Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

John Connolly (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome today's debate. It is a significant day for third level education in the State. It indicates the commitment of this Government and that of the Minister to the development of the sector and, as he has rightly said time and again, the crucial nature it has in terms of the provision of skills. As the Minister, Deputy Lawless, has always said, this portfolio has an economic impact, and today we are seeing that it has a direct economic impact as well as a long-term economic impact. Today, we will indicate that over the coming years, there will be a €600 million capital investment in our third level sector; that is very significant. We have seen some of the projects that are included, particularly in terms of new healthcare and increasing veterinary education capacity and bringing new institutions and disciplines to locations and areas where there would not have been a tradition of providing a third level education previously. Of course, I particularly welcome the new development of the veterinary school in County Galway. I can see that being something that will develop further into the future and, indeed, give young people there an increased opportunity to develop a particular skill and trade that is associated with rural communities. I very much welcome the direct economic impact this will have in terms of where the €600 million will be spent, the employment that will create and the development of skills in those new campuses, which will see future employment brought to the regions.

I would be hopeful that some of that €600 million investment will be for the new college of further education in Galway that the Galway and Roscommon Education and Training Board, GRETB, is to develop. It is an exciting project. We are watching it going through the stages of development through the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation guidelines. I ask that today's announcement of €600 million will mean that those projects will move quicker. Some of these educational projects will hopefully benefit from the new accelerating infrastructure task force and that new structure, and the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation. As I said already and as the Minister rightly said, these have an economic impact. The should be looking at them and trying to move them on as quickly as possible. That new campus in Galway city could be revolutionary for third level education in the city. We are lucky in Galway in that we have two other third level institutions, the University of Galway and Atlantic Technological University, ATU. However, the college of further education and the plans GRETB has for that campus will be a further option and will really complement the other two third level institutions we have in the city at the moment. It is important to note that GRETB does have other similar colleges in regional towns across counties Galway and Roscommon. As a headquarters and a location for new learning, however, this will be very significant.

I also want to compliment Minister's commitment to research and development and, again, we see it here. Part of this funding will go specifically towards that. As a primary school teacher, we always used to say that we have to teach the children for skills that are not yet known and industries that have not yet been developed. Of course, the third level sector is at the cutting face of developing those new industries and giving young people the skills to work in those industries. Research is so important to that. I know the Minister is fully aware of that. I also recognise his work in the budget in increasing the tax credit available to companies in terms of research. It is a very progressive development, and it should be complimented. We see here further funding for research and PhDs. One of the important issues we are hearing from some third level institutions is that they are coming under pressure to try to make sure they strike a suitable balance between the numbers in each class and the opportunity they want to provide for more people to attend. Hopefully, the funding and ongoing current investment the Minister will provide here will help to make sure the universities can continue to offer as broad and wide a spectrum of choice as possible to people in their communities, while at the same time making sure it is manageable for those who work there to administer and manage those courses well.

The great thing about the NTF is the array and vast breadth of educational pathways that it provides, including third level institutions, Springboard, Springboard+, Skillnet, SOLAS and other lifelong learning initiatives. That shows that this portfolio, higher and further education, has and wants to make sure that everybody has a position or a pathway to further their personal development and professional development, and increase the skill net of the community and society in general. This additional investment will go some way towards that.

One thing that I think has been significant is how this is funded. It is social partnership. It is funded by the employers of the country and is an investment in the future of their businesses and their industry. We will see this being fulfilled through the change in legislation today that allows for the increased areas to spend this money. As we all know, a well-resourced further and higher education and training sector is essential not only to develop talent for our economy but also to support local communities, and employers benefit from better local communities. I think we will see more people coming to the third level institutions in the areas where we see increased investment, which will only make our towns and cities better places in the future.

I think I was down for ten minutes, a Cheann Comhairle.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is okay, Deputy.

