Donna McGettigan (Clare, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(c) these payments to only relate to training and upskilling and not for any other purpose;

these payments to only relate to the construction or reconstruction (not retrofitting) of a premises that is only used for training and educational purposes.”.”.

The diversion of a portion of the employer-contributed fund to cover costs typically associated with Exchequer capital expenditure, such as retrofitting or repair of a premises, means a fundamental and unacceptable deviation from the core mandate of the National Training Fund, NTF, to measures other than direct skills and training initiatives and could rapidly deplete the surplus without delivering any impact on skills development. That is why I have tabled this amendment, which stipulates that any moneys used for the purchase of land, construction or reconstruction only be used for training, upskilling and educational purposes. We may have a verbal guarantee now that it will not happen, but there is no guarantee that a future Minister will not change that. I welcome that this NTF funding will be unlocked and commend the Minister on working on this, but this amendment is important.

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

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.

Jen Cummins (Dublin South Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy McGettigan and other Deputies very much for tabling these amendments. We had a good debate on this Bill in October. As a new TD, I am learning how all this process goes.

Eoghan Kenny (Cork North-Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Me too.

Jen Cummins (Dublin South Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Forgive me if I am doing this incorrectly, even today.

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

We are all learners.

Jen Cummins (Dublin South Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are all learning. We discussed a proposal that funding which had not been used already would be used and put back into buildings and things like that. I said at the time that I have worked in further education buildings which need to be retrofitted. I understand what the Minister is saying. For the learners and teachers in a building that is draughty and cold - it may have ivy coming into it - a retrofitting of the building is so important. It may not be too old. From an environmental point of view, I would like the buildings we have to be kept to the best capacity that they can be kept to. I would like us to be able to make sure that they are maintained. I do not mind whether we use the word "retrofitting" or the word "maintaining".

I reiterate the point that I would not like to see surpluses being run again. There should not be an underspend in any of this area. The reality is that we have heard over the months since the Minister was appointed about the hopes and dreams of him and his Department. They will only be realised if the full funding for the Department is utilised. The Minister explained why there was an underspend, and that is fair enough. It will be used in these specific circumstances for these things, and I accept that. They need to be outlined clearly. I accept that the amendment provides for "these payments to only relate to training and upskilling and not for any other purpose" and 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". If we are valuing education, particularly in fields like further education and community education, people need to feel as valued as people feel when a brand-new primary school, secondary school or third level institution is being built. If funds are being used for that purpose in this particular context, we recommend that this would be possible.

Notwithstanding that, please do not run underutilised budgets. I do not want to tell the Minister how to do his job, but it is so important that this funding used. I do not want us to be back here again in a year or two looking at budgets that have not been fully used when we know there are deficits with regard to people's contracts not being fully fulfilled. When we talked about science recently during Science Week, we spoke about the facilities that are needed. I would love any money that is available from the Department to be able to be used for the upgrade of science equipment in as many education settings as the Minister has authority over. As I said at the time, there is no point in people using a Nokia-blockia phone when they should be using the best and newest updated smartphone they can have. It is important. I am not knocking Nokia-blockias, by the way; I had plenty of them when they first came out. When there is a surplus, it is important to use it wisely. While I accept Sinn Féin's amendment, I do not accept it in full because I do not agree that it should not include retrofitting. I am sorry about that.

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

I thank the Deputy. She has eloquently outlined part of the rationale of this. She has spoken about the experience not just of the learners but also of the teachers. I agree that it is unfair to have them in draughty old buildings when we could take the opportunity to retrofit, refurbish and upgrade them and provide a state-of-the-art new facility by doing so. We are of like mind in that regard. I do not think Deputy McGettigan's amendment is appropriate. I suggest that tying our hands in such a way and precluding the possibility of upgrading these buildings would be a retrograde step. For that reason, I do not accept the amendment.

Donna McGettigan (Clare, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Should moneys for this purpose not be coming from Exchequer capital expenditure rather than the NTF? As the Minister set out when he spoke on Committee Stage and again today, the NTF is to be used "to raise the skills", "to provide training" and "to provide information". We could very quickly go through that surplus if we were to use it for retrofitting and on buildings. In such circumstances, we could end up with no surplus or not enough for training. A lot of jobs are being lost to artificial intelligence. Those employers are going to need uptraining and skilling. The fear is that we could run out of NTF funding very quickly.

