Mr. Phil Flaherty:

On the fees issue, the Chairman is right to identify that the review recommends a continuation of the arrangement whereby apprentices have continuity of income throughout the period of their apprenticeship. However, I am not sure I agree with the characterisation of the charging of a fee for a service as being, in essence, a reduction in wages. It might also be worth bearing in mind that the review raises the possibility of employers paying both on and off the job where this might be feasible. I suspect this might not be a one-size-fits-all solution, but the review went a little further than simply stating the existing arrangement should continue.

On the employer-led model, I note that the call for proposals is, in some ways, a move - at least in the initial stages - in the direction of testing proposals against demand forecasting. There is a very sophisticated set of employment forecasting resources in SOLAS which has a strategic labour market unit. The unit produces occupational forecasts on a regular basis which informs the work of the expert group on future skills needs. In considering proposals for new apprenticeships regard will be had to where the growth and the demand are likely to occur. It is very difficult. Dr. Rigney hit the nail on the head when he said it was a difficult issue in terms of existing apprenticeships. The beautiful thing about it is that it is super sensitive to the level of demand in the economy in so far as the route into apprenticeship is to find a job. When one has a job, the State guarantees that it will row in behind it in terms of education and training. However, this has led to some of the difficulties around peaks and troughs and apprentices being made redundant. Some possible solutions have been discussed, but it is difficult to say - this is recommended in the report - in the early stages of implementation that after the 100th electrician, we are going to say to the 101st, "Sorry, we will not train you." It is one thing when one is planning a new apprenticeship from the ground up, but it is very challenging in terms of the existing trades and needs to be examined. It raises all sorts of issue around equity. The throwaway example of the 101st electrician is, probably, not valid. One would have to do it by calling on employers to state how many apprentices they wanted. It would be a radical shift away from where we are in the existing trades. It runs in the opposite direction to some of the employer-led recommendations made in the report.

I may leave it to Mr. Rowan to say what is likely to come up in the short term. Mr. Donohoe might have a view also. There have been a number of approaches to the Department and SOLAS from interested groups at the early stages. Dr. Rigney referred to the demise of CERT and the groups have included people in the hospitality and tourism sectors and those at intermediate ICT skills levels. There are also our colleagues on the medical devices side. I attended a session they held in Athlone recently.

Also, some interest has come up in the engineering sector. In parts of the engineering sector that are not currently engaged, there is some apprenticeship as well. I am sure Mr. Donohue would be aware of various sectors that feed into the IBEC structures, but these are some of the sectors that have indicated an interest at this stage.