John Connolly (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I think I have said it all. I compliment the Minister and Minister of State and look forward to seeing the implementation of this over the coming years.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Shane Moynihan (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCeann Comhairle as ucht an deis labhairt ar an mBille seo. Bille tábhachtach atá ann a léiríonn cur chuige nuálaíoch i leith na hearnálacha breisoideachais agus ardoideachais.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for bringing this Bill to the Dáil. Fundamental to my reading and understanding of it, after a decade of working in skills research, is that it is essential we now view this form of tertiary education as an integration of further and higher education. The idea of them being two separate streams has to go because that is the only way we will be set up for success in dealing with what is not only a rapidly changing world of work but also a rapidly changing society. We want to ensure all levels of our education system create well-rounded, well-adjusted and equipped-for-life citizens by the end of their formal education.

When I opened the Adamstown Community College careers fair a week ago, I was struck that it was not just universities advertising but also further education colleges and representatives from industry asking people to go into direct employment after secondary school. Óglaigh na hÉireann and An Garda Síochána were represented there as well. It struck me that this is exactly the correct approach being propagated in our secondary schools to ensure that skills, training and further and higher education are all seen as the same approach, namely, tertiary education, as is the model in New Zealand, for example. It has one commission that applies for funding across all tertiary levels of education. That is one approach we need to take in looking at this.

Fundamental to that, as Deputy Gogarty alluded to, is ensuring that when we employ an instrument like the National Training Fund, which is one of those policy instruments that has been shown to stand the test of time in terms of foresight and in equipping our country and economy to plan for the skills of the future, it is not either-or. They should be seen as ultimately driving towards the same goal of creating a strong, skilled and attractive workforce, but also citizens who are fully able to participate in society. Key to that, as the Minister said, is the ability to fund capital provision to enable a quick turnaround and training of skills.

Examples of this are the national construction training centre in Offaly or the national retrofit training centre. They are places where there is a rapid evolution happening in the sorts of skills and training necessary for workers in those areas to upskill and to be at the cutting edge of research and of the work they need to do in those sectors to ensure they are able to adapt and bring the highest level of output to the work they do. That is fundamental. That principle of agility is fundamental to the capital investment the NTF will ensure. If we cast our minds back to maybe three years ago, 3D printers were not a thing we would have expected to see in our training institutions and universities. I like to think the new-age equivalent or the next evolution of 3D printers or associated equipment will be fundamental to the capital provision made in our tertiary education system. In that respect, I welcome the Bill.

The second reason I welcome the Bill relates to the agility it now engenders in the Department to allow for a rapid turnaround of courses, certifications and qualifications to respond to demand in the economy and into broader society as well. A particular focus here is on people with additional needs and people with disabilities. We know from the data we are seeing that there is an increasing demand for primary places in special education. It is only right and prudent that we plan effectively now for when those people decide they are finished with secondary education and want to enter the workforce and fully participate in society, and that we make provision in our training centres, our universities and our further education colleges across all aspects of tertiary education. We should put in place the facilities to ensure those people are able to participate fully in that tertiary education and that they are equipped to be full members of society and participate in the workforce.

One of the great things I love about having a Department now that is solely focused on skills and research is that it shows the importance of this to an economy and to a world of work where the only constant now is change. Everything is changing rapidly. The jobs my children will be doing are jobs that have not been invented yet. As Deputy Connolly alluded to earlier, that needs to be our guiding principle, that we put in place the foundational skills that allow people to adapt quickly to new jobs and to ensure we are allowing for that agile upskilling.

That link with employers is key to the founding principle of the National Training Fund. Deputy Gogarty alluded to the fact there is a levy on employers. It is important their views be reflected in what outcomes, qualifications and certifications are ultimately driven by the National Training Fund. Research shows us that when we look at lifelong learning, the most effective learning is that which is sponsored and led by employers, in response to demand and in response to a skills need. We know on-the-job learning is often one of the most effective ways to learn a new skill. That is why it is important we do not lose sight of that in terms of the courses that are funded. There are very strong offerings by organisations like Skillnet. That is exactly the sort of approach we should be encouraging as a role for employers in ensuring they have that link and sense of ownership and that they see the NTF as a direct response to their needs in the economy and to the skills that are needed as well.

