in the bid for access. These two amendments are crucial to the success of any new schemes and I certainly give them my wholehearted support. I know from what the Minister said on Second Stage that she is very conscious of the need to put an improved system in place and I am waiting to hear what she has to say.
I made the point this morning that the whole system needs to be looked at from the point of view of access. This Bill is welcome in that to some extent it addresses the funding of the apprenticeship scheme, but the most important aspect that must be discussed here today is the issue of access. From our experience it is obvious that young people are frustrated with the lack of opportunity to get the apprenticeship of their choice and pursue their desired trade. I would be very much in favour of Deputy Bruton's amendment. Whereas it may not be the ultimate solution, nevertheless it would be much fairer than the present system.
Great effort is made by parents to get an apprenticeship for their children. They have to travel from employer to employer and more or less go on their knees to implore them and put pressure on them to take on their children for apprenticeships. In some cases parents are even prepared to pay for the apprenticeship course for their children. They are prepared to go to any extreme to get their child an apprenticeship.
Several factors militate against some children who may be very bright and suitable for a particular trade, but those children, because of lack of representation, have no chance of getting an apprenticeship under the present system. That is why it is very important that we address this matter. Deputy Bruton's amendment goes a considerable distance in this regard. It would seem very fair that FÁS should draw up a list of suitable applicants from the applications it receives and that this list would then be made available to employers. Employers, in choosing from the available list, would not be mandated to take on a particular person or individual but would have a choice. That seems to be a very good solution that could be put in place immediately. I am sure the people in FÁS would welcome such a system. As they are in constant contact with the people involved in the apprenticeship courses they are very concerned with what is happening. Their hands are tied in that when very good people are refused the opportunity of pursuing an apprenticeship they can do nothing about it. Were FÁS to sponsor its own courses it could decide who it thinks is the most suitable but the present system does not lend itself to that.
The instructors and the heads of departments within FÁS would greatly welcome this proposal. Therefore it is important that the Minister consider it. The most important thing about the whole apprenticeship scheme at this stage is access and we must try to do everything possible to ensure that the system must be seen to be fair and equitable to all our young people.
I support the amendment. The saying that the man who pays the piper calls the tune is apt in this case. If my recollection of the figures in the debate so far are correct, the overall cost of the apprenticeship scheme is in the region of £34 million of which the State pays approximately £30 million and employers contribute approximately £4 million. It appears from the Bill as it stands that there is an abdication of responsibility by the State in the selection process. It hands over to the employers the right to select exclusively, without consultation with anybody else, the people who should get an apprenticeship. That is most unfair. There needs to be equity and transparency in the process of selection. In that regard, FÁS should be involved in a screening process. I admit that employers have a right to select from an approved list of suitable apprentices. For the State to abdicate responsibility completely, having invested so much public funds in the training scheme, is not right and proper. I commend the amendment.
This is a very important and central amendment from Deputy Bruton and I merely want to indicate support for it. Presumably this is the area the Minister is going to address and perhaps she will now let us into the secret of what she intends to frame for Report Stage. The question of access is critical. The point that whoever pays the piper should call the tune is a fair one.
Deputy Bruton's earlier remark about the fact that we find ourselves addressing a Bill to impose a levy, into which, inevitably, wider questions are drawn, highlights the necessity for a White Paper on manpower policy. I would like to have had the opportunity to discuss the possible role of a new vocational education committee system. What, for example, is the role of the vocational education committees to be in the future? Is there not an obvious link here? At the other end of the system I would like to talk about the role the National Council for Educational Awards might have as a body already established in a related area to grant awards at diploma and certificate level. It would make it easier on us all to have a broader discussion about the role of apprenticeship and training if we were able to put it in that context. Unfortunately, we are in a situation where we are responding to a Bill that has a narrow focus and purpose and that has taken a great length of time to get this far. This has been mooted for the best part of a decade and it has taken a very long time to bring the various parties to the stage where we can enshrine it in legislation.
