Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

I thank the Labour Party for sharing its slot with me and welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. My party has constantly highlighted the need for training in the last two years as it became apparent the economy was contracting and job losses were on the rise. Even before the current economic crisis, we had pointed out that the construction industry in particular was heading for a crash and the State risked massive unemployment unless it started training workers in that sector in alternative industries. Unfortunately, none of these calls was heeded and we see the consequences now.

It is imperative in the next few months that we see jobs created. It is not enough to have a highly trained workforce if it has no means of employment. The 2009 budget failed spectacularly to produce a strategy for job creation in the time ahead. It was a book-balancing exercise for Fianna Fáil based on the contracting revenue brought about by job losses, but nowhere did it set out a plan for creating jobs to increase revenue. If anything, the budget included measures that have the potential seriously to curtail employment. The small to medium business sector which employs the majority of Irish people is going to the wall in the current economic crisis and instead of introducing measures to help, the budget undermined it.

The increase in VAT will have a serious impact on consumption in this State if it is passed onto the consumer. If it is not, and these businesses subsume the increase, it will have a serious impact on their ability to operate. Either way, an industry dependent on domestic consumption was targeted in this budget to raise finances and cover the fall-out from the Government's short-sighted economic policies. Ironically, one area of the budget where the Government gave money away — to the tune of €180 million — was stamp duty. However, the move is more a sop to developers trying to shift current properties than a plan to keep jobs in the construction sector.

I wish to deal with the jobs fall-out in this sector first because although many other areas, such as manufacturing and the SME sector, are feeling the squeeze, construction is where we are haemorrhaging jobs. As the Fianna Fáil-led Government came to power in 1997, employee numbers in the industry soared from fewer than 100,000 in 1994 to 260,000 in 2007. At its peak, construction accounted for almost one quarter of all economic activity. The growth of this unsustainable sector was pushed by Government policy of property tax reliefs and support for its developer friends. The indirect taxation that resulted for the Exchequer was an added bonus and acted as a deterrent to the Government in doing anything to rein in the sector.

As a result of its growth, thousands of young men headed on to sites and into apprenticeships. Many left school early and others left other industries like farming to the detriment of those sectors. It is estimated that a minimum of 30,000 construction workers have lost their jobs so far in 2008. This figure comes from CSO projections based on live register data and we do not have exact figures on how many construction workers have emigrated. In offering training to those leaving this sector or at risk of losing their jobs, it is imperative the State takes an intelligent approach. We should not be training for training sake — we must train these individuals in skills we need and which will be of real benefit.

This leads to my point about FÁS. Leaving aside the issue of financial irregularities in our largest training agency, something which of course must be dealt with in full, my main concern regarding FÁS is the type of training it is providing for those out of work. There does not seem to be any joined-up thinking or plan behind at least some of the courses offered by it. For example, two of the courses launched by FÁS in recent times, or in development, include domestic heat pump installation and floor covering installation, both potentially useless courses given the downturn in the related construction sector.

It is essential the State introduces a specific back-to-education scheme for construction sector workers under 25 years of age and without leaving certificates. The Taoiseach's Department estimated that under-25s represent over 50% of the total construction unemployment figure in 2007 and 2008, and a large majority do not have a leaving certificate.

It is also essential that training and upskilling courses for alternative industries to construction be provided. Where possible, workers should be retrained in areas they would be comfortable with and which we are also trying to expand, such as energy saving and renewable energy sectors.

As I mentioned previously, it is not just in construction where people are losing jobs and a raft of new training courses will be needed in the months ahead to sustain the significant numbers signing on. I call on the number of community employment schemes, in particular, to be increased, and for the schemes to be reviewed in terms of the training they provide and the merit they bring to society. It is also important that training courses are provided with a view to our underperforming indigenous export market. It is completely unacceptable that 90% of exports in the State are from the foreign direct investment sector, welcome and all as it is, with only 10% from the indigenous sector. It is grossly unacceptable but this should have been planned for many years ago in order to see fruits now. It is an indictment of Government policy over all those years that action was not taken on indigenous exports.

Five years ago, Ahead of the Curve identified problems with the sales skills of those working in the export sector. The report noted a scarcity of sales personnel with the right mix of industry background and technical knowledge, that Irish market graduates are perceived by the industry to lack practical business skills and that only 25% of sales personnel in Irish SMEs have formal qualifications in marketing sales. This skills deficit must be tackled soon.

It is important to mention the child care sector, which is very neglected by this Government. When workers lose their jobs, it is incumbent upon the State to ensure they can avail of training and upskilling opportunities. However, we must be aware that the difference in income between someone employed and someone in training is vast, and if that individual was previously dependent on our very overpriced and underresourced child care sector, a problem arises. These people cannot continue to keep their children in expensive facilities, so who minds their child when they are receiving training?

The equal opportunities child care scheme, while not nearly broad enough, traditionally stepped into this breach for people who were either unemployed and seeking work, in training, or in low income jobs. The decision of the Government to do away with the scheme and replace it with a less effective one further decreases the number of affordable child care places available. Given the lack of child care, which has acted as a handicap to our workforce even in times of near full employment, I suggest the Government concentrate on this sector for both training and job creation. I also ask the Government to reverse its decision on the equal opportunities child care scheme.

The need for training will grow in the coming months but I reiterate my initial point. As well as providing training and upskilling, the Government urgently needs to produce a plan that will create jobs. The public finances simply are not there to sustain significant numbers in training for any length of time. In order to turn around our economy, we must develop jobs very quickly to offer people an alternative when they become unemployed.

With regard to child care facilities, I appreciate there is much capital expenditure normally involved in the establishment of such projects. Perhaps some schools with enough available land could have child care facilities within them, thus encompassing an environment that will be comfortable for the child through its early education. That is one avenue of reducing capital costs and the cost of child care, which is very important.

See this speech in context