I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, subsection (12), line 47, after "Fund" to insert "and shall only be used for the development of training within the sector from which the levy was collected".
National Training Fund Bill, 2000: Committee and Remaining Stages.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I am not in a position to accept this amendment. An analysis of the levy grants accounts for the past four years revealed some interesting facts. For example, the levy grants schemes have high administrative costs associated with them. Administrative costs account for approximately 50% of the expenditure from the levy fund grants over the period 1996 to 1999. Payments for administration actually exceeded payments made to training projects in two of the past three years. For instance, payments for industrial training projects in 1999 amounted to £1.8 million. The administration payment to FÁS from the levy grants fund amounted to just over £2 million. In 1998, more money was spent on the administration of the schemes than was even received in the levy.
With regard to the suggestion that the surplus levy should only be used for the development of training within the sector from which the levy was collected, this would create new rigidities and would be even more restrictive than the situation as it has operated up to now under the industrial training committees.
Funding paid out to different sectors has been disproportionate to income received from those sectors over the past few years. For example, in 1999 the construction sector received £1.77 million for training projects but the sector only contributed £11,000. The levy grants surplus is decreasing very slowly. It stood at £11.7 million at the end of 1997 and reduced to £11.2 million at the end of 1999. While FÁS's accounts indicate that £5.68 million of the surplus at the end of 1999 was committed to grants to employers and training projects on the basis of the past experience, my officials estimate that approximately £4 million is likely to be spent in the year. That includes £2 million for administration of the schemes.
Our intention is to review existing schemes in consultation with FÁS. I can envisage, however, that any scheme which demonstrates that it is relevant, serves a real need, is reasonably costed and provides added value in terms of human resource development of employees will receive support from the national training fund.
I accept the Minister's reasoning and good will in regard to this matter. That is in accord with the spirit of good will that we had in the Chamber earlier. My sole concern was the £11 million plus in the fund and a belief that it should be ring-fenced in accordance with the various sectors which had contributed, but I accept what the Minister has said.
I had planned to speak on the amendment before I realised Senator Coghlan was accepting the Minister's point. The intention of the amendment was good but it appears to create some bureaucracy and there are times when decisions need not be encumbered by such bureaucracy. Future Ministers will always have consultation and there is no need to tie it down.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendment No. 2 is in the name of Senator Coghlan. A substitute amendment No. 2 has been circulated on the white list.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, subsection (1), line 20, after "may" to insert the following:
"after consultation with such organisations as appear to the Minister to be generally representative of employers and employees within the sector.".
This amendment was also moved on Committee Stage in the Dáil and, as I explained in my comments on Report Stage, if this amendment were to stand it would make the fund completely unworkable because money could not be disbursed from the fund until there was full consultation with employees and employers. Disbursement would be tied to consultation. What we have written into the Bill instead is that there will be consultation on the programmes and the overall approach that is being adopted in relation to the use of the fund, but the notion that there would be specific consultation in relation to each disbursement would be unrealistic and unworkable. It would effectively paralyse the operation of the fund and would be of no service to either employers or employees.
It is my intention, as I explained in the Second Stage debate yesterday morning, to set up a national consultative committee, an advisory committee, to advise me and my Department on the fund generally. The consultative committee will be made up of employers, employees, representatives and others who have expertise in the whole area of training. I want the expert group to advise on the overall approach. The detail on individual projects which will require funding from the fund should be done on an independent basis and not on the basis of consultation all the time.
I accept the Minister's reasoning. She has repeated her assurance on the consultative body. There will be ongoing consultation and I accept what she has said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
My question relates to the payments to be made out of the fund at the discretion of the Minister. In her response to Senator Coghlan, the Minister referred to the establish ment of a consultative body. Will this body be statutory or purely consultative? In the context of her remarks that she is anxious to have the widest possible consensus, will she give serious consideration to ensuring that locally elected representatives are included on the consultative body? I ask this question because there seems to be a mind-block within some Departments on using the expertise which is obviously available at local authority level. I was one of the Senators who some years ago tabled an amendment – it was accepted by the then Government – to ensure that councillors would not be excluded from the State body being set up. A number of Acts have specifically excluded members of local authorities and I do not understand why this blockage exists. Local authority members have the widest possible experience and expertise across a large number of areas and as they are part-time politicians at local level they earn their keep in a variety of skills and industries.