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

A €1.5 billion retrofitting programme would create a lot of employment for apprentices. It would be quite extraordinary if we were to spend the entire NTF surplus on retrofitting. It is probably unlikely to happen. In any event, the provisions in the existing legislation set out clearly that it can only be used for particular well-defined purposes which have stood the test of time for 25 years. I do not propose to change that in any regard. It remains absolutely true to the original mission of the Act. I welcome the engagement, but it is not sensible to add in such extra constraints at this stage.

Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are debating something important here - the National Training Fund - but it is effectively a tax on employers. They have been quite happy to contribute to that fund over the years because ultimately they get the benefit of it from the upskilling of their current and potential future workers. While I have concerns with the proposed amendments, the spirit of what they are proposing is a concern I share as well. When the allocations for the NTF are being calculated and issued, how will the Minister ensure that they will benefit the skills sector and that the Department will not be tempted to use these moneys for other things that may not have been the intent of the original fund, potentially losing the goodwill of employers out there who need their workers to be upskilled?

I am told constantly that we need new skills. AI is coming out there. It is something that is impacting our business. We need to upskill our workers. Skillnet and numerous other providers that are capable of doing this will be looking for funds to enable employers and support them through this. How will the Minister ensure the funds from the NTF are used for the purpose for which they were originally intended if we pass this amendment?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

An Teachta McGettigan has one more two-minute slot if she wishes.

Donna McGettigan (Clare, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In terms of the purchasing of land, I think the amendment should definitely stand. I would be fearful if there is no guarantee preventing a future Minister from changing that to buy buildings for anything other than upskilling and training. It needs to be clear in black and white that that is what the payments are for, so I will press the amendment.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Bogaimid ar aghaidh go dtí leasú Uimh. 2 in ainm an Teachta Eoghan Kenny. Tá seacht nóiméad aige.

Eoghan Kenny (Cork North-Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“(2C) A payment for a purpose specified in subsection (1) in respect of works referred to in subsection (2B)(b) shall, where practicable, be made subject to the condition that tenders for the procurement of those works shall include as a condition that apprenticeships or training opportunities, of such nature and number as are specified by An tSeirbhís, are provided by the contractor during the period of execution of those works.”.”.

The Minister will be well aware of why I am placing this amendment before the Dáil. It is essential that priority is given to young people across this country who wish to seek an apprenticeship. I think of the many young people I taught and the number of them who wished to seek a career as an apprentice. It is fantastic to see. However, they face constant barriers when it comes to apprenticeships. One of those main barriers, of course, is the financial aspect to being an apprentice and the significant issue apprentices face in terms of their income. The point of the amendment in its entirety is that if companies across this country wish to build public buildings, a part and a condition of that would be that they have to give young people the opportunity for an apprenticeship or training courses.

From an outsider's perspective, what it would look like is quite simple and straightforward. I appreciate the conversations we have had on this and I understand legislation from Europe is involved in how we would implement such an amendment, but it is important the Department of further and higher education realise that amendments like this being tabled show it is clearly and utterly necessary to recognise the role of apprenticeships in every facet of building that goes on in this country. It is not just building; a significant amount of people want to do mechanics or hairdressing. There are loads of apprenticeship courses that can be offered now but it is about promoting them.

It is not so long since I was in school and I always felt there was a slight stigma about the role of apprenticeships. I do not know where that comes from. I spent a lot of time as a teacher encouraging students to do an apprenticeship because third level education and college life are not for everybody. People across the country appreciate that, as do most people in this Chamber. The point we try to get across is that when we try to encourage apprenticeships, we must also encourage employers to take on new apprentices. That is what this amendment speaks to.

From the conversations the Minister and I have had, I understand EU legislation has to be looked at in relation to how we would implement this amendment. I would appreciate if the Minister's Department would work with me on this. It is essential and it speaks to the core values of the young people we represent, or say we represent, across the country.

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta for the amendment. I thank him for his engagement on this matter on Committee Stage and again today. I fully understand the intention behind the amendment.

If accepted, the amendment would impose a procurement condition on contractors to provide apprenticeships or training opportunities for NTF-funded works related to the acquisition of land, premises, furniture or equipment and the upgrade, construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance, etc., of premises. I am unable to accept the amendment. I have looked at and engaged on it and I have taken advice on it, including legal advice from the Attorney General and advice from the Office of Government Procurement.

