Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)

It would be churlish not to acknowledge that FÁS has had significant successes, but I am worried by the degree of rigidity involved in its operations. One may bring forward something that one feels is important, but it may get shot down, so there is a need for flexibility. I have met some excellent people in FÁS over the years, including in my own county of Westmeath where I have had a lot of contact with them. They are perceptive and diligent individuals who often have the genesis of a good idea. They are at the coalface interacting with people and therefore they may well develop such proposals. It should be possible to apply such an idea and put it into practice at regional level, so that it will not have to go through the full cycle of staff for consideration, which can be a merry-go-round. Sometimes we need quick and effective action. We need to strike while the iron is hot, so ideas should be allowed to germinate, grow and be put into action. I am sure the Minister of State would share that notion of flexibility concerning ideas, which may incur the same level of expenditure but would produce more cost benefits.

The Minister of State is from the west and will know that something which works in Mullingar may not work in Geesala. A different application of schemes is required to suit specific problems that arise in particular areas. My colleague, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, is aware that something that works in Gurranabraher may not work in Ballynacarrigy. My constituency contains a fair number of rural areas, while hers has a significant urban element. Something that works in rural Ireland may not have an application in urban areas. The Minister of State is also aware of that and while he is from a big town, his constituency is very large.

I am eager that we should not get the one-size-fits-all model in terms of this legislation. It is nonsense to say that if it does not work in Ballynacarrigy, it will not work anywhere. Various people have different skills demands and different levels of training are required to suit them. We in the Labour Party want to see FÁS being strictly fit for purpose, more concerned with its essential core work of upskilling people's competences and qualifications, providing specific and well-resourced training programmes, giving an opportunity for people who may have illnesses or disabilities to participate positively by developing their individual skills. We must get rid of the rigidity that often circumscribes participation in CE schemes. Where these can be shown to be of use from the perspective of rehabilitation, we must allow people to make their contribution so they feel they are part of the workforce.

There is nothing worse than seeing young lads who may have had drug problems being given a year on a scheme and then, because they are under 40 years of age, they must be let go. Effectively, that puts such people back on social welfare. Those people can feel ten feet tall by making a contribution to the local park or community centre. They feel they are part of society because such work rebuilds their confidence and gets them back on the employment ladder by making a contribution. When they partake in such schemes, however, their income may be capped at €20,000. What is the difference between social welfare and CE money? The Minister of State has to find it all at the table, so it would be better to put some social welfare money into CE schemes so people could make a contribution. That would get people working again.

I am more concerned with FÁS returning to its core duties and functions, rather than pursuing esoteric and far-fetched notions about courses, which NASA may have inspired in Florida or elsewhere. That day is gone. I did not know this was happening until I read about it and I was taken aback. FÁS had an annual budget of €1 billion at the time.

People are entitled to examine new areas of activity. I am not against that because one must be innovative and be creative. I represent a rural area and people want to participate in training schemes to gain skills, but it is no use giving people mock computers to work on. The expenditure should be put into value-for-money projects. Whatever income we have should be spent here at home, but in fairness to FÁS executives and board members, they may well have to travel abroad. Realism needs to be brought into the debate but at the same time the Minister cannot say officials are banned from travelling. They will not learn anything sitting in the same room. People ask me why I do not correspond by e-mail but I am a doubting Thomas and I want to put my hands on documents and information. It is important that officials have an opportunity to travel to examine novel and innovative attempts to deal with pressing issues in the unemployment and training fields and so on but they should only do so when it is absolutely essential and when some positive outcome can be achieved or important help secured.

I will illustrate how important are FÁS personnel. I was informed by Deputy Jan O'Sullivan about their important role in monitoring various schemes together with other agencies such as the VEC and the HSE. Each agency had a representative on the board of a scheme and the Deputy was also a member. She was extremely impressed and taken by the excellent level of reporting and oversight undertaken by the FÁS representative and this must be acknowledged. We cannot throw the baby out with the bath water because a few things went wrong. I understand the new director general, Mr. O'Toole, has commissioned in-depth audit reports to address all the issues raised but it is important that the organisation's role in schemes such as this remains uninhibited.

The provisions relating to conflicts of interest are positive. We must get rid of the perception if there is a conflict of interest that somebody knows somebody else - dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi - and people are getting something because of who they are rather than what expertise they bring to the table. We must get away from that mentality because we have been bedevilled with it and while it does not permeate everywhere, it only needs to permeate once to become the accepted wisdom. It is important in that context that conflicts of interest are made public. This had to be done on local authorities when I was a member. If one passed by a scheme in one's area, one had to bid goodbye and get out. It was proper order to get councillors the hell out of there because they had nothing to do with it and they should not have tried to influence anybody on the way out. One made a declaration, for example, regarding land ownership and nobody should have tried to influence anyone by looking through the keyhole or winking on the way out. I did not like that either.

I refer to activation measures and courses. I have a long-standing bugbear about the treatment of apprentices. I meet young people every day who did their training as plasterers, electricians, carpenters and so on and they are the best in the business. They do not have grand certificates and so on but I value them as much as any other tradesman. I will not belittle them and ask for their FÁS, City & Guilds or RECI certificate. I know apprentices who reached their final examination where they had to answer questions about mathematical formulas but they failed. I contacted the previous director general of FÁS about this and I hope Mr. O'Toole will take this up. I want these apprentices to be given another opportunity. They have been given the third run. They were told after four or five years as an apprentice they were no good and they were thrown on the scrapheap because they did not pass examinations even though they knew everything about electricity. It is time they were given another opportunity.

See this speech in context