James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Deputy for her engagement on the Bill, including on Committee Stage. I understand the intent or rationale behind the amendment. However, I do not propose to accept it and I will give the reasons. There are two parts to the amendment. I will take each one separately. The first part of the amendment, which provides for "these payments to only relate to training and upskilling and not for any other purpose", is surplus to requirements. I sought legal advice on the drafting of the Bill. We considered carefully what was required to be put into the legislation. The strong advice was that overcomplicating it with unnecessary restrictions could do more harm than good and could have unintended consequences. We could tie ourselves up in knots with different restrictions. The Bill is already clear on the purpose of the fund. That is called out in it. The Bill already provides that payments for "the acquisition of lands, premises, furniture or equipment" and "the upgrading, construction or reconstruction, including repair and maintenance, of premises" can only be made for the purposes specified already in section 7(1) of the National Training Fund Act 2000. Those purposes have not been changed. They are "to raise the skills of those in employment", "to provide training to those who wish to acquire skills for the purposes of taking up employment" and "to provide information in relation to existing, or likely future, requirements for skills in the economy". That provision has been in the Act for 25 years and it will stay in the Act. While I understand the Deputy's motivation, it is superfluous to put it in again. It might complicate the legislation and would certainly be difficult for anyone to follow and try to apply were it to be added. It is the case that the capital funding can only be used "to raise the skills of those in employment", "to provide training" to those seeking employment and "to provide information" about skills needs. It is my view, following advices, that the proposed amendment is not required.

The second part of the amendment, which provides for "these payments to only relate to the construction or reconstruction (not retrofitting) of a premises that is only used for training and educational purposes", could potentially have unintended consequences.

The Bill provides already that the capital funding can only be used "to raise the skills of those in employment", "to provide training" to those seeking employment and "to provide information" in relation to skills needs. If we were to provide that the payments may only relate to "construction or reconstruction" of "a premises that is only used for training and educational purposes", it could have the unintended consequence of preventing alternative uses of that building at a later stage. Such uses could be for community education, other community uses, as part of other educational facilities or for other community or societal needs. One of the things we are striving towards with the real estate within my Department and across government is to maximise utilisation of buildings. If we have a building that is used as a training centre from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and a local community group wants to use it from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m., we would be saying here that the door is closed and locked, and nobody else can go into it or ever use it at any future time. I am sure that is not the intended purpose of the amendment. We have to be careful that we do not unintentionally apply unwarranted and unnecessary restrictions, particularly at a time when we are trying to utilise the infrastructure we have to the maximum.

The proposal that the payments should not include payments for retrofitting is also restrictive. Capital funding from the NTF will be directed towards programmes with clear links to training and skills development. Where facilities under those programmes are being modernised or reconfigured to meet skills needs, some refurbishment and retrofitting work may still be required to ensure compliance with the necessary standards. The proposed amendment would prevent that necessary upgrading of the training and educational facilities. In my time as Minister, I have had the pleasure of visiting many of these facilities around the country from Killybegs to Kerry, across the midlands and in places like Merlin in Galway. I have seen many fine buildings. A few weeks ago I was in Killybegs, where an old historic building has been creatively and skilfully restored by the local ETB and is now being used to provide multiple blocks of apprenticeship and training in areas like woodwork, manufacturing, refrigeration and electrics. That is an example and there are many more all around the country. It would be unjust and unfair for us to say that an old building like this cannot be restored. The upshot of the amendment would be to condemn it, in effect. We should say to people that they can take these old buildings, put them back into use, refurbish them, retrofit them and get them back in action. This would allow us to deliver more training through these buildings, which are often well located. Given the strong potential we have in some of these buildings, why would we abandon them and go building on greenfield sites elsewhere? We have an opportunity to upgrade them for the purpose of upskilling and training. Everything that is done will be done in accordance with the original purpose of the Act, which we are not changing.

For that reason, I do not accept either part of this amendment. I understand where the Deputy is coming from. I accept her good intentions and I appreciate her solid engagement on this matter on Committee Stage and previously. For the reasons outlined, it would not be appropriate to accept these amendments.

See this speech in context