Vol. 405 No. 7
13 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Labour the total investment in training courses/schemes in each of the past five years; the numbers involved in such training schemes; the numbers now in permanent employment as a result of such courses; and if he has satisfied himself that the extent of such investment is reflected in output and productivity.
Information relating to the training courses and schemes administered by my Department and/or their agencies for unemployed persons and first time job seekers for the years in question is as follows:
|
Year |
Non capital Expenditure including European Social grants |
Throughput |
|
£m |
||
|
1986 |
192 |
82,256 |
|
1987 |
206 |
84,132 |
|
1988 |
207 |
75,004 |
|
1989 |
182 |
66,471 |
|
1990 |
204 |
65,252 |
Training is also provided in a significant way by other Departments and statutory agencies and the cost of this expenditure would also have to be taken into account in determining the overall level of investment in training.
Data maintained by FÁS indicates that the placement rate for mainline programmes such as specific skills training, enterprise and apprenticeship was between 65 per cent and 70 per cent over the period in question. It would not be appropriate to measure programmes which are catering for disadvantaged groups, solely on their placement in employment rates. Some of these programmes prepare young people for progression to mainline training or return to education. For CERT courses, the placement rate is nearly 100 per cent from formal craft courses and over 80 per cent for courses for unemployed persons.
There are many views on how the value of training should be assessed. The placement rate is an obvious yardstick and on that basis both FÁS and CERT perform exceptionally well. However, I asked FÁS some time ago to carry out further research in this area. This was done on behalf of FÁS by the ESRI and I understand that the results are currently being analysed.
FÁS and CERT also provide training support for persons in employment which is much sought after by employers. The economic value of such training to the employers is indicated in the fact that they use these schemes.
It is difficult to absorb all the information in the Minister's reply. I am sure he is aware of the report published by the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training which placed and ranked Ireland 17th out of 22 in terms of human resources. Arising out of the investment over that period, is the Minister satisfied that this is reflected in an increased output and productivity for the economy which obviously has a big bearing on our place in the world report which has been published?
There are two aspects to that. We spend over £200 million alone through the State agencies, FÁS and CERT, involved in training. We do very well in that and FÁS have figures of 80 per cent in the areas of craft and apprenticeships and CERT 100 per cent. In fact one of our problems is that we could do with more people in CERT and we are dealing with that at the moment. On the other side I am not happy about the area of private enterprise management training — that is what the report features. It is not that long ago since we found that about three-quarters of our companies spend less than £1,000 a year on that. I gave the analogy about that, that they spend on newspapers what they spend on management training. This is the year of the manager and a sincere attempt is being made for the first time in many years, led by the IMI and involving the IPA, IPM and other organisations, to try to get the private sector to spend more money and more resources on training. That is something that needs to be done; it has been ignored for many years.
The Minister is obviously aware that in Japan expenditure is ten times that of Britain per adult worker. Figures are not available for Ireland in that context. Is the Minister satisfied with the flexibility of expenditure of this European money in terms of more educational opportunities, of training and advantage for our workers in view of the results of the competition report clearly indicating that West Germany, the USA and Japan are streets ahead of everyone else in output and productivity as a result of the high level of investment in quality training?
I would not compare us with Japan in relation to the resources we put in. In the report the Deputy referred to chapter after chapter indicate that a huge proportion of the profits of the private sector are put into giving high level training. We are trying to do that in the State sector and we have to achieve far more in the private sector. We must ensure, and are ensuring, that the courses we provide are of a good standard and are flexible. I have done a lot in the last few years to ensure that courses are more flexible than they used be. We have not achieved everything and we will have to make further progress. I am satisfied in relation to EC flexibility at present but there is a difficulty in that the EC are now saying that they will not finance any training by the State unless there is an economic value at the end. In due course that will create major difficulties for courses for disadvantaged and long term unemployed people. I am very concerned about that, but it is an issue for another day.