On top of that, the European Commission has, to its credit, heightened the focus on the need for lifelong learning. Ireland has been playing catch-up in this regard for the last 20 or 30 years but I think we are in a much better place than we were a couple of decades ago. Lifelong learning is not just about the economic participation of people in the economy; it is also about social and political participation. In considering the offerings we are making in our further and higher education institutions and our training institutions, we should be thinking about how exactly we can achieve the necessary improved social and political outcomes for those people to make sure that they have that full set of participation.

When we think of the integrative approach to further and higher education, we think of the role our universities should play in sponsoring apprenticeships. That would have been unthinkable in this country 20 or 30 years ago. I think it is somewhere where we need to go. If funding of certain courses and certain capital facilities allows us to enable that in our higher education institutions, we should seriously consider it. Time and again, people tell us that the skills they are looking for most now from graduates, in particular, are problem-solving skills, the ability to work as part of a team and the ability to critically think. Sometimes, these are best learned in the workplace or in working with other people. We need to encourage our universities to do that. They are already beacons of research in the world. We have some of the best universities globally in this country. Let us make them even better and equip them even stronger. Those skills are not just necessary for economic participation; they are core to social and political participation as well. The advent of AI will have an effect on the nature of the jobs people do, and those human and cognitive skills are ever more important.

A focus on skills should be part of a whole-of-government approach. The digital revolution is happening in front of us. The green revolution will not be successful, in my view, unless we successfully upskill the entire workforce with green skills. Skills are the building blocks on which we have achieved every sort of transformation in this country. The approach being taken by the National Training Fund to allow our skills system to become more agile, not just in the courses it funds but also the capital investment that enables an ever-more agile skill system, is very welcome. I welcome the fact the Minister has put the need for a focus on transformation in our skills at the centre of government, because it needs to be a whole-of-government approach. I look forward to the progression of this Bill through the House.

Gillian Toole (Meath East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome and support this amendment to section 7 of the National Training Fund Act. I am extremely interested in and grateful for the discussion that we have had. This process in itself is a learning process for me. It will not be any surprise to either the Minister or the Minister of State that I want to focus my attention on Louth and Meath Education and Training Board, ETB, and Dunboyne College of Further Education and its hopeful transition to soon becoming a college of the future. I think the college will meet the criteria outlined in the amendment to the Act. Its vision is to meet the further education and training needs of the community of learners and employers it serves in five counties, including the Minister's county, Kildare. It is serving a population of approximately 454,000 people and a large employment base across the five counties. The college has expanded from its genesis in 2003, with 80 pupils and five courses, to a current enrolment of 1,400 pupils, 93 staff and over 70 courses in key areas we have identified, namely, healthcare, social care, education, childcare and science, with an array of pre-university courses for students to transfer on to Maynooth University, to the echnological university, to DCU and further afield, including Trinity most recently. Next week, Maynooth University will introduce a new nursing course, with Dunboyne as a feeder college. With all of these courses, Dunboyne college has the agility and the flexibility to be a college of the future to grow and meet the needs of the economy and the employer. With the emphasis we have all placed on special education, Dunboyne college will be uniquely placed in a highly populated area to provide the training needs of students in that field.

I am grateful for the engagement of the Department and the personnel of SOLAS in helping the executive of Louth and Meath ETB to progress the preliminary business case. In regard to the potential use of the fund for the capital aspect, Dunboyne college absolutely makes the case. I will give some of the statistics as a refresher and I apologise if it is repetitive. The annual rent and transport costs are €900,000. The college is 100% leased across 27 units, with 23 landlords. The college is occupying five second-hand prefabs in an area zoned for industrial use. There are six off-campus specialist centres, so that is contributing to a very high transport cost. Students are basically going around all County Meath. The statistics on decarbonisation are frightening. I know we are looking at maybe 2027 onwards for potential use of the funding. I do not want to scare the daylights out of anyone, but a few of the basic daily functionality issues are fire safety, disability access, poor circulation space, narrow corridors, inadequate staircases and single toilets in units, not even toilet blocks. The campus is located in an industrial park, the BER certificate ratings are very poor, and there is inefficient heating, inadequate natural ventilation and poorly insulated buildings. Despite this, 1,400 students are enrolled, with 93 staff members and over 70 courses available. It is undeniable that Dunboyne college is a very deserving case for the future and expanded distribution of funds from the National Training Fund.

Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister, Deputy Lawless, and his officials for bringing forward this important and innovative legislation, which I fully support. I believe it has huge potential benefits for the further and higher education sectors. I want to thank all the Deputies for their contributions. I think we all are largely agreed that this is a positive move. Yes, there are some queries and there are some nuances around the details, and it is important that we tease them out on Committee Stage and further Stages. The Minister will deal with many of those concerns but I will address a few of them myself.

Before I ever became Minister of State in the Department of further and higher education, I attended many meetings of employer representative groups and education providers, generally organised by IBEC but also other meetings on a regional basis. Time and again, the issue of spending the funds that have accumulated under the NTF arose. All the attendees at those meetings wanted to see this money being used in constructive and innovative ways to support upskilling and reskilling and to provide opportunities and information for those who want to enter employment.

I believe this Bill answers many of those questions and queries and ensures that the use of the fund for the purposes of the original Act remains while also providing a spend on capital expenditure.

Budget 2025 delivered a total NTF funding package of €1.485 billion over a six-year period for the tertiary sector, including €885 million in funding for a core funding package and capital uplift. Funding for higher education was to be increased by a further €150 million by 2030 and it also included one-off current funding for the tertiary sector, including skills and apprenticeships. The budget also included a €600 million capital uplift to enable skills development, including facilities in the areas of healthcare, veterinary skills and further education skills supporting universal access to skills provision and the research sector, including an increase in PhD stipends. This is something for which I advocated in the previous Dáil on many occasions. I am also very pleased to see that we now have a veterinary course in ATU in Letterkenny. This is hugely important because it contributes to the Government's objective of balanced regional development.

I acknowledge the interest in accessing funding from the fund for education and training initiatives. As it stands, the NTF forms part of my Department’s expenditure ceiling and indeed the overall Government expenditure ceiling. The funds being released in the NTF funding package are fully allocated.

The amendments made in this Act are to provide that the NTF can be used to fund capital expenditure on essential projects for reskilling and upskilling of our workforce, which will meet the skills needs of our economy and progress the skills development agenda. However, it is important to note that NTF expenditure is provided for a wide range of skills development schemes, including in the further education and training sector; the higher education sector; enterprise upskilling, including for small and medium enterprise; apprenticeships; and upskilling for community and voluntary organisations. It is important to say that this funding will continue.

I have heard some colleagues speak about a cut in funding to ETBs. All I can say is that budget 2026 saw an additional allocation of €79 million to apprenticeships bringing the total allocation to €411 million in 2026. That is not a cut. That is a hugely significant increase. This amount of money has doubled since 2020. A total of 78 different apprenticeships are on offer at the moment - everything from hairdressing to cybersecurity to accounting technicians to modern methods of construction to welders, plumbers, etc. I will leave it to the Minister to deal with the issues that have been raised.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for dealing comprehensively with a number of issues. I will take up any remaining issues. I thank Sinn Féin for its support for the Bill and engage with the comments its Members made. There is a funding deficit in the university sector that was well called out in the Cassells report and again in 2022 in the Funding the Future report, which built on that. One of the purposes of this Bill is to address that through the allocation of €150 million out to 2030 to close that gap, which is something I am very much determined to do.

Deputies McGettigan and Conway-Walsh raised research funding and the need for investment. It was argued that the percentage of GDP we spend on research and development is not where it should, which I agree with. This is something I said consistently since being appointed as Minister. It is also something IBEC called for in correspondence with me and in its stated positions and it is being addressed in this Bill and other measures such as the research infrastructure programme I intend to introduce in the coming weeks. In this Bill alone, we are supporting 3,000 PhD students with additional stipends and research funding so that is a major step change and is very much consistent with the overall purpose of the Bill and the asks of organisations like IBEC.

