Mr. Phil O'Flaherty:

I thank the members of the committee for their contributions. They have provided us with plenty of food for thought. SOLAS might comment on the promotion agenda and the expos we have engaged in. A major event will occur in the spring of next year. Members may have heard of WorldSkills, which is akin to the skills olympics. The national version of that event, which will determine the participants at the WorldSkills event, is being brought together with a major expo in the RDS in March so as to anchor the work we have done on apprenticeships and promote excellence. There is more to be said about promotion, but I will leave it to Dr. Trant to provide more details.

The idea of using the European Social Fund, ESF, is interesting. Without being too technical in the short time available, the total amount of ESF funding is determined at the outset of the programming period at EU level and is set for the various member states. This essentially makes it part of overall budgetary planning. It is not that additional resources can be acquired from the EU for specific things. It must all come from the overall ESF budget. The question of what is included within our operational programmes is important, and further education and training is a major part of ESF supported opportunities. As Deputy Jan O'Sullivan said, there are opportunities for specific additional interventions through the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, EGF. I do not know if it is being deployed in the case of the Bord na Móna workers or for the decarbonisation agenda more generally or what impact it has on the economy, but I will certainly check with colleagues as to whether that is a part of it. People are aware of various major interventions facilitated by the EGF, and it is not always for one particular company. For example, it was used during the downturn in the construction industry on a broader basis, but I will check the position on that and come back to the committee with the information it requires.

The question of new building techniques and retrofitting was raised. The content of apprenticeship programmes is being changed at the moment. Members will be aware of the 27 craft apprenticeships. The curricula of those apprenticeships have been reviewed to look at new building techniques and regulations and how they impact on the various trades. A fairly significant part of those updated curricula involves ensuring that those different types of techniques are included. There are also a range of non-apprenticeship programmes which provide education and training in the areas of retrofitting. I do not have details of how much of the overall further education and training budget is going towards those programmes, but they exist and we can provide additional information on that. I am aware of the specific provision that is being put together in that area by the Waterford and Wexford Education and Training Board, WWETB. Hopefully that will provide an example for other parts of the country.

Perhaps this goes to Deputy Funchion's point about barbering earlier, but in terms of incentives, there are some things that in the common parlance are called apprenticeships but which are not necessarily statutory apprenticeships. The flow of State funding and resourcing for those sorts of programmes is not the same. We have people who are being called apprentice bar persons or apprentice barbers, but they are not State funded and they do not form part of the statutory programme. As Dr. Trant said, barbering and hairdressing are coming into the fold through a specific proposal and a programme is being developed, but where programmes are not on a statutory basis, not only do they not receive the same State supports, but the employees are not getting the same levels of protection available to apprentices under the statutory system. That may have something to do with the difficulty people have in engaging with some of those programmes.

On league tables, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan will be aware that this is a very contentious issue. League tables are not supplied by the Department but are collated by media organisations through information supplied by the CAO and other sources.

However, I am aware that SOLAS has made a conscious effort broadly in further education and training but also in the specific area of how apprenticeship features as a mark of success.

Going back to Dr. Jim Murray's point, there is a danger that high levels of conversion into apprenticeships, because of some public perceptions, are not necessarily seen as a positive development. While I do not agree with it, it all plays into the picture. We are looking at some positive discrimination. The review of pathways to apprenticeship discusses this point. There is a bursary for recruiting female apprentices in the craft sectors. We are looking to extend this into other sectors. We need to engage with some of our other Government colleagues in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to get agreement around that. We are looking to extend that into new areas as well as to people with disabilities.

On the 1967 legislation and the statutory framework for apprenticeship as a whole, we are gathering information from employers about their experiences of engaging with apprenticeship programmes. We will consider areas and specific issues which may need some attention from a statutory perspective. There is not a formal proposal at this stage to change the legislative framework and it is a complex area. Some may argue the system is bureaucratic. However, this offers protection to apprentices in terms of the quality of the education and training they receive. It is important that agenda is fully protected.

On industry and the increase in the national training fund, obviously there was a formal consultation process around that. Employers said they are in a time of uncertainty, such as Brexit and various other issues, and they do not need additional costs regarding employment. We have walked a journey with employers around this. There was a review of the national training fund which came up with 14 recommendations around greater employer say in the allocation of funding and what the priorities should be. An implementation plan for those was published alongside budget 2019. An advisory group will be set up involving employers as well. There is recognition that greater funding is coming from employers, and with that comes some obligations around influence.