Vol. 413 No. 1
12 Tomás Mac Giolla asked the Minister for Labour if, in relation to the commitments given in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, he will outline the special provisions which have been made for entry of groups such as (1) the disadvantaged, (2) the disabled, (3) mature entrants and (4) women into apprenticeships; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
19 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline the arrangements, if any, which are proposed to be introduced in relation to the apprenticeship schemes for the year commencing 1992; and if he will further outline the way it is proposed to fund such arrangements.
I propose taking Questions Nos. 12 and 19 together.
The Programme for Economic and Social Progress provides for the introduction of a new standards based apprenticeship system. FÁS, who have power to regulate apprenticeships under the Industrial Training Act, 1967, are arranging for the introduction of the new system on a pilot basis next year. In this regard, FÁS have appointed an advisory committee reperesentative of the social partners, FÁS board members, educational and other interests to advise it on the implementation of the new system. The advisory committee will consider how disadvantaged groups, such as those referred to in Deputy Mac Giolla's question, can be accommodated in the new system.
The Programme for Economic and Social Progress provides for the funding of the new system to be discussed by the Government with the social partners in the Central Review Committee of this programme. These discussions are still in progress.
Deputies Rabbitte and Shatter rose.
The question is divided between the two parties, Deputy Yates and Deputy McCartan.
I do not mind.
Thank you, Deputy.
I should like to thank the Deputy. What he has done seems to be way off the mark from what I have been hearing these days.
The House is dealing with apprenticeships. Does the Minister agree it is regrettable that women have to be included in this group? Can he give the House any indication of the participation rate by women in apprenticeships?
I cannot give specific details of this. The advisory committee on apprenticeships are meeting tomorrow and I hope that, as a consequence of this meeting, we will have a fuller assessment of the breakdown. On the number of women involved, I cannot give the Deputy that information at this stage.
I should like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well. I assure him that we on this side of the House will make life very difficult for him.
I thought that might be the case.
In regard to the Minister's reply to Question No. 19, will he agree that the new apprenticeship scheme which got some publicity recently is simply a scheme someone thought might be a good idea. Absolutely no details of it have been worked out, the costing of it has not been worked out and the numbers who might take up this scheme have not been worked out. It is not known whether these people will come from the long term or general unemployed. It is not known what criteria will be applied and what business firms might involve themselves in the apprenticeship scheme. Will the Minister clarify for the House whether there is any reality in this scheme being implemented in January 1992 which is some six weeks away? Will he indicate what funding will be made available for this apprenticeship scheme?
I should like to remind the Deputy that the representation on the committee dealing with this scheme is very wide-ranging and includes the most expert and qualified people. For example, it includes people from the apprenticeship area, representatives of the social partners, educational representatives and FÁS staff. The committee, which is chaired by a very prominent member of ICTU, have been looking at all the elements the Deputy touched on, funding and the specific need to broaden the base of apprenticeships from some of the traditional areas. The committee has also been examining the possibility of expanding the scope of apprenticeships and the qualifications which traditionally have been, as the Deputy will know, based on certain specified times. The committee is not targeting the time spent on training for qualification but rather the quality and the input into the programmes. It is a very wide-ranging review. As I have told the Deputy they are due to meet again tomorrow. In the circumstances the Deputy will appreciate that while, understandably, one likes to have specific answers at all stages to questions, that cannot be the priority when you are looking at something as important and wide ranging as this.
Would the Minister agree that having announced such a scheme the Government have no idea how to implement it? Will he indicate what resources will be made available for this scheme next year and how many persons it is anticipated will be able to take up apprenticeships next year? Finally, will the Minister indicate whether it is the Government's intention to impose an additional and new apprenticeship levy on business generally to fund this scheme?
We are having quite an extension of the scope of the question.
If there is one constant factor in this Government's approach, it is an approach by way of partnership and agreement. The Deputy can take it that imposition is not the way we do things. One of the reasons these discussions are taking place is because one is working towards agreement between the employer and the union representatives as to how the scheme will be funded. Funding of the scheme is a very essential part of the whole planning process. The planning of this scheme may give rise to very significant developments. The Deputy will not get any reply from me other than that at this point because it would anticipate the issues that will be addressed tomorrow and subsequently.
Is the Minister in a position to indicate at this stage to the House if the scheme will discriminate in favour of the disadvantaged in the community? Would he not agree that everybody else is dependent on the number of apprentices the business sector are prepared to take on board and that there appears to be a marked reluctance at present to take on apprentices? What incentives does he intend to give to the business sector to encourage them to employ young people as apprentices?
I agree with the Deputy that the disadvantaged in every sense, physically, mentally and even those who may have been traditionally discriminated against, if not deliberately, such as women in the workplace, will be a focus of the whole apprenticeship programme, at least in the terms of the review as to how they can be inducted effectively. The second part of the question——
Regarding the reluctance on the part of the business sector to take apprentices on board.
Obviously the apprenticeship sector has been confined to certain sectors as the Deputy will be aware. One of the matters that can be reviewed now is whether the range of involvement in apprenticeships can be extended beyond that sector and whether it can be demonstrated to be to the advantage both of the employees and the employers. There is great scope for review there.
May I ask the Minister if he does not agree that one year into the Programme for Economic and Social Progress that guaranteed under paragraph 11 to provide for these groups in apprenticeship — disabled, disadvantaged mature entrants, women — that there is not one practical proposal in evidence? If he is prepared to take my word for it that there is marginally less than 1 per cent female participation in apprenticeship schemes? Does he agree that is a shockng indictment of our inability to facilitate participation by women in apprenticeship?
I will certainly not question the bona fides of the Deputy. If he tells me it is a fact I have to accept it as such, subject to checking. If that is the case it certainly reflects a conventional, traditional, and perhaps a regrettable, attitude in relation to the nature of work undertaken by women. In the course of the examination of all these issues under the apprenticeship review committee that matter, as I have indicated already, will also be looked into.
Regarding the lack of progress I would remind the Deputy that if we are dealing with something as radical as this — it is radical including some of the issues which he touched on — and the possibility of a change to a system based on standards achieved rather than time spent, how the proposed arrangements would be financed and how best any Exchequer costs involved might be minimised we want to identify the financial and other implications of proposals in a whole range of areas which would target training effectively in these schemes. I do not think it is reasonable to say that nothing has been done when we are coming to a crucial point. I have indicated that a very important meeting is taking place tomorrow.
