asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline the consultation he has had with the Irish Management Institute in relation to the Estimates; if he has satisfied himself that this agency will be able to maintain its present level of service to Irish industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Management Institute.
4.
The IMI is, of course, a private organisation.
Since assuming office, I have met the Chairman and Director General of the IMI as part of my regular discussions with the bodies associated with my Department.
The 1988 allocation of £430,000 to the Irish Management Institute is being made against the background of the difficult Exchequer position and the need for an overall reduction in Government expenditure. The level of allocation in 1987 at £730,000 was exceptional. It took account of the institute's deficit situation and an unexpected shortfall in assistance from the European Social Fund because of changes in the fund's rules.
The whole question of management training, including funding, is currently being examined by the advisory committee on management training which I have recently established.
Would the Minister agree and admit to the House that the cut now proposed in the Estimates is far greater than those involved in the IMI had any reason to expect? Would the Minister also agree that one of the effects of this will be that costs of training programmes provided by the IMI will increase and, in so doing, limit those companies in a position to avail of them?
As I said in my reply, on a few occasions I met and explained to the IMI the difficult financial position and particularly discussed the budgetary position. While I would not have outlined the exact figure at those meetings I did make it clear that their normal allocation was about £530,000. Last year was a special case in point because the IMI had been refused assistance from the European Social Fund on foot of applications they has submitted. In the March budget I argued for the maintenance of the figure contained in the draft Estimates prepared by the last Government. The position this year is that there was no prospect of their being able to receive an amount in excess of £530,000 but, because of the difficult Exchequer position, I found I had to further reduce their allocation. In regard to whether it will affect the courses they provide or how they will disperse the allocation of £430,000 for 1988, they have asked me to meet them to discuss that matter, which I shall be doing within the next few weeks.
Would the Minister accept that a fair translation of what he has said is that, as a result of his discussions with the IMI, they had every reason to believe they would get £530,000, it being the traditional level, and that, as a result, the cut actually proposed came as a very unpleasant shock? More fundamentally, would the Minister accept that weakness in management has been one of the major causes of our difficulties in recent years? Has he had any discussions at all with the people who drafted this remarkable document entitled Programme for National Recovery which, amongst other things, proposes to place emphasis on management training? Would the Minister say how that is consistent with what we have here?
I know the Deputy will be supportive of my initiative in setting up the Advisory Committee on Management Training. Because of the proliferation of agencies in management training I have set up that committee to ensure that the source of funding, costs of training and structures of payment are properly organised within the State. I believe there are a number of organisations involved in management training who could usefully come together in providing a much more cost effective service. The report of that Advisory Committee on Management Training will be available next summer, from which we should be able to advise a much better management training system.
Can the Minister tell us whether he has satisfied himself that the State funding which the IMI receive is in fact being spent in the most effective way possible in the light of the emphasis laid thereon in the document Programme for National Recovery? Furthermore, in that light, has the Minister made any suggestions as to how the IMI could spend that money?
One of the roles of that Advisory Committee on Management Training — on which the IMI is strongly represented, along with a number of other bodies, the universities and various users — is the examination of the IMI present allocation, from private and State sources so that it is used in the most cost-effective way. I cannot confirm at this stage whether or not it is. That is something that will be examined by that advisory committee. I must say that the people who run the IMI and other very active committees work extremely hard in the interests of management training. I should like to have been in a position to allocate them the necessary resources this year but, because of the budgetary constraints, I was not in a position to do so.
What other bodies, apart from the IMI, are providing in-service management education?
Within industry?
Yes, in-service management education while people are actually at work as distinct from prior to work?
My understanding is that there are a number of private organisations, companies, running courses that perhaps the IMI would argue they should control. Also within the universities there is a considerable amount of work done for outside agencies as well as their own internal university work. The IMI have argued at some length that perhaps it would be better were they the sole organisers of management training in the country. They have put forward that case very strongly. Rather than my trying to decide that issue the new Advisory Committee on Management Training I have recently established will investigate that matter.