The amendment is central and I look forward to the Minister's view on how it might be addressed on Report Stage as she has promised.
When speaking about on-the-ground experience we all know of children who cannot get sponsorship; some are even disappointed that they are not eligible for an apprenticeship. The amendment before us is not specific to the Bill. It opens up more than we are able to address now. I agree with Deputy Rabbitte that we need to look at manpower policy generally. I wholeheartedly agree with agencies involved in training following through in regard to employment etc. The vocational education committee was initiated several years ago and FÁS even moved into their area and now find themselves in a quagmire. I see a role for a White Paper whereby we could take into account the experiences of the many agencies and try to address them.
Deputy Bruton's amendment, although it goes some way towards achieving what we would like, does not fit into the context of this Bill. We all have reservations about how people avail of sponsorship. If people who are eligible are interviewed by FÁS, get the relevant qualifications and have their names put on a panel and if employers are allowed to pick from among them, we may find that many employers will not want to know about them. We try to force their hands in many ways by ensuring that they provide sponsorship in the first place. However, in doing so we have created another problem whereby some people who do not know a contractor are losing out and the number of FÁS and Údarás apprenticeships has decreased.
The problems which have been raised here need to be addressed and I look forward to hearing the Minister's views. However, in trying to solve one problem we may create another. We are talking mostly about the construction industry, but we must recognise that apprenticeships go beyond that. It is blatantly obvious from the debate today that one of the reasons for unemployment is that we have depended on the old reliables — the construction industry, mechanics, electricians, plumbers etc. We are doing that again ourselves today. Perhaps we are going the wrong way because that is not how we will solve our problems. Serving one's time and having a trade was certainly needed. To an extent it is needed now because it is very hard to get a good plumber or a good carpenter; they are all too busy. What happens to those people who do not get into a trade? We need to look beyond the old reliables. We might be falling into a trap even by addressing the amendments here. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
I should say at the outset that it was I who brought up the issue of equity on Second Stage. It is on the record for everybody to reach. I recognised when I got this job that there was huge inequity in the system of applying for of apprenticeships. I had known it from my constituency work but until I got at the coalface, to use the jargon, I had not at all realised the extent of the development of the system.
To be fair to FÁS, very early on, in springtime, I met the board and then the subcommittee of the board and I said that before we got involved in anything new, the question of making the system of allocating places on an apprenticeship course fair, open and transparent had to be addressed. I have to say that the FÁS administration was partial to my point of view. I kept pushing it. The board had some reservations. The board is made up of vested interests and there is a subboard. I constantly repeated my view and pointed out that there would be a levy Bill. It was said that this was only a technical piece of legislation. However, I pointed out that because of the huge interest in apprenticeship, in training, in young people, the Bill would be subject to a wider debate and that I would major on the present lack of equity in the system of access to apprenticeships, which is not fair and transparent. I said I would not be defending the present system, because I could not, and we needed to put something else in place. I am telling the facts as they happened. It took four or five meetings with officials before I got my message across.
I said on Second Stage that before this was through the Dail, there would be in place an improvement on the present system. The draftsman did not have it worded in time, but I will go through the bones of it here today. It provides for many of the things which we have all raised. Of course, the technical debate was going to open up. I never had any notion of standing over the present system. I would refuse to come in and take the Bill if that were to be the case. I made that very clear to all concerned and, to be truthful, they came along with me perhaps after some punching and a little nudging. Nobody could stand over the present system. It cannot face into a public accounts system. The present system could not face into anything. Let me be clear that it did not arise out of malice. We are confusing two issues here. The most perfect system will still mean huge numbers wanting to get places and very few places available, so let us not confuse the issue of scarcity of places with fair access to them. I know most Members do not, but Deputy Deenihan did seem to when he spoke about it. Like the CAO system, how many students want to do——
Arts?
