Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Wednesday, 12 Jan 1994

SECTION 4.

Miss Quill

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, subsection (1) (c), line 19, after "An Foras", to insert "or by a suitable education body designated for this purpose by order of the Minister".

This amendment is in relation to the section that talks about the provision of money for the monitoring, assessment and certification costs of the apprenticeships scheme operated by An Foras. I want that to read "the monitoring, assessment and certification costs of the apprenticeship system operated by An Foras" and I want to include "or by a suitable education body designated for this purpose by order of the Minister". The reason I put down this amendment is because in overall terms I am concerned that we are creating an artificial division between training and education in this country. If that were allowed to happen it would act to the detriment of apprenticeships and apprenticeships schemes.

Traditionally parents in particular have a great respect and regard for book learning. People in the country often say that she has a great head on her or he has a great head on him. You would seldom hear anybody saying that he or she has a great pair of hands. That is part of our culture. We put so much of our time, energy and trust into education of a very academic nature. I know about this at first hand because I have spent the best part of a lifetime in second level education and I know how parents think about their children. To the detriment of the future of their children I have seen parents encouraging children to take pass degrees in areas of activity that are rapidly becoming obsolete. They actively make that choice rather than encouraging their children to go into areas that have a higher trade or apprenticeship type content where they would be guaranteed not only employment but a satisfying and fulfilling life because they would be producing something or creating something. That attitude militates against good rational thinking in relation to how we forge our training and education policies and downgrades a whole area of creative activity that is being upgraded in other countries at the moment.

If we are to continue, in the context of this Bill and other similar legislation, to draw clear lines of demarcation between educational bodies and institutions and training bodies, we will perpetuate the situation I have described and that will not work to the overall benefit of four young people. I would like to see a change in people's attitudes. If I had children of my own I would actively encourage them to consider developing the use of their hands. I would urge them towards crafts, trades and creative activity because I regard that as an area of personal fulfilment as well as career advancement. It is possible to bring about sea changes in people's attitudes.

I will not continue on for much longer because it would not be fair to other speakers and perhaps what I am trying to say would be better said in the context of a wider discussion on overall policy towards education and training. It is possible to change public attitudes. An example of that is the success of the drink driving campaign over the Christmas period, where people who three years ago would not consider leaving their cars at home conceded that this was the sensible attitude and availed of public transport or taxis. It is possible to bring about changes in people's attitudes and I wish we could bring about changes in attitudes towards apprenticeship training. In the context of this Bill, we can attempt to change attitudes by bringing together, in so far as it is possible, the influences of education as well as training for the reasons that I have outlined and for more practical reasons also.

When establishing eligibility — and we discussed that in relation to the question of equity a moment ago — for inclusion in a list from which apprentices will be drawn by employers in the future, we look to our educational facilities because they have the experience, the standards and the tradition in this area. We look to educational standards and modules to establish eligibility. When courses are being designed we must draw on the experience of education if we are to be concerned about standards, that criteria will be met and that the criteria met will be then evaluated according to standards that apply equally in education or in training.

That is fundamentally important. For example, there is great status being accorded to apprenticeship schemes as they are being delivered in the regional colleges, and quite rightly so, because they are being delivered through an educational institution. The Minister referred today to a meeting with trainee apprentices from Cork and Cologne and how successful they were. The regional colleges were quite suspect at the start; given the choice, most parents would opt to have their children attend the traditional universities as opposed to the regional colleges, but these colleges have now proven themselves to such an extent that the attitudes of parents in that regard have changed.

There is an element of acceptance among parents and young people alike of courses that are provided by educational institutions or if their courses are in some way connected with educational institutions. For that reason I do not want to exclude the possibility of including educational bodies such as, for example, the National Council for Educational Awards or perhaps the replacements for the vocational education committees. I do not want to exclude an educational element from this section of the Bill and for that reason I want to ask the Minister to take the spirit of what I have said on board when she is developing the Bill further, if not the actual amendment, because I believe it is fundamentally important.

Mr. Costello

I agree entirely with the remarks made by Deputy Quill. This section deals with the proceeds of the levy. One of the functions of the levy would be to go towards monitoring, assessment and certification. There is a long tradition of the involvement of educational establishments in the broader area of apprenticeship and training schemes. There is also a long standing tradition of the involvement of educational bodies in certification, and indeed I think it was the Minister who set up the National Council for Educational Awards to look into the whole issue.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Does the Deputy remember that day?

