Mr. Brian Nolan:

There was quite a lot in that. If I miss anything, please come back to me.

We have heard that figure of 80,000 construction workers a lot. I am not sure whether it is high or low. There is no doubt that we do need a large number. There is a problem that we have had historically. We had this conversation 20 years ago. We will probably have it in another 20 years if we do not do something about it. During recessionary times, there is no emphasis on continuing apprenticeships. Really, that is when we should have the apprenticeships. If we were to pluck 80,000 workers from anywhere in the world and expect them to build houses for us tomorrow, relying on the apprenticeship system, it would take at least four years to do it. That may not suit the Government in the context of its term of office, but if people are serious about addressing the need for any of the 80,000 workers, they need to plan for recessionary times and continue the numbers going through training. In the main, the unions would be very supportive of that. Somebody needs to grasp the nettle and make that happen.

On the standards within apprenticeships, its not a matter of good apprenticeships and bad apprenticeships; they are different. Some of the consortium-led apprenticeships are excellent, and they work. Some of the accountancy ones have been fabulous and really well supported by industry. They kind of replicate by default what we have had in the craft system, albeit for a different type of work. To give an example, the most recent figures that came out from the NAO suggest that there are just over 29,000 apprentices in the system. Of those, 24,585 are craft and 4,694 are consortium led. That is across 77 programmes. Across 25 apprenticeships we have nearly 25,000 apprentices and for the remaining 52 apprenticeships we have 4,694 apprentices. That is an average of 90 apprentices per apprenticeship. That is not sustainable for those apprenticeships. The concern we consistently raise is, given we have a tried and tested model, why would we break that link and move towards one that fails? We referenced the UK and the dropout rate of over 40% there. Many moons ago, under Margaret Thatcher's Government the UK moved from a system like we had, to the system that is being proposed here. In our opinion, that is what decimated apprenticeships in the UK. They have now recognised that and are moving to the system we are talking about moving away from. We ask the decision-makers to consider that.

There is a lot of good in the apprenticeship system. We are not saying that everything is wrong; there could not be with 25,000 people in the system. We are building houses. We are building data centres, although they may be controversial. We have always had the ability to create what are recognised as the most highly skilled workers, which has helped the country during the best times and the worst times, in the sense that young people will travel. They can travel anywhere in the world with a craft qualification. They are sought after in Australia, America and all across Europe. The apprentices are that sought after now that they make up a huge cohort - it is thousands - of craft workers currently building infrastructure, data centres, pharmaceutical factories and hospitals across the Nordic countries and Europe. Irish contractors are the cream of contractors across Europe because of the standing of our apprenticeships.

There are things directly affecting the apprentices that really need to be focused on. The national minimum wage is one. Apprenticeships started over 100 years ago, and we have all the old indentures in our office which show that parents used to pay for people to become apprentices. They used to pay the master craftsperson to teach their child a trade. We have moved on from that. We now have young men and women in their 20s, 30s and 40s who want to do apprenticeships. They may have dependants. They are valued members of society. They may not want a third level education. They may not want to go through college. It may not be for them and they may have chosen the path of apprenticeship. We need to support them. Where we let them down is that we treat them like students in the first instance, as opposed to workers who go to work on day one and pay tax and PRSI and UFC, even on low rates of pay. Since 2014 we have had the apprentice-student charge. We have been quite vocal about seeking its abolition. There is no problem paying examination fees, but individuals are paying and contributing to society and their employers are paying en masse through the National Training Fund.

There was a lot in that. If there are any parts I missed, I will be happy to provide answers in respect of them.