——pharmaceutical chemistry. No, Arts is reasonably obtainable now, in my day it was difficult. However there are very few pharmaceutical-chemistry places and a great many look for one of the few places. If that is the case let us have the places allocated fairly so that people, whilst they may still feel aggrieved that their son or daughter did not get a place, will at least know that the system is equitable, which is some small comfort. I do not want to confuse the two issues, there is still a scarcity of places and I will return to this. What we want is a fair system, and I certainly do not want Deputy Bruton's assertion that I was dragged unwillingly to the equity debate to go uncontradicted. I am on record on Second Stage as saying I have taken this chin on and have told FÁS and Department officials that I was so doing and only in that way did I think we could wrench out. I have enjoyed a measure of co-operation and I thank Deputies Bruton and Quill and all who spoke today on the need for a fair system. The overriding need is for equity and a greater number of places and I know the debate will open up to that.
I agree with Deputy Bruton on the need for a White Paper on manpower policy. When the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Cowen, was Minister in the then Department of Labour a White Paper on manpower policy was commissioned, but the Department was then merged with another Department to form a new Department, the Department of Enterprise and Employment. On this question I hold a similar view to the Deputy; that there is a need, perhaps for a paper on training as part of the overall manpower policy. I discussed this with the Minister, Deputy Quinn, but no decision has been taken.
We are all very earnest about this debate. Members feel very strongly about it and yet we are speaking against a back drop of a policy vacuum. I have a very clear vision on training and where it should be going. I have spoken this morning about the need for many of the things we discussed — there is no need to go over them again — but I take the Deputy's point with regard to that.
I am proposing to amend section 3 and I will bring in an amendment on Report Stage, which will enable the Minister of the day to make specific regulations providing for conditions of recruitment of apprentices. The wording is being drafted by the parliamentary draftsman and will be available before Report Stage. I will go through the headings and perhaps we will have the wording of it later. First, there is a code of practice, and before Members jump on my head about a code of practice — I share their scepticism about voluntary codes of practice — let us remember that we are starting from way back and beginning to move forward and it is to be followed by employers in recruitment. The code will be developed by FÁS and the preliminary draft of that code is coming to the board of FÁS tomorrow. This will then be followed by the consultative process with the social partners and then they will promote the code.
Under the code, and in regard to the recruitment practice I would expect that a personal specification be developed at the outset for any apprenticeship vacancy that occurs. The specification would set out the educational, knowledge and aptitude requirements of the job as well as the minimum statutory entry requirements. The code should require that a number of applicants should be sought for the vacancy, that this should be done on the basis of a public advertisement and that each advertisement would contain the clear message that cavassing will disqualify. Recognising also that public advertising may not always be the most efficient or effective means FÁS employment services will be proposed as another option in which FÁS will either supply a list of persons who have expressed interest in obtaining an apprenticeship or, indeed, if necessary will undertake the recruitment process for the employer. The code will provide for the use of application forms. We will have sample packs, guidance on selection methods and so on, and model packs on appropriate advertising samples.
At the end of the day, the success of this will very much depend on the adoption and implementation by the social partners, particularly on the employer side. Every Member who has spoken on this recognised that there will have to be an input from employers. The employer is taking on the apprentice. When first I became involved in this question, I went at it bald-headed, to use a phrase we all understand, and I said it has got to be worded in a certain way. There was a lengthy debate before we settled on this wording. I recognise that we cannot just order employers because they may decide not to take on any person if the recruitment system is as rigid as the CAO-CAS scheme. There needs to be a balance.
I will propose an amendment on Report Stage. However should it not be effective I would be prepared to go the compulsory route. I have been assured that the recruitment process will be more open and transparent and, as I pledged to the Dáil on Second Stage, I will not stay in this job if there is not open and transparent access to apprenticeships.
The second issue is the one of scarcity of places. All the codes — COAs, CASs and so on — will not address that if there are still a great many people looking for so few places. I am considering, and have discussed with my colleague, Deputy Quinn, expansion of apprenticeships into what are already the State and semi-State sectors like CIE, Bord na Móna, Aer Lingus, the ESB and so on. There is a role for State companies — they will cite economic stringencies and other factors — but I will discuss with them the need to allow a greater in-take of apprentices as they did in better times. I am having doubts on the complete removal of FÁS from sponsoring apprentices. That was presented to me in the new scheme. I have had informal discussins with the Director General and some members of the board and I am beginning to question if it is rash to remove FÁS from all sponsorship and whether we should take another look at this issue. I expect that is an issue for another day, we are not dealing with it now.
I will have an amendment prepared for Report Stage fulfilling, therefore, the commitment I gave on the floor of the Chamber. I wish to pay full and generous tribute to the Members who spoke in the Chamber about the need for this amendment.
I am glad the Minister of State is making a move in this area, but it is very difficult to accept the amendment without sight of what is proposed. As I understand it, she is talking about an enabling provision under which a Minister could set out the conditions of recruitment to apprenticeships. As I also understand it, she is talking about a voluntary scheme whereby people would be asked to pursue a certain system of recruitment. Will she include a power for the Minister to suspend the voluntary system and introduce a statutory one? That seems to be what she is saying. I am not very happy with that because at no point in the discussion on the amendment did the Minister say she was going to pin into the law an obligation to achieve equity. It is all very well talking about getting employers who are planning to take on apprentices to specify the sort of person they want, go to FÁS and get a few names and select the person they may have decided upon initially. We have seen umpteen times that employers go through the motions of recruitment even though the position has already been spoken for. I am not convinced that the Minister has dealt squarely with the issue of equity. I can see she is trying to move in that direction, but when we are committing ourselves to spending 90 per cent of the cost of these programmes, we should pin into the legislation that all suitably qualified applicants have an equal chance of attaining a place on an apprenticeship scheme.
On a casual reading of the 1989 proposals, option one would fulfil what is required by my party. I do not see why we should be asked to wait for an enabling amendment that will not specifically meet the requirement for equity. We should proceed with our amendment and let it be the context against which the Minister designs her regulations. By all means she should have the power on Report Stage to bring in regulations but let it be against the background of the amendment proposed by my party and endorsed by the Progressive Democrats in Deputy Quill's amendment. Before designation occurs, the Minister must have satisfied herself that equity has been achieved. That is the only way that this can be done because we know that once it leaves this committee, we will not get a second opportunity. As things stands I am anxious to press this amendment.
On a point of information, is it not possible for a person who has tabled an amendment to withdraw it and reintroduce it on Report Stage, is that the practice?
Yes.
It is entirely up to the Deputy to press the amendment but I understand an amendment can be withdrawn and reintroduced on Report Stage.
: Members are entitled to resubmit an amendment on Report Stage.
I appreciate that, but what the Minister has outlined so far does not satisfy me. She is essentially talking about giving herself enabling powers on Report Stage to do something about this at some stage in the future. She is not specifying the necessity that all suitably qualified applicants have an equal chance of obtaining a place. That provision was available to her in option one which was considered by Government and rejected. The Minister should go back to FÁS to ensure that we secure agreement to a more equitable scheme.
Obviously the Deputy can press his amendment now if he wishes, but he can also do so on Report Stage if he does not like what I produce. I do not know when Report Stage will be taken but clearly Bills do not go on and on for ever, so I presume that it would be taken quite quickly. It is entirely up to the Deputy himself. I am only clarifying that he has the liberty to do so if he does not like what I produce in my amendment.
Is there a possibility of the Minister accepting our amendment on Committee Stage?
I will have my own amendment.
: But our amendment would be complementary.
I presume the draftsman will have taken cognisance of what has been already put in, but he had not the wording ready for me, otherwise I would have had it today. The wording has to be legal and that is the reason we employ parliamentary draftspersons.
I want to make three brief points. I have no doubt that the Minister is quite serious——
Indeed I am.