Mr. Costello

I do, indeed. Its intent was to validate the various vocational courses that did not have internal Irish validation but which were validated in Britain by various other extraneous bodies. This was an excellent development. Of course, that would be under the auspices of the Department of Education.

There is also the wider question that is presently under discussion, I understand, which is the whole area of apprenticeships and other vocational areas in training and whether we will have a comprehensive Irish validation body under the National Education, Training and Certification Board. This involves both the training and educational elements including second level and post leaving certificate activities as well as apprenticeships and the services provided by Teagasc. I do not think any decision has been made as to whether this body should be under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise and Employment or the Department of Education or both since both elements, training and education, are involved.

There has been a major debate on the question of where the training should be provided and which educational activities should be engaged in given that in the present climate an apprentice has to be adaptable, have a diversity of skills may have to change jobs. Therefore I would not like to see — this seems to be the case if one looks at section 4 (1) (c) — the monitoring assessment and certification being conducted exclusively by An Foras in relation to the apprenticeship system. It might be better, in regard to the monitoring, assessment and certification costs of the apprenticeship system if the Minister did not specify An Foras as decisions will have to be made in future. I take the point by Deputy Quill that people recognise that our regional technical colleges, institutes of technology and other educational establishments should not be divested of apprenticeship courses or the status that goes with them. I, therefore, ask the Minister to accept the principle behind the amendment, review the matter before Report Stage and come up with a variation rather than specify An Foras.

Mr. Kemmy

The important point is not where the apprenticeship training is provided or which body provides that training. As I mentioned this morning, at present apprenticeship training is provided at FÁS training centres, on sites or the factory floor, in the vocational education committees and regional technical colleges. Therefore, what is important is not where the training is provided but its quality. After all, if we can train brain surgeons, heart surgeons or airline pilots there is no reason we cannot train tradesmen.

In the past it was often a case of "out of sight, out of mind"; the quality of training provided to apprentices was not monitored, in many cases they were left to fend for themselves. In the building industry in particular there was no continuity. The young apprentice has to show determination and needed luck and stamina to stick it out to pick up the trade. FÁS did not monitor those apprentices and they often found themselves unemployed. I would not like to mention how many jobs I had or how often I was unemployed during my apprenticeship training. Eventually I went to England.

It is most important that the Minister understands there is a need to bring apprentices into the trade to build up self-confidence and self-esteem and monitor the quality of their work; that is what apprenticeship training is all about. In the past employers were often at fault in not monitoring apprentices but the State, through the Department, must ensure that the quality of the training provided to apprentices is monitored.

The role of FÁS should be extended beyond the training centres. For instance, where there are gaps in apprenticeship training not alone should the State provide training courses, it should provide work to ensure that an apprentice is allowed to finish his or her apprenticeship training. It is most important that there is continuity.

In regard to my own trade, brick and stone laying, which forms part of our heritage, how often have we seen the stonework in State, semi-State and local authority buildings crumbling at a time when many stonemasons are unemployed? In that instance there would be nothing wrong with FÁS having the work carried out by apprentices under the supervision of a trained stonemason. In this way we would guarantee continuity for apprentices, make our countryside more attractive and ensure our heritage is preserved.

That is just one example where the State could intervene, through the local authorities, health boards and other State agencies, but it is not happening at present. There are hundreds of unemployed apprentices in the building industry; yet, as I mentioned this morning, the intake is the lowest in 20 years. The Minister and the State have an obligation to rectify this deficiency and to ensure that apprentices are guaranteed continuity so that they can complete their training and that its quality is up to scratch.

Mr. R. Bruton

I support Deputy Quill's amendment. It seems that the findings of the Moriarty group who dealt extensively with this issue, were not taken into account when the section was being drafted. As Members will recall it sought the establishment, by October 1993, of a National Education and Training Certification Board and envisaged that it would conduct the certification of apprentices. In regard to section 4 (1) (b), I would have thought that such a board would approve educational establishments that offer apprenticeship courses rather than FÁS which is one of the bodies that provide these courses. I am aware that an action group, comprising the Department of Education and FÁS, was established to deal with all these issues but I have not seen the report which was due to be presented by June last year. Perhaps the Minister would inform us if that report led to this formulation.

In relation to paragraph (c) I do not think FÁS should assess its own performance in the area of apprenticeship training; no training body should assess its own performance. That is why I made provision, in amendment No. 10, for independent assessment. Deputy Quill's amendment is worthy of support.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I should again state that we are dealing with a financial measure, the debate on which has been widened to include apprenticeships. This provision arises from the summary report on the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the meeting held on Wednesday, 25 March 1992 at which agreement was reached with the social partners on the use to which the levy proceeds would be put. I do not intend to depart from that agreement. The Bill was then drafted. Provision is made for a levy of 0.25 per cent in four sectors and the uses to which the proceeds will be put are specified in the Bill. I have no wish to move from the agreed procedure between people of repute. I am merely following an earlier agreement. The levy is so small that the proceeds will not be sufficient even to cover the training allowances and wages of apprentices. Deputies Quill, Costello, Bruton and others know what they are talking about, but as Deputy Costello said, debate on the education and training aspects is ongoing. It is not intended that FÁS will grab the proceeds of anything under the provisions of this legislation.

The proceeds will be miniscule in relation to the total cost. An agreement was reached and the report of the Central Review Committee was published on 25 March 1992.

Miss Quill

I will be pressing this amendment as nothing the Minister said would convince me to withdraw it. Admittedly, an agreement was worked out but not by democratically elected people. The legislation before us clearly states that the monitoring, assessment and certification costs of the apprenticeship system would be operated by An Foras, thereby limiting the operation of those activities to An Foras.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I do not mind if the Deputy presses all her amendments.

Chairman

Deputy Quill, without interruption, please.

Miss Quill

I have been most reasonable in relation to my amendments, but I did not put down any of them for fun or without putting some thought into them. I oppose the limiting of those functions to An Foras because that would not benefit young people taking up apprenticeship courses in the future. For that reason I will be pressing my amendment.

Mr. R. Bruton

Will the Minister of State reconsider the matter because from my reading of the Moriarty report which was published by the Minister, Deputy Quinn, it is clear that he envisages that the task of certification would not be carried out by FÁS? This seems to be in conflict with stated Government policy. Therefore, the Minister of State should accept Deputy Quill's amendment. It is not unreasonable.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Let me make it quite clear that the central procedure will be carried out jointly, as Deputy Costello said. Talks are presently taking place between the Departments of Education and Enterprise and Employment and I hope we will work out a satisfactory system. That has nothing to do with the measure now being discussed. The assessment and certification procedures are being worked out by a high level committee from within both Departments with a governmental and ministerial input at all stages. This measure is being introduced for a financial purpose and has nothing to do with cost. The monitoring and assessment procedures are currently being done effectively in education establishments. I am in close contact with the TUI on the matter. I have already had two meetings with them and another is arranged. Everybody is entitled to press their amendments. This is a financial Bill and I am following the arrangements agreed and signed by Government under a procedure adopted by a majority view in the Dáil, even though it went to a vote. That is the purpose of what I am introducing here.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, subsection (1), lines 20 to 22, to delete paragraph (d) and substitute the following:

"(d) such other expenditure in relation to the training of apprentices as the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine after consultation with such organisation or association of organisations as appears to the Minister to be——

(i) representative of substantial numbers of employers in the sector of industry concerned, and

(ii) representative of substantial numbers of persons employed in the sector of the industry concerned.".

This gave rise to much soul-searching within industry between employers, the CIF and IBEC, and further meetings will take place this week. I am proposing an amendment to this section to provide for appropriate consultations with the social partners. Concerns were expressed that the scope of this subsection went beyond what had been agreed by the social partners on the funding arrangements. The present agreement provides that the levy proceeds when taken together would be used for wages and training. They wanted no change in what was agreed, without consultation. This amendment will ensure that the social partners will have an input into any changes proposed for the use of the levy proceeds, which will not be anywhere near enough to cover the total cost. This amendment has been the subject of full meetings during the past few days with both CIF and IBEC and I commend it to the House.

Mr. R. Bruton

While I have no difficulties with the amendment it illustrates the sort of straitjacket into which the Minister could be put following the extension of apprenticeships into a range of new areas of training in that everything has to be agreed chapter and verse with many consultative groups. The fact that the Minister had to amend what seemed to be inoffensive legislation signals the problems associated with proceeding headlong with extending apprenticeships to a wide range of areas.

It is interesting that under subparagraph (d) the Minister will now have the power to do what Deputy Quill sought, namely, go back to the social partners and get them to accept that some of the money for the cost of certification could come from the levy for independent certification.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 4, subsection (2), lines 29 to 31, to delete "or of the Department of Education or for the time being approved by An Foras" and substitute "or for the time being approved by An Foras or at an educational establishment approved by the Department of Education for the purposes of the Industrial Training Acts, 1967 and 1994”.