This legislation is about paying out money for upskilling. I assume – I ask the Minister to confirm this – the payments will be made in the context of addressing need at local and regional level rather than at national level. Will the area partnership boards be paid money out of the fund for their many schemes? Will local authorities be paid out of the money for upskilling under their future terms of reference under the Bill to be introduced next year? I am attempting to establish the mindset of the Minister and whether, in forming a consultative body which will be national in character, she will bring in the old usual suspects – the social partners, IBEC, trade unions and the voluntary sector. I know it cannot be done specifically in the Bill but I ask her to indicate her views on this matter. I want to put it as strongly as I can that it is unfair and unacceptable that more than 1,500 elected representatives who give of their time and expertise to the development of democracy at local level should, for some strange, unknown and obscure historical reason, be excluded from consideration in appointments to national boards.
I fully support the points made by Senator Mooney. It is discriminatory that any class of person should be automatically excluded from a board. The points made by him in regard to local representatives are true. A local representative who has a special skill or expertise should not be automatically excluded.
I admire the way Senators Mooney and Coghlan have defended their constituents, the members of local authorities.
I am sure the Minister would not expect any less.
Senator Quinn is elected by a different constituency and no doubt he will want several graduates from the NUI to be on the advisory board.
I do not favour politicians being on boards of this kind. This is an advisory board and there is no provision in the legislation for such representation as circumstances change over time and we want some flexibility. Writing such a provision into legislation would been much too rigid and inflexible. I am not saying this is the position in all cases but I do not favour putting politicians on boards or advisory groups as it politicises them and puts the politician in a difficult position. If I decided to nominate a councillor with expertise in training from a particular party no doubt an effort would be made to have a member from every party to avoid the politicisation of the advisory group.
The people on the board will have expertise in this area. I have an open mind on who they might be. Obviously I would like representatives of employees and employers as the purpose of the fund is to focus companies on the need to upskill and train their workers and also heighten the awareness of employees of their development as employees and the need to place a constant emphasis on upskilling themselves. I also want to ensure that the unemployed and those entering the labour market have the necessary skills for the jobs being created.
An area in which I am particularly interested is the training of people with disabilities. I would like to have somebody appointed to the advisory group who has expertise and an interest in this area. Disabled people have not had a fair share of the resources allocated to training in the past. This is a major problem for us as we move forward. Disabled people should have the opportunity to lead more independent lives and to participate in the prosperity which has been generated. They deserve to be able to access the jobs being created in the labour market. We did not place enough attention on this in the past.
I have taken on board the points made by both Senators. If there are councillors who have strong views on training or expertise in this area I would like to hear from them. I could not agree to the appointment of a councillor from whatever party, even an independent councillor, to the national advisory training board as it would be a retrograde step.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the Minister in terms of the difficulties which face any Minister in making appointments to State boards. However, like a dog with a bone, I am not inclined to let the issue rest there. Without labouring the point, I understand there is a list of eminent people which is provided to Departments by outside bodies. For example, I am aware of the existence of a list of eminent women who are available for appointment to boards. I have no doubt there will be a consultative process involving IBEC, the trade union movement and voluntary sector in the context of the establishment of the advisory board. The Minister will not be arbitrary in her decisions.
Notwithstanding her marked reluctance to involve herself in the appointment of people because of their political character and in the context of my earlier comments on lists of suitable people, I ask her to give consideration to a concept I had up my sleeve in the event of her answer. There are three representative bodies of local authorities – the AMAI, the municipal authorities organisation; the Local Authorities Members' Association, LAMA, and the General Council of County Councils, GCCC. Without committing herself today, and in light of the difficulties which face her and her colleagues in making these appointments, will the Minister indicate whether she will consider accepting a list of suitable eminent people from these professional bodies which represent the body politic of local government? This list, which would come from the professional bodies, could be used as a basis for consideration and, therefore, the anticipated opposition the Minister seems to think she would encounter by appointing politicians might be avoided.