I am very much on board with all-island apprenticeship development and I am working on with the Minister for the Economy, Caoimhe Archibald, in Northern Ireland. Time is short so I will not go into that too much. The Minister of State has dealt with many of the issues.

Deputy Conway-Walsh raised decarbonisation projects. "Decarbonisation" can sometimes be an umbrella term. What we are really is modernisation, refurbishment, rendering things fit for purpose, taking brownfield sites, some of which are antiquated, and putting them back into action. It has been a learning experience providing modern state-of-the-art equipment and, in terms of universal access, making them available to learners with disabilities thereby broadening the pool of learners who can access the facilities, which is a good thing for the workforce.

Deputy Ó Murchú spoke about the budget. I will not rehash this as we have had a number of debates on it. I am very proud that I was able to deliver a combination of targeted supports, including increases in maintenance grants, increases in thresholds, increases in funding for supports for students with disabilities and mental health difficulties, along with bringing in some universal measures such as the €500 cut in fees on a permanent basis, the largest ever package for apprenticeships, honouring national pay deals and the 1,100 additional healthcare places.

I welcome the support of the Labour Party for the Bill. Deputy Duncan Smith referred to apprenticeships and capital facilities. I have said several times that this Department is an engine of economic growth as is education and innovation. The Deputy put it well when he said employer's PRSI funds your pension, while the NTF is there to fund your education and skills. I agree completely. That is the purpose of this scheme. He mentioned a voucher scheme as did other speakers. This is something I witnessed in Singapore on a trade mission in the middle of the summer and I am open to investigating if we can do that in a way that promotes quality provision.

I welcome the support of the Social Democrats for the Bill. Deputy Jen Cummins spoke about the capital uplift that is necessary and to allocate that across higher education institutes. She also spoke about Youthreach. I was in a Youthreach centre in Naas this morning. I was also with the Trinity access programme in Oriel House around the corner in Pearse Street earlier today. Some good investment in those facilities is really needed. Regarding investment in further education and training, we have Mount Lucas Construction Centre, the advanced manufacturing facility in Dundalk, the hospitality campus in Limerick, life sciences in Cork and many other facilities. I want to have more of those with the capital spend in this.

I thank Deputy Maeve O'Connell for her comments and agree with her on the ongoing engagement with stakeholders. I welcome the fact that they were also going to come to the committee.

Deputy Barry Ward made a few points about statutory interpretation. I will leave that to Mr. Justice Max Barrett to determine. He has a book on that.

Deputy John Connolly spoke about the direct economic impact and long-term impact. I share his welcome for the research and development tax credit and engaged with the Minister for Finance on that budget to ensure that was increased to 35%.

Deputy Gogarty referenced the German system. I have seen the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft in action and some of the models they use there. I agree that it is probably the gold standard for apprenticeships. The Deputy spoke about dental places. I was in the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland yesterday and welcomed the 35 new places in Sandyford that are being provided in dentistry. The NTF includes €130 million in funding for dentistry, pharmacy, physiotherapy, veterinary and medical courses - all those healthcare professional courses.

Deputy Shane Moynihan spoke about an agile and responsive workforce, which is so important. It is somewhere where we have an ongoing embrace of technology. This will allow us to access funding to embrace technology, move with the times and remain agile, responsive and flexible. He made a point about tertiary education being a combined platform across all the different fields. At the Labour Party conference in the UK, Keir Starmer spoke about how he is changing the rules. There was a target in the UK of one in two accessing higher education. He has now set a new target so rather than one in two going to university, two out of three will go to university or take up an apprenticeship. That is a much broader, more ambitious and more progressive aim. I conversed with some of my colleagues at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly earlier in the week.

Deputy Toole mentioned Louth and Meath Education and Training Board and Dunboyne, which is close to my heart as it is in my constituency. The Minister of State and I work are working on that issue in terms of colleges of the future. Time is against me so I thank all those who spoke. I paid close attention to them as did my officials and the Minister of State. We will take them all on board as the Bill progresses.