This is a technical amendment to section 4 (2) which the Department of Education requested. This subsection provides a definition of job training. Much of the educational input into apprenticeship training is conducted in regional technical colleges, the Dublin Institute of Technology and in some vocational schools. We do not propose major changes in that regard and this might alleviate some of the concerns expressed under an earlier amendment. Accordingly, those institutions now operate under specific Acts of the Oireachtas and are given autonomy under a Bill which I pioneered. It would be incorrect to use the words "establishment of the Department of Education" because they are now freestanding with their own governing bodies and governed under separate legislation. This is a purely technical amendment proposing to substitute the words "an educational establishment approved by the Department of Education for the purposes of the Industrial Training Acts, 1967 and 1994".

Mr. R. Bruton

I have no problem with the amendment, but is it proposed that much of the off-the-job work carried out at vocational education committees will in future be carried out at regional technical colleges? It has been represented to me that this could be a mistaken move in that the cost would be higher, the distance would be greater for apprentices seeking off-the-job work and that the teaching style might be less appropriate.

Will the Minister confirm whether such a change is taking place and, if so, does it have defects?

Mrs. O'Rourke

Talks are taking place between the Department of Education and the Department of Enterprise and Employment as to the changes involved with the new type of apprenticeship. For instance, Bolton Street will continue to run the printing apprenticeship. It has the necessary machinery and infrastructure within the college and other training centres do not have that equipment. They would not be able to afford it and would not have the necessary expertise.

The Deputy asked if the apprenticeship training in vocational schools will be transferred to the regional colleges. There is no general move in that direction. There is a move to look at the whole area of apprenticeship training, what venue is best suited to it and so on, but not to move such training from vocational education committee second level schools. Some training has transferred from them in recent years, but there is not a general move to transfer apprenticeship training from vocational schools to regional colleges. Sometimes the opposite is the case. This is a technical amendment because, for example, Bolton Street is under the Dublin Institute of Technology, which was established under separate legislation. It was pointed out that that technicality would need to be addressed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 4, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) (a) A procedure of evaluation of the operation of the apprenticeship programme shall be established and carried out by the Economic and Social Research Institute, which shall, inter alia, report on—

(i) the equity of entry to apprenticeships,

(ii) the balance between numbers of new apprentices taken on and employment opportunities for which there are not already trained workers,

(iii) the responsiveness of the programme to changing training needs, such as the need for multi-skilling,

(iv) the effectiveness and of the methods of certification of standards achieved,

(v) the success of training when measured against the best international standards.

(b) Each year the ESRI shall report progress made against the annual performance targets set by An Foras.".

The amendment speaks for itself. As a general practice we should establish an independent assessment of our training effort. In the past the ESRI has done useful work on other FÁS programmes and we should take the opportunity to build into the legislation the regular evaluation of the apprenticeship programme. The Minister outlined some of her ambitions for the programme. All sides of the House have acknowledged the problems of equity in the existing programme. We should be agreeable to an independent monitoring of the effectiveness of the implementation of this programme in future years because we in this House will not get another opportunity. Having regard to the reports of the ESRI made available to the House there is an onus on us to be assured that our ambitions in relation to the apprenticeship programme are being achieved.

Under the amendment I have listed some of the issues that could be usefully reported on by the ESRI if the Minister is agreeable — one being the key issue of the equity of entry to apprenticeships. An other is the balance between the numbers of new apprentices taken on and employment opportunities for which there are not trained workers. It is well known and was reported earlier this year that there were 1,000 redundant or unemployed apprentices in the construction industry alone. Clearly some balance must be maintained between recruitment into the apprenticeship programme and job opportunities because on a monetary level amount of between £5,000 and £10,000 of taxpayers' money are being contributed. It is also necessary to respond to changing skills and the issue of multiskilling. Three years hence we should be able to see if the apprenticeship programme has responded to the need for multi-skilling which the Minister and everyone in the House recognises is essential. We will need to know if that has been achieved.

I suggest provision for certification of standards achieved. I know that there is some concern as to whether on-the-job training will be properly certified or how it will be certified. We should judge our apprenticeship training against the best international standards. That is what we are seeking to do.

We should at this stage build the provisions in the amendment into the legislation. We are committing much money to this area. We should be committed to evaluations conducted on a regular basis so that we will know the effectiveness of the programme.

Miss Quill

This amendment incorporates almost all the concerns we addressed during the course of the day and it is welcome that they are put together in such a coherent and cogent way. In general terms I have no difficulty in supporting this amendment, particularly in relation to the equity which has been addressed and spoken about at length. Reassurance has been given by the Minister that it will be addressed fully by her. I fully accept that assurance. It is clear that the requirement in subparagraph 2 ought to be met. A White Paper on this issue is needed. In the absence of a White Paper we are coming up with different suggestions for achieving the same objective. This amendment illustrates that point.

I agree in essence with everything that has been said and with the recommendations made. I would be concerned that all our courses would be certified by a recognised body with a reputation not alone here but abroad. Deputy Kemmy some time ago said that the most essential single element was quality. How is quality assessed if an independent system of certification is not in place? It is crucially important that such certification be provided under the auspices of the ESRI or some other body. Because of my previous occupation I tend to favour the educational bodies. That is to be expected. I am only beginning to travel a road that the Minister has travelled for a much longer period and I am new to this committee and to consideration of these matters. Such certification must be provided and the manner suggested by Deputy Bruton is as good as any. I fully support his amendment.

Mrs. O'Rourke

All members know the composition of the board of FÁS. An advisory committee has been set up to deal with apprenticeships. It consists of the unions, the employer bodies, the National Youth Council, FÁS, the Department of Education and the Department of Enterprise and Employment. All FÁS activities are subject to the evaluation of the Department of Enterprise and Employment. Within the former Department of Labour, now the Department of Enterprise and Employment, there is a strong evaluation unit which has been recognised and appointed by Europe to be the evaluation unit for the moneys sent from Brussels used in this scheme. That evaluation unit, which deals specifically with monetary issues, is the recognised body appointed by the Commission and reports are submitted to it. As we have seen recently the money granted is based on those reports. Arising from talks between the Department of Education and the Department of Enterprise and Employment a new scheme has been established to provide for certification and monitoring of such certification. I have asked FÁS to consider the idea of independent evaluation and I am told that from time to time it consulted the ESRI on studies it undertook.

The first apprentices taken on this year under the new system will have an ongoing monitoring assessment and a final assessment. I have asked FÁS to engage outside people, perhaps the ESRI, to do a study of the monitoring and assessment procedures carried out under the new system. While the FÁS board includes a member from the Department of Enterprise and Employment and they report on their activities to that Department, in the light of what I have said this method may be cumbersome, so the ESRI may well be engaged in that area.

Mr. R. Bruton

I take issue with the Minister to some extent. The Minister refers to the national apprenticeship committee. As originally envisaged this was to be a body of eight people and one of their key roles was to ensure equitable recruitment through the apprenticeship code. The Minister quite clearly acknowledged that it had failed to do that. It also has been transformed from a body of eight to 22 people, I do not honestly believe that they would see it as their remit to do the sort of detailed evaluation we are talking about. Its composition is representative, it defends particular positions in relation to the development of the apprenticeship scheme, and it is not the appropriate body to make the evaluation.

I accept that a system of internal evaluation in the Department is being developed now but my key difficulty with that is the one that was shown up in the course of the recent debate on Structural Funds, in that none of that evaluation was ever made public and we, as Deputies debating the merit of the spending of these moneys could not see these reports. Internal evaluation in the Department is not the best as there will naturally be a tendency for symbiosis to develop between the Department and its agencies. In other words, there will be an interest in seeing things go on the way they are and people will be satisfied with what they have been doing. While I acknowledge the value of internal evaluation, the key in evaluation is that it be published and be available so that anyone can use the material published and have a pot shot at whoever is doing it, so as to encourage true, open and fair evaluation.

I would make the same point in respect of the Minister requesting FÁS to consider engaging its own consultants to have evaluate its work. That is not satisfactory. We all know that one can employ consultants to produce whatever result one wants. The amendment tabled gives the general public a far greater assurance that there is ongoing evaluation and it would not be cumbersome. It will not be encumbered with committees or the like; it is quite a simple evaluation procedure so I would ask the Minister to consider accepting that amendment.

Mrs. O'Rourke

As requested by Deputy Bruton, I will certainly be disposed to making available whatever ongoing evaluation of the new system is undertaken and publishing it in a public report. The intermediate assessment and the final assessment should be published and laid in the Library of the House.

Mr. R. Bruton

That would be welcome. I know the Minister does not have overall power in respect of FÁS, but the same should apply to the evaluations of the SES of the alternance programme and all of those programmes that have been evaluated in considerable detail but the results of which we have never seen.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.