Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Let us be positive starting off. We know the Bill is going to unlock the €1.5 billion announced in the budget for the tertiary education sector over the period mentioned, up to 2030. That is welcome and you have to commend the investment. I welcome that it is continually updating previous schemes. Ostensibly, it is trying to modernise the system. I have some criticisms which I will go into in a while but I want to focus on the positives too. It is also a positive that the money for this Bill will come from the PRSI contributions of employers. In general, employers recognise that this is providing skills that they will need. While they may gripe, it is welcome overall.

You cannot criticise a Bill that is trying to help to give people important skills for the future, be it in technology, AI, healthcare, environmental sustainability, biodiversity, or other aspects of the medical profession. This Bill will fund the education and training for it. I note that my predecessor, Deputy Connolly, mentioned the funding for research and PhDs, which is also welcome.

However, there are some criticisms of the Bill. Last year, ISME mentioned that some of the funding that was available was slow to be released and that there were training backlogs. It queried why employers would facilitate the PRSI payment if there are going to be backlogs, since it is not going to those areas that need it quickly enough. Last year, it said it would seek a suspension of the training levy for a minimum of five years to, it said, allow the NTF surplus to reduce in size. Will the Minister comment on that? If progress is being made compared with last year, that would be welcome.

The other issue that I noted was that there are queries about how the budget framework will be spent and used. There appears to be a lack of clarity. Maybe it will be announced in due course but we do not really know yet how it will be distributed across the sectors, the regions or the institutions. We do not know which institutions will receive the funding, how much will go to apprenticeships as opposed to higher education or youth projects, how much will go to the rural education establishments versus the world leaders in the cities, and how it will be phased in over the six years. We still do not have that pathway.

Another question which is always raised and has to be raised in this context too is the value for money for the investment. Sometimes it is hard to quantify, but at the same time, we have to see if it is value for money. Does it all align with the funding for the future framework? Another point raised was the lack of transparency about how employer contributions are invested and who decides what specific programmes get funded. Is it left up to independent institutions or is there a strategic element to it? What metrics are used to evaluate the success of the investment?

Others have spoken about the further education system. There is a fear that the focus on the higher education sector may be to the detriment of the further education sector even though the Bill includes both sectors. There is a valid argument in the changing work field that universities might be getting disproportionately funded. That would leave further education and apprenticeships underfunded. I and others have mentioned that we need to go down the vocational route to a much greater extent.

I want to refer to news reports that were mentioned today relating to the underfunding of dental schools. It is appropriate to mention it here. The Irish Dental Association is calling for a better annual budget to increase the number of dental graduates. At the moment, it is holding out on recruiting more non-EEA students, but they are the ones who pay the higher fees and contribute to the funding of the dental sector. We heard how many children are not getting their regular school dental check-ups anymore, particularly in some areas, so we need to invest in homegrown dentists. The Irish Dental Association proposed capping the non-EEA student intake at 20%, which would obviously mean a pro rata increase in the funding of the sector. It mentioned the lack of new training facilities. We know a new dental school in UCC was shelved, which requires a €55 million investment. We need more overall investment and we need to try to retain graduates who might otherwise leave the country. We have had this in areas like nursing and with doctors. Dentists are also tempted to leave for brighter fields abroad.

An area that is close to my heart ever since I got to visit Australia some years back and look at its education system overall is the emphasis on vocational training. The Australian technical and further education, TAFE, system is different from the Irish one. It is much broader. It has stronger industry links and more targeted employment outcomes. That is not dissing the Irish system but it seems to be something we need to look at more as we look at improving our apprenticeship system.

Within the EU, the German apprenticeship system is often considered to be the leader in the field. It has a track record of centuries. That is due to a number of things, including a wider range of options, a deeply integrated dual system of school and workplace training, and a much larger number of recognised apprenticeships, with over 300, compared with Ireland, which has ten times less. Obviously it is a much bigger country and you get more choice when you have the population, but we need to expand the types of apprenticeship that we have in this country. I will look at that in a while. Germany seems to provide a better transition to employment that is aligned with industry needs. Historically, this was a key factor in Germany's economic success. Maybe it needs to look at re-energising it now, but certainly it still seems the best in class, because it has theoretical learning at a vocational school and practical hands-on training in a company. It is very industry-aligned. I know we are heading that way in Ireland, but we do not have the same connections. The curriculum is matched with specific industry needs. It is akin to the difference between the leaving certificate and the UK system of A levels, with a smaller number of subjects and a greater focus.

There is a need to respond to changes in the labour market.

I mentioned that there are over 300 recognised apprenticeships in Germany, which covers a much larger array of trades and industries. It has buy-in from all the social partners, the trade unions and the employer organisations but they also have a great input into the content and quality of the training. Germany is seen as a benchmark. It is within the EU and is a partner country and while I mentioned TAFE is something we should be looking at as an English-speaking country, Germany is also the benchmark. That is something I recommend we look at more and maybe through the committees we could focus more on the vocational training rather than on other forms. Administration is an area covered by Germany's apprenticeships as well as hospitality, as is childcare. The German system is more expansive than the Irish one and apprenticeships are a foundational part of its education system.

What could we do in Ireland with apprenticeships? This may be a basic point, but the significant call that has been made over recent years has been for apprenticeships to be paid better, at least at a national living wage, because some of the current low pay is driving the dropout rate of more than 20%. I mentioned Germany, which has much broader sectoral range. We need to expand that. There are proposals in Ireland to expand apprenticeships beyond traditional trades. Childcare was mentioned earlier, and green energy is another one. Administration was mentioned in the context of Germany. We should further expand the hospitality sector and look at new areas. I am not just talking about Germany and Australia. There are other areas covered in other countries where we could definitely create new opportunities for Irish people.

I know we are at the level of full employment in some sectors but the problem is that key sectors do not have enough employees. If we import them, and a great contribution is made by those coming into the country, it puts pressure on housing. I previously mentioned software, for example, where there was localisation but the software companies wanted to locate in Dublin, which puts pressure on a very competitive area rather than it being spread around the country. Meanwhile, although we have great nurses coming in from abroad into our healthcare sector, Irish nurses are going to Australia and spending two years there, and some of them come back but many do not. We need to invest in those types of sectors, as well as the dental sector, which I mentioned earlier.

Another area is the need for more flexible, off-the-job training. The current system may require apprentices, depending on the types of apprenticeships and location, to go for weeks of off-the-job training far away, which is quite impractical for people who do not have a car, given the state of our public transport system. It is fine if you live in an urban area and are going to another urban area on a main route, but we need to look at how we can localise the training options to reduce the costs for apprentices and the related stress that creates for them and their families. That is something we should look at.

The overall package is welcome but we need to specify and show an increase in Government funding for apprenticeships so that we can support this sector and be ultra-competitive in the changing work environment.

See this speech in context