I will set out the reasons I cannot accept it. Essentially, Ireland's public procurement framework is a matter of EU law as well as domestic law. The awarding of contracts must be conducted in accordance with the general principles of EU law, emanating from the case law of the CJEU, including principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment, proportionality, transparency and mutual recognition.

Closer to home, the Office of Government Procurement has provided guidance in the area. In 2023, it issued an information note on apprenticeships and public procurement. These guidelines are based on established Government policy, which envisaged the adoption of any conditionality in respect of apprenticeship to be on a case-by-case basis, rather than being enshrined in legislation, which would be very restrictive and could create a risk of unintended consequences. It could be considered discriminatory or disproportionate and may lack flexibility for different types of tender, contractor or contracting authorities. I know this is not the intention but it could have the result of excluding smaller contractors and the supply chains which flow from them, which could reduce competition and undermine opportunities for SMEs to get involved. There would also be a need for an SME test and full regulatory impact analysis to be performed, which would be quite a complication and take considerable time. Unfortunately, it would require significant re-examination to consider accepting it and extensive legal parameters would have to be explored, along with a regulatory impact analysis. All of those other measures would have to be considered.

The guidance note on public procurement is something that can be examined. We can look at whether there are ways outside of a legislative amendment to achieve the same goal without binding legislation but by including within the guidance note some of the intention of the amendment, which is very fair.

On apprenticeships more broadly, the Deputy is right they should never be seen as second best or a second-choice option. It was interesting to look at our neighbours across the water in the UK. Prime Minister Starmer had a goal that one in every two students would progress to university and recently revised that at his party conference. The goal is now, rather than one in every two going to university, two in every three will go on to either university or an apprenticeship. That is exactly the right approach. They are not equal and opposite but are equally valid and strong career paths.

The Deputy knows because we have engaged on this a number of times in policy debates that there are many apprenticeships now across a range of areas. I think we are up to 78 apprenticeship courses, having started in the low 20s or 30s not so many years ago. It continues to broaden and I continue to be amazed when I visit training centres around the country at the range of apprenticeships available, everything from cybersecurity to planning digital marketing and wind turbine maintenance. New areas are being identified all the time. My Department is continuing to explore further opportunities to create apprenticeships and using that tried and trusted methodology as a pathway into careers across many areas.

I agree with the Deputy on advancing and supporting them as a career pathway but, unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment for the reasons outlined.

Eoghan Kenny (Cork North-Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his engagement on this. Going slightly off the amendment for a moment, he touched on an important aspect of apprenticeships more broadly. As I said and he referenced, there is still a slight mantra in Ireland that an apprentice is second best to a child or young person who goes on to UCC, UCD, Trinity or somewhere like that. There is still that perception out there. As a former teacher, I find that difficult to accept. I call on every teacher across the country to take on my fundamental belief that encouragement must be given to students to go into apprenticeships. We will always need plumbers, carpenters and hairdressers. The essential thing is that we prioritise those.

It is often the case that those who seek an apprenticeship are from a socioeconomically disadvantaged area. That was always the norm in this country but now we are seeing a different spectrum where people from all areas are going into an apprenticeship because they are figuring out the role they want to do. There has to be a significant culture change and, slowly but surely, we are moving towards it. That change has to involve accepting that apprenticeships are on the same level as third level degrees.

I know the Minister will say it is but I must say again it has to be a priority for the Government. There are so many young people out there. As the Minister said, there are 78 apprenticeship courses. It has to be an absolute essential for this Government.

Jen Cummins (Dublin South Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the amendment and accept what the Minister has said on the EU legislation that could facilitate it. It would be great if it was facilitated. I agree with what has been said on apprenticeships. The further and higher education committee has spoken of it at length in recent months. Wonderful witnesses have come in and told us the stories of how amazing they have to be to motivate themselves, get involved with an employer and become an apprentice, and of the hurdles they face to get there. It is in a way easier to apply for a third level college course because you just go on the CAO and apply for whatever level is in question.

I know I am slightly going off the general topic here, but I would love if people could log on and be able to apply for apprenticeships in the same way that they apply for a CAO place. I think the value of apprenticeships is returning to the level it used to be a number of decades ago. The snobbery is slowly being eroded and people genuinely feel doing an apprenticeship is the fastest way to learn and earn and then be guaranteed a job at the end. I met so many young people who are in college and wondering what they are going to do afterwards. Some of them have degree and a postgraduate qualification but they do not know what to do yet. I have yet to meet an apprentice who wondered what they will do now. They are already working and able to travel with these amazing skills they have learned.