I enthusiastically welcome the Minister's remarks on disability. As a member of the labour shortages sub-committee of the National Economic and Social Forum I was very honoured to have been part of the consultative process that led to the publication of its Report No. 19 which the Minister and her officials are aware of. I made a generous reference to it in my Second Stage contribution yesterday. Elements of this report are worthy of serious consideration and they could be implemented in the short term rather than having another think-tank to reflect on them. The forum set up the process to fast track these ideas and concepts because it wanted them to be swiftly transmitted to the Minister's Department and her colleague, Deputy Dermot Ahern, Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. The bulk of the forum's recommendations are aimed at both Departments. There are very specific recommendations on disability and on giving access to disabled people to allow them enter the workforce.
There are very specific recommendations in relation to a matter which I have raised over of years on the forum, that is, making work accessible to older people. I compliment the Minister on having made a public statement to this effect in September last. When I heard her comments I said to myself that the scales had dropped from the eyes of the Department at last and it will now look at older people. In the 1990s many people in their early fifties were made redundant by State bodies and throughout the rest of the workforce. They have a very valuable contribution to make but it seems that ageism has crept into industry. Statistics released in Britain recently showed that there is a very discriminatory attitude among employers to employing people over 45 years of age.
I hope the Minister will elaborate, not today necessarily, on the statement she made in September in this regard. This cohort of workers would make a very valuable contribution to industry and they would help address the serious skills shortages we are experiencing.
I welcome the Minister's views on disability and the fact that she highlighted the importance of access to the workforce. Many Departments have not achieved their 3% quota of disabled people and that is the first place the Minister could start.
I have long been an admirer of the Minister's appointments, particularly her two most recent ones, the successor to Judge Declan Costello, Judge Seán O'Leary, and the eminent senior counsel, Michael Cush.
I can understand the difficulties that could arise with the appointment of politicians, but I feel strongly that they should never be discriminated against. Recently there are difficulties for politicians in other fora. However, we should not allow what happens to a few to colour our overall thinking. I know this is not the case with the Minister. She talked about the practical difficulties that we all know could emerge from a particular appointment, but an individual should not be ruled out by virtue of being a politician who might be very suitable for a position.
I appreciate the comments made by the Minister on disability.
I agree with the Senator's comments. I would not rule out appointing someone just because they are a politician. I asked Senator O'Toole to chair the audit review group.
Another excellent appointment.
I did that not because he was a Senator or politician but because of his personal qualities.
Correct.
The Minister did that because he holds the position of vice-president of ICTU.
No, it was not that. It was because of his competence, knowledge base and the fact that he is independent minded. The group was made up of a lot of vested interests. I wanted someone who could pull everything together and provide us with a report quickly. I am very open minded to appointing the best people rather than thinking about the category from which they come from or categorising them into various representative groups. I may appoint a politician with the relevant expertise to the advisory committee.
Senator Mooney asked me if a list of eminent local authority members was sent to me by the association. If a list was sent to me 1,500 names would be on it because I do not know any politician who does not regard himself as eminent or would want to be excluded. I get the gist and understand the politics of what is being said here. I have an open mind about the appointments. I have not thought about possible candidates. Senator Quinn would be an excellent representative on bodies dealing with employer interests—
Hear, hear.
—because of his enterprise skills and the experience he has in risk taking and in business. There are politicians who have expertise in other areas and I will take this view on board.
I share Senator Mooney's views on ageism which now begins about the age of 40; it used to be 65. Because of high unemployment in the past all of our schemes and policies were geared towards getting people out of work. We must reverse that, both in relation to what the State does and in private practice. Some northern Scandinavian countries have introduced innovative pension related proposals which deserve our consideration. It never ceases to amaze me that we expect people in the Garda Síochána to retire at the age of 57. People in the Civil Service must work 40 years before they get a full pension. You must be 20 years in politics to get a full pension. Those of us who came in 23 years ago have gone past the full pension stage, believe it or not. We must look at the way pensions are constructed with a view to encouraging people, if they wish, to stay longer in the workforce.
The Minister made her point well about the appointment of Senator O'Toole.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
I thank the Minister for her kind words about appointments.
Section 8 deals with offences and penalties. Section 8(1) states: "An employer or the agent of an employer who does not pay a levy which is due and payable under section 3 shall be guilty of an offence.” But section 8(5) states:
Whichever is the later, but no such proceedings shall be instituted later than 5 years from the date on which the offence concerned was committed.
