Mr. Tony Donohoe:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it on a very important issue for the business sector. I look after education and social policy in IBEC. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Dermot Doherty, who is from the Irish Medical Devices Association, one of the sectoral groups that has established a track record of working with education and training providers and has an interest in this area. IBEC's submission to the apprenticeship review group has been circulated to the committee and I will be pleased to address any issues arising from it that members wish to raise.

My comments, however, mainly concern the report of the review group itself and, more particularly, the Department’s implementation plan referred to by Mr. O'Flaherty. As committee members are aware, the current apprenticeship system, which is limited to 26 occupations, does not reflect the broader skill needs of the Irish economy. A fixed legislative structure makes it difficult for the system to adapt to economic and technological developments. A fixed duration of four years in all cases but one, and a fixed award, regardless of the learning outcome also creates inefficiencies. Female participation is negligible.

The starting point for any consideration of new apprenticeship models usually includes a reference to the well-established dual systems of countries such as Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Much of the commentary, however, tends to ignore the fact that Ireland cannot simply adopt systems that have been built over generations, upon very different economies, labour markets and social partnership arrangements. We also have to acknowledge the reality that apprenticeships, and vocational education in general, tend not to enjoy parity of esteem in a society that defines educational achievement in terms of Central Applications Office, CAO, points.

This is not to say that we do not have much to learn from other national systems. In fact the apprenticeship review group report has tried to distil some of the principles on which they are based to inform a model that could work in an Irish context. They include the following: employers and professional bodies are best placed to determine the content, outcome and demand for apprenticeships; expertise provided by education and training providers must also be at the heart of their design and delivery; apprenticeships must be able to respond flexibly to changing technology and market needs; apprenticeship development must be based on transferable skills including literacy and numeracy; different packages of work and learning, with distinct structures, curricula and pedagogy, may provide equally valid routes to enabling an apprentice to become competent in a job; distribution of the cost of training should be shared by all three parties, employers, apprentices, through the acceptance of a lower wage, and Government; apprenticeships should be available at all skill levels from school leaving, level 5 to advanced degree level 10, for countries such as Denmark have industrial PhDs; and governance or training delivery should not be predominantly within the domains either of further education and training or higher education, they should cross both levels which is very important in the context of the parity of esteem we seek for apprenticeships and the system should be underpinned by a robust and independent quality assurance regime.

The review group’s report certainly reflects these principles but the biggest challenge is moving from strategy to implementation. The Department’s implementation plan, which was published two weeks ago, can help us meet this challenge. IBEC supports its recommendation for the establishment of a new enterprise-led apprenticeship council. This council will issue a call for proposals from industry bodies working with education providers for the development of new apprenticeships. The proposers will have to set out the programme’s format, the main occupation needs to be addressed and how it meets a range of other criteria. Mr. O'Flaherty has described the sustainability test. The implementation plan comments that the capacity of relevant organisations to assume this role will have to be tested. I am optimistic about this. There are already numerous examples of businesses working with the higher education sector in particular to source their training. There are fewer examples in the further education sector but the recent further education and training strategy has named that and seeks to address it.

Some employers also provide input on curriculum development and work experience for students. This trend has been given further impetus through the more advanced Skillnets networks, Momentum, the Springboard programme and the ICT conversion programmes which are designed and delivered in partnership with industry.

I accept that the establishment of a new model requires a huge level of highly detailed work and the plan has set out a realistic timeframe. We should remember, however, that we will not see these new apprenticeships coming on stream until the first half of 2016. Thankfully, as the economic recovery takes hold, many companies are beginning to consider how they will meet their future skills requirements. It would be a pity to miss this opportunity. If the plan is to deliver, timelines must be adhered to and momentum maintained. The development of the new apprenticeships must also be properly resourced. As we move into the 2015 budgetary process, it is important that dedicated funding is allocated to promote the development and establishment of these apprenticeships in new occupational areas. This should be viewed as a critical investment in our human capital, which will underpin our future economic prosperity.

In conclusion, I thank members of the joint committee for the opportunity to present IBEC’s views on this important initiative and urge them to provide every support possible to ensure its successful implementation.