Mr. Tony Donohoe:

The question of duration is important. Mr. Phil Flaherty made the point that this was a floor, not a target. This is a floor and we were very mindful of differentiating between apprenticeships, internships, traineeships and all the other work-based learning models. We also felt it should be tied to the learning outcomes. No disrespect to tilers, for example, but the current apprenticeship period for a tiler is four years, the same period applicable to people who are doing aircraft maintenance. Clearly, that is not an efficient use of time or resources.

Let me pick up on the point as to whether the enterprise-led model is a good one and whether there is innate conservatism. I do not believe there is because I cannot think of any other model that would work. Labour market forecasting is a relatively inexact science. We have very good forecasters in this State but one needs the intelligence that businesses bring. In the consultation informing the work of the review group, we asked our members what would get them to the table on apprenticeships because we have to sell the idea to them. Three points arose. First, and most important, was that there has to be a genuine demand. It does not matter how much the State is prepared to support apprenticeships if there is not a skills demand. Without this, employers will not get involved. Second, there has to be a genuine influence on the occupations and occupational standards, rather than the details of pedagogy and curriculum design. The latter are quite rightly the remit of the education and training providers. There should be at least some influence on the occupational standards, particularly. Third was the possibility of State support for the training and education elements. Those three boxes have to be ticked before a company will engage.

There are a number of sectors to be considered, and some have been suggested. I agree that there are great opportunities in hospitality, retail, advanced manufacturing, ICT, etc., but they will be realised only through the process we have suggested, which has the virtue of being flexible. If the demand does not exist and the proposals are not thought through properly, they will not receive support. That is the beauty of this model. It has to be underpinned by all the other agencies of the State in terms of quality assurance, qualifications, accreditation and matters pertaining to the State providers. I genuinely believe the proposal has potential.