—— and sincere about getting this issue right because she addressed it on Second Stage. Those of us who live in the real world and are concerned about this issue are very aware of the need to put in place a system that is fair, transparent and openly accountable.
I have tabled an amendment also but I have been prepared to let it be taken in conjunction with Deputy Bruton's amendment. I would be happier if we were able to pursue these matters today. We are being asked to take a great deal on trust until we see what the Minister comes up with. I am quite prepared to withdraw my amendment and to resubmit it, if the need arises on Report Stage.
Thank you.
Is Deputy Bruton going to press his amendment?
With extreme reluctance I will not press it but I am not convinced by the Minister's arguments. She talked about enabling provisions but that will not pin down the key issue of equity. It will be dependent on employers operating a scheme voluntarily but the Minister envisages the real possibility of having to make it compulsory. She should have been prepared for this in advance. This was the key issue flagged in 1989 in the review. It is not good enough for the Minister to say she just arrived in the Department and that she recognises how unfair this was.
It is true.
But it is not good enough. The Minister comes into this House with defective legislation and expects us to wait until the very last hurdle — Report Stage — when we can only make one contribution. After the Minister replies to us we do not get a second opportunity. We are forced to make a decision on the hoof.
I am not forcing anybody.
It is unacceptable that Government should behave in this way. The key issue was flagged years ago but we are leaving it to the two minutes to midnight when we will only have one opportunity to speak on it. That is not acceptable.
I am willing to withdraw the amendment at this stage and resubmit it on Report Stage. I want to make it quite clear that I am offering no plaudits to the Minister. While I recognise her earnestness, she should not have come in to the House and handled the legislation in the way she has.
Let me be clear on two factors. The Deputy has a democratic right to press his amendment. Is he a man or a mouse?
We know that.
The Bill as originally framed was a levy Bill. It was I who insisted we broaden it. We are trying to have it all ways. The Bill is a technical Bill about a levy. At the very beginning of Second Stage I could have said we could have no debate except a debate on the fiscal measure of a levy. At my own volition with my officials and with FÁS, I decided to widen the scope of this Bill, to use it as an oppportunity to be a conduit for better practice in the taking on of apprentices. The Bill is a financial measure, nothing more, nothing less. It was never envisaged as anything other than that. It is I who have decided what it should embrace, because I was not comfortable, happy or content with the system as I found it. I expanded on the Bill to make it something else. Perhaps we should have gone into a Bill on apprenticeships itself and that would be a better way of looking at the matter. I will not have distortions of the truth on the record of the House.
Chairman, I ask you to ask the Minister to withdraw the allegation that I am seeking to distort the truth.
Minister, do you wish to comment?
I have no comment.
This is reprehensible behaviour by the Minister. The Minister comes in here and expects the Legislature to deal sympathetically with the amendments she has put forward and to wait until the very last hour to hear what she is going to do about the key issue in relation to equity in the area of apprenticeships, and then accuses the main Opposition spokesman of trying to distort the truth. I will not accept that behaviour from the Minister and if she is not going to withdraw her statement I will be forced to withdraw from the House.
I ask that the comment be struck from the record. Is that——
The Minister has not consented.
To be frank, I have allowed too much latitude. This is what happens when one allows Deputies widen the debate. Maybe I am to blame for allowing people to stray from the agenda. It is not without precedent that things change at the eleventh hour; it happens in all legislation.
The point of order I raised did not relate to the Minister's right to introduce an amendment on Report Stage; it related to her accusation that I was seeking to distort the truth. I am simply asking you, Sir, to ask the Minister to withdraw that statement, it is not worthy of her or of the high standards she normally observes in debates in this House.
I will withdraw it if Deputy Bruton withdraws the remark that I came into the House seeking to put forward a Bill which was defective in some way; he accused me of standing over legislation which was defective.