I am sure there is no danger of its going unnoticed by an employer. Perhaps a person who noticed that he broke the law but had not realised it at the time could be the victim of a vindictive prosecution four and a half years later. I imagine that the two previous subsections cover this aspect. Perhaps the Minister would put my mind at rest and tell me whether it is possible for someone to unwittingly commit an offence yet be made aware of it four and half years later.
The Senator can take it that several reminders would be sent to the employer in question. It is not envisaged that someone would be unaware that they committed an offence. This is a fairly standard provision in legislation of this kind. The national training fund will receive 0.7% of an employer's PRSI. The authorities would send several reminders to the employer in relation to the payment of that money.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
I am grateful to the Minister for indulging Senator Coghlan and me but they were important matters.
I am anxious to know if the Minister intends to refocus and rebalance traditional departmental policies. She referred earlier to the ageism issue. I am thinking about people who are medium to long-term unemployed. Many of them are in my part of the country and in the more economically disadvantaged areas of the Border counties and the west, which to me stretches from Donegal to Kerry. There are other pockets of unemployment as well. There are, however, difficulties peculiar to the topography of that part of the country.
I do not want to make a Second Stage speech but I cited the best example of this yesterday. The Minister's officials will be aware of the series of articles published in The Irish Times that I referred to about the unemployed. A reference was made to a gentleman in County Cavan who had 45 job interviews. He sold his farm six years ago and he genuinely wants to work. The report was a sad reflection on us.
I am reluctant to interrupt the Senator but these matters do not arise under section 11. As the Senator said, they are more appropriate to Second Stage. Section 11 deals with the short title and commencement of the Bill. I will, however, allow him ask the Minister a brief question. I am sure she will be pleased to respond.
I am grateful to you, a Chathaoirligh, for your indulgence. This is my only opportunity to raise this matter and I do not want to delay the House.
Will the Minister assure the House that when the Bill is enacted there will be a refocusing on and targeting of those who genuinely want to work but cannot, for reasons that are not most obvious in an urban environment such as lack of transport, lack of access to regional growth centres and lack of upskilling?
Yes, only yesterday I met FÁS representatives. Only one individual in the north west took up an apprenticeship as a plasterer, which is incredible. The region includes Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim and other counties. The bulk of apprentices are in their late teens or early twent ies but many people could upskill themselves and increase their earning capacity as they get older. They would be quite suitable for apprenticeship and other forms of training. That is the intention.
There is a small group of long-term unemployed people. The number has reduced to almost 25,000. We must concentrate on reducing that number further. The challenge is to equip such people with the skills necessary to access a job in the labour market. I assure the Senator that is one of the intentions behind the new strategies we are implementing.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Minister for coming into the House for the two days of the debate. I acknowledge her usual lucidity and clarity in responding to the prepared questions we put to her. It was valuable to explore specific aspects of the legislation to find out her thinking because of the legislation's importance in the context of our continuing economic growth. I wish the Bill well but I hope the Minister in rebalancing and refocusing will look again at CE schemes and the valuable contribution they make in rural areas such as those in Leitrim, County Kerry and in Galway where the Minister comes from. There are two Irelands, urban Ireland and rural Ireland. There are difficulties in rural Ireland that the termination of these schemes will not address. I hope there will be flexibility in this area. I look forward to the Minister returning to the House at a future date.
I heartily agree, as I did yesterday, with Senator Mooney's comments in regard to CE schemes. One is reluctant to say there are two Irelands because it is such a small landmass but there is an Ireland beyond the Pale. The Minister will bear that in mind. I thank her for her usual courtesy, kindness and graciousness. I wish her and all in the Department a happy Christmas.
I appreciate the Minister's handling of the legislation, particularly her recognition that the legislation in place was outdated. We had not realised how quickly the nation had moved in the past few years. The previous legislation was enacted in 1967. The Bill was well thought out and the nation as a whole and not just employers will be grateful. I congratulate the Minister on its passing.
I thank Senators for the speed with which they dealt this important legislation. I wish you, a Chathaoirligh, the Members and staff a very happy Christmas. I assure Members that they will not have to consult their constituents for electoral purposes in 2001. They can bear that in mind as they take off for Christmas.
I thank my officials whose outstanding work has brought the Bill to this point. I very much appreciate the effort, professionalism and expertise they brought to bear in producing this legislation. It is good legislation that will serve the needs of our economy well as we move forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 11.55 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon.