Vol. 430 No. 3
6 Miss Quill asked the Minister for Education if, in relation to the recent proposals for changes to the apprenticeship system, she will give her views as to whether the proposed changes lead to a serious downgrading of the system; and, if so, the steps if any, she proposes to take to ensure that this does not happen.
The fundamental purpose of the change proposed in the apprenticeship system is to move from a time-served to a standard-based approach. This move has been universally welcomed as a major improvement and enhancement of the standing of the apprenticeship system. When fully developed and implemented the objective is that it will provide apprentices with a formal certificate of achievement, validated by the National Education and Training Certification Board which will be based on standards reached, which will have status and recognition with employers, for employment purposes, and within the education sector, for the purpose of allowing apprentices to progress to higher levels of qualifications.
It is a period of major change in the apprenticeship system. It is not in anybody's interest — the apprentices themselves or the economy — that the educational underpinning of apprenticeship training should be anything other than the highest quality. No developed country any longer seriously pursues narrow skill-based training as a policy objective, without the complementary development of a broader educational foundation to prepare people to cope with the ever accelerating rate of skill change, driven by rapid technological change.
The scheme launched is for a limited number of areas initially, and it is subject to completion of arrangements. My Department will be reviewing how the scheme works and it is only at that stage that I can offer an informed view as to its success, but I want to assure the Deputy that the objective of everyone is for an improved scheme.
I welcome the fact that the Minister is committed to improving the scheme. This is at variance with reports in recent weeks in which we were cautioned that the proposed new schemes would be debased, educationally, in that narrow skill based training would be pursued. Will the Minister confirm that the row between the Department of Labour and the Department of Education has now been resolved and give a categoric assurance that, in relation to education and training courses, the process of certification will continue to be carried out by the Department of Education and that high standards will be applied in the manner recommended in the Green Paper on Education and in the Culliton report?
I should put it on the record that there is not a row. I was concerned about the reports that the training programmes for apprentices would be restrictive and I thank the Deputy for accepting the sincerity of my reply. The Department of Education has a particular responsibility, first, to ensure that the educational content of the new curricula is satisfactory — we have seen some but not all the syllabi; to ensure that the assessment and certification procedures are developed; to ensure that off-the-job education of apprentices is delivered effectively and that the best possible use is made of available resources and expertise. Experts representing the technological colleges, FÁS, employer organisations and the trade unions are designing training curricula and, as soon as they are available, my Department will make arrangements for them to be assessed by the colleges. The colleges or the vocational education committees, which will provide the courses of instruction for apprentices, will then exercise their responsibility under the relevant Act and agree that the courses are suitable. We all agree there is a need to move forward and I am satisfied that mechanisms are in place to ensure that we will have an input to the draft curricula which will be presented. At present we are developing proposals in relation to the NETCB. While the word "education" has slipped out of the vocabulary of some people my Department will have a role to play in the certification process. At present many of these programmes are certified by bodies outside Ireland. I cite the City and Guild examinations as an example. The Government is mature and responsible enough to ensure that the certificates granted by the new board will be recognised internationally.
Deputy Quill rose.
I am concerned that time is fast running out and I am anxious, in fairness and equity, to dispose of the remaining question. I will allow the Deputy to ask a brief question.
Will the Minister confirm who the certifying body will be and what will be its relationship with the NCEA? Furthermore, does she intend to amend the NCEA Act of 1979 to incorporate the proposals in relation to certification she mentioned in the House and, if so, when?
Brevity, please.
We have started work on it. In addition to the NCEA there is the NCVA. When the curriculum is ready we will inform the Deputy but approximately 80 per cent of those certified under the other schemes are the responsibility of the Department of Education.
If Question No. 7 is to be dealt with it must be responded to now.
Does the Minister intend to amend it this year?
I will not commit myself but, as I said, we have started work on it and we will keep in touch.
