Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)

I very much welcome the presence of the National Training Fund. It is important. In the aftermath of the Cassells review in 2016, the identification of the need for an extra billion euro per annum in funding for higher education by 2030 is laudable and something we should strive for.

I will be honest with the Minister of State. I am a little bit disappointed by the Bill. It is clearly short. I expected there to be a greater exploration of the manner in which we can expand the remit of the national training fund, what could be done in that area and how it could be expanded so that it covers other areas. What we got was a Bill that does one thing, namely expands the National Training Fund to allow it to include real estate and other capital investment.

I am not opposed to the notion of capital investment but we should bear in mind that the original section in the 2000 Act sets out very clearly that there is a relatively limited scope for the fund, namely to raise the skills of those in employment, provide training for those who wish to acquire skills for the purpose of taking up employment and provide information in relation to existing or likely future requirements for schools in the economy. That is set out in section 7(2)(a) to (c), inclusive.

The Bill will add to that a new paragraph 2(b) which, in essence, states that, whatever we say elsewhere, in this section for the purposes of expending the fund, we can also include the acquisition of lands, premises, furniture or equipment or the upgrading, construction or reconstruction, including repair and maintenance, of premises. I do not have a problem with the expansion of the remit of the fund and what can be used for. In the context of capital expenditure, it is definitely good that there would be an opportunity to purchase equipment and the construction of certain premises to deal with things.

The real concern I have with this short Bill is that it massively widens the scope of the fund without putting any strictures or controls on that. I have listened to the Minister of State. I understand there is an undertaking in that regard and it will not be used to buy lots of buildings and things like that, and it should not be. I accept the bona fides of the Minister and Government in that regard. I would have appreciated a recommitment to that but the reality is that the Government will not be in place and the Minister will not be in the job forever. We do not know whether future Ministers might use the provisions of the new section 7(2)(b) to expand and use the fund for the acquisition of buildings, premises and things like that which go well beyond what was originally envisaged in 2000, the amendment in 2013 by the Further Education and Training Act or, indeed, the results of the Cassells review in 2016.

What assurances can we have that this is not going to be misused? I do not mean that in any nefarious away or to cast aspersions on anyone. What assurances do we have that the fund will not now become a fund for acquiring buildings, for example? That is not what it was ever intended for, and is not what section 7 of the 2000 Act or any of the subsequent amendments envisaged. I am slightly concerned, to be perfectly honest, that the new paragraph 2(b) will give a much wider unrestricted, unfettered and uncontrolled use for the fund beyond what it was envisaged to be used for. The Government needs to provide assurances to the House in that regard and tell us why that is not going to happen or why it cannot happen.

It is also brought forward in isolation, without, as I said, an exploration of what other aspects could have been used to expand the remit of the fund. What are the other areas where, for example, needs that have been identified could be satisfied by the fund? That examination is absent from the Bill. The real danger is that the fund ends up being used as a short-term funding bridge when adequate funding is not available for further education.

I recognise entirely that is not the intention of this Bill. I recognise that the Minister and Minister of State responsible in the Department, both of whom have been present for this debate, do not intend to do that and that is not what they are trying to do. My concern is that the Bill does not tell us that and we, as a Legislature, are handing over to the executive the power to use a fund that we have provided for in the law for 25 years now and providing a way for it - essentially placing it into its hands and its trust - to spend that on things so far beyond what it was originally envisaged it would be used for. That has to be a cause for concern.

I will say one thing about the acquisition of real estate. The Minister, Deputy Lawless, was good enough to come out to the community training centre in Dún Laoghaire a number of weeks ago, and he met me and his party colleague there. There is capital investment required there. Perhaps we could be given an undertaking that if this legislation passes into law, some of the money from the NTF would be usable to help to repair, for example, really important premises for providing services for local people in Dún Laoghaire and the wider south Dublin area, if that is what is intended. I am not talking about the acquisition of buildings that are already owned. I am talking about buildings where the roofs have fallen in, for example, because of a lack of maintenance over time or where equipment has been damaged or where there are problems with dampness. There is, in fact, a problem with the removal of a Portakabin from the site that can no longer be used because the roof has fallen in. Is that what is envisaged? Is that the kind of thing that could be covered by this legislation? It is not entirely clear to me, and I would be grateful for or some explanation or some future assurances in relation to how this legislation will operate, if and when it passes.

This is one of the difficulties, and I am afraid I say this quite regularly about legislation, particularly legislation that comes through this House. When we look at the legislation we are being asked to pass, even though it only has two sections and is a one-page Bill, in essence, we see that it proposes to insert a new paragraph (2)(b) into section 7 of the 2000 Act. I do not have a problem with that per se, but why not take section 7, which in and of itself is not a long section - it has only been amended once in 2013 - and repeal it and restate it in the Bill? The reality is that anybody coming to read this Bill or this Act when it becomes law has to refer to another piece of legislation to have any understanding of what it is doing. In this House, we have developed a practice over the last number of years - over generations, even - of passing Bills that cannot be read in isolation. Amending Bills simply tell us that we are inserting a new subparagraph or paragraph into a section, and the person reading the Act has no idea what it does without going to find the National Training Fund Act 2000, for example, and finding out exactly what it does. We do not need to do that. It would have been really easy to repeal section 7 and restate it. The original section 7 even as amended only runs to five subsections. It is not a long section either. It would be really easy to simply repeal it and restate it in this Bill, which would make this legislation much more readable and accessible to ordinary citizens than what is being done here. Time and again within this Legislature, we miss the opportunity to do that. We expect people to go and pick up multiple pieces of legislation to find out what the law actually says. I say that as a lawyer who reads legislation all the time. It is painful for me to have to do it. I do it regularly, and I understand how to do it. For ordinary citizens, we are just distancing them further from what the law actually says, and making it more difficult for them to have access to what the law actually says or interpret what the legislation is supposed to do. As I said, it is a missed opportunity.

What I really want to say in the context of this Second Stage debate is that while I acknowledge the bona fides of the Government and the Ministers responsible for this legislation, and I acknowledge that they are trying to broaden the scope of the NTF so that it can be used for the things it needs to be used for - I do not have an objection to any of that - I have a concern with the way it is being done. I have a concern that we cannot guarantee that in the future it will not be misused by another Minister in the Department of higher and further education. I have a concern that there is no guarantee in this legislation. I am not sure what consultation has been carried out with the stakeholders who will be affected by this. What do they have to say about that? Do they share those concerns? Are they happy that the guarantees are there to ensure the NTF will not be - I am slow to use the word "misused" because I do not think anybody intends to do that - used in an entirely different way from how it was envisaged 25 years ago when it was first put in place and how it has been expanded since then? What have those stakeholders got to say about this legislation? Are they in favour of this extension or expansion of the powers and the purposes for which the NTF can be spent? Do they have any concerns about it? What consultations have taken place with those stakeholders? Can the Minister inform us on that before we vote on Second Stage, if that is what it comes to, in relation to this legislation?

As I said, the national training fund is a hugely important instrument. It benefits all the people on this island. Perhaps more importantly, as a macro instrument, it is of enormous benefit to our economy. The investment in the national training fund is investment in our people, our human resources and our economy. I absolutely welcome it. I do not want to frustrate the Bill, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could address some of the points I raised.

See this speech in context