On a point of order, on the Minister's own admission, the Bill is defective in its current construction and she will correct that defect on Report Stage. What we are saying is that this defect was signalled on Second Stage but she has failed to redress it on Committee Stage.
No. On Second Stage I said that before the Bill passed Report Stage — this is on the record — I would put down an amendment to deal with equity. That is exactly what I said on Second Stage. Deputy Bruton accused me of coming into the House with a defective Bill. I do not know if he used the word "defective" but he accused me of bringing in and standing over a Bill which was, in effect, faulty. I am not doing that.
I think the Minister is nitpicking. The Bill is defective as it stands, and as we debate it. That is the point we are——
You are also saying—
The Bill is defective and if the Minister——
(Interruptions.)
If this continues I will have no choice but to adjourn the House until calm is restored. I would prefer to put the question——
I have to insist; I will not accept the Minister's accusation that I am distorting the truth. If we were in the Dáil Chamber the Ceann Comhairle would not allow that accusation, and I do not think you should observe different standards.
Are you suggesting that I am not carrying out my job properly?
I am suggesting that it is a convention of the House that no Minister or Deputy is allowed accuse another Deputy of seeking to distort the truth. That is the normal procedure. For the Minister to ask me in return to say that I do not find any defects in the Bill is beside the point. If there were no defects in the Bill we would not be putting down amendments.
That point has already been made. I have requested the Minister to withdraw her accusation.
If it were not for——
(Interruptions.)
I am adjourning the House for ten minutes.
Sitting suspended at 3.35 p.m. and resumed at 3.45 p.m.
Before we proceed, may I apologise to the House? I have an amendment down which will be discussed later. Unfortunately, I did not envisage matters would proceed so slowly and I would like to enter it on Report Stage if that is OK——
That is amendment No. 4.
I did not contribute to the dispute we have just had but I did not interpret the Minister as accusing Deputy Bruton of distorting the truth or of telling lies to the House. I thought she was suggesting he was distorting her motivation in asking him to withdraw the amendment. If the Minister accepts that that was the case, I would ask Deputy Bruton to allow us to continue the business of the House. Misunderstandings arise and that is the way it sounded to me.
My clear understanding was that the Minister accused me of distorting the truth and I would refer the Chairman to the Standing Orders of the Rulings of the Chair in which it says that no Member may impute deliberate falsehood to another Member. Enforcement of the rule is essential if order in debate is to be maintained and the dignity of the House preserved. Every Member states what is known to him as the truth and it is on that basis that debates are conducted. I honestly think the Minister transgressed those rules. If Deputy Rabbitte read things differently I do not know who is right but I plainly heard the Minister say that I was distorting the truth, and I do not accept that.
Do you accept that Deputy Rabbitte may be in a better position because he was not emotionally involved and could be more objective in his interpretation of what was said?
On a point of order——
Once the Chair is speaking, Deputy, you should allow him to continue. That is the first point of order that has to be observed.
On a point of order, the Minister implicitly seemed to accept that she had imputed dishonest motives to Deputy Bruton when she asked for a quid pro quo— if Deputy Bruton withdrew his allegations about a defective Bill she would withdraw her allegations about Deputy Bruton.
Does the Minister wish to respond?
I never used the word "dishonest"; I would never use the word dishonest about anybody. The word I used was "distortion" and I accept the way Deputy Rabbitte put it that my sense of incitement arose from the fact that I understood Deputy Bruton to impute that I was in some way laying it on him to withdraw his amendment whereas I said constantly the democratic process was there for people to press amendments if they wanted to and as Deputy Bruton took umbrage so quickly and so huffily at what I said, I will withdraw it. It is insubstantial and never in my life did I use the word "dishonest" about anybody; I used the word "distortion". However, I realise that the Deputy is sensitive and I will withdraw it.
We will move to amendment No. 4. Does the Deputy wish to press the amendment?
I indicated already that I was withdrawing it.
Let it be clear there is no pressure on anybody.
We do not act under pressure.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.