To go back to the issue of releasing funding from the National Training Fund, the challenges apprentices face are significant with regard to some structural issues, such as going to Donegal to finish off an electrical apprenticeship or going to Clare to do different apprenticeships. Those sorts of issues are very difficult. We have also heard recently from employers about how much money it costs to release chefs for training days. I would love to see this structure working and this funding coming back in to support these young people and learners, as well as the employers taking on apprentices and the colleges where they are going to do the learning, skills and theory part. We have a real possibility to do a lot with this fund. As others said earlier, I would love to see exactly where the money will go and what the plans are. We set out our stall a couple of weeks ago, and I would love to see a little bit more in this regard. Praise for apprentices is due but so is the infrastructure that goes around that.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

About 15 years ago, when I was a county councillor on Cork County Council, I put forward a similar motion looking for a proportion of all major Government contracts to be given to either local workers or to ensure that apprentices were being hired. At the time, I was told we could not do that because of EU procurement law. I went and researched it, and it turns out that Germany, Italy and other European countries have those quotas in place. This meant Ireland was implementing European law to the absolute maximum, while some other major European countries were abiding by it but not fully and were able to put their own nuance on it.

We are all in here trying to work together and come up with solutions. There is a crisis right now in apprenticeship. The Minister pointed out there are 78 different types of apprenticeships, which is great. People are studying courses now that were just handed down from family members or neighbours and they fall in with someone that way. My dad was a carpenter and my grandfather was a carpenter. I went to the North Mon and did woodwork, and I would say they got the fright of their lives when they saw me with a saw and a hammer. I just did not have a creative bone like carpenters and tradespeople have.

I met with University College Cork and Munster Technological University. I want to see a campus for trades on the northside of Cork city. We are trying to get more and more people into apprenticeships. I remember a couple of years ago there was a phrase in camogie, or it could have been in ladies sports in general, that went, "If you cannot see it, you cannot be it". I come from an area where there is a very low level of people going to third level, but there is a much higher take-up by people of apprenticeships. We want more to get more people into apprenticeships and third level. I want people to have the choice. For people on the northside of Cork city, there are no third level institutions. They are all on the southside. I know we are not going to build a new college, but we could build a campus on the northside of Cork city specifically for the trades. Great work is being done by MTU and the education and training board, but they will tell us they do not have the capacity. We have an issue now with lack of capacity and we have areas on the northside of Cork city where we could have a campus specifically for the trades. We could use the National Training Fund for this. It is constructive, would have cross-party support and would certainly go down very well in the communities I represent.

I am not sure if the Minister knows this but I know, from talking to people in the trades, that the minute they get their qualification, they are gone. I know of one course in particular where 15 out of 16 plumbers left the country. Someone looking for plumbers might say there will be 16 of them coming out next month, but they will not be coming out next month at all because they are all getting on a plane to Australia. The vast majority are going to Australia, with a few going to Canada and a couple going elsewhere in Europe. The reason, to go back to a debate we had earlier, is housing. What are newly qualified tradespeople going to do? Will they go back to their mam and dad and stay in the box bedroom at 23, 24 or 25 years of age? That is a huge issue. Until we get a grasp of housing policy, it will feed into the crisis we have with apprenticeships.

Another issue, which was touched on by a previous speaker, is that we have people trying to finish off their course being told they have to be up in Dublin for three months, but they cannot get accommodation. It is the same if people have to go to Sligo. We need to provide the training in areas where people are studying. I had a father contact me. His son could not finish his apprenticeship because he could not get somewhere to study. When he did get it, he could not get somewhere to stay. What was he going to do? Was he going to go up and down to Dublin every day from Cork? It cannot be done. There are huge issues there that need to be looked at. We are talking about priorities.

First- and second-year apprentices could go work in Supermac's or Abrakebabra because they would get better money. They are getting better money working in shops, fast food outlets, bars or wherever. If this Government is really serious about getting more and more people into apprenticeships, it has to improve the rates for first-, second- and third-year apprentices right across the board. It must also be made easy for employers to be able to hire them.

I know lads in the building trade. In the area where I grew up, almost half the fellows I know are in the building trade. Most of them are over 50. They are saying, "Tommy, we are not working seven days a week any more because our families are raised. We are doing Monday to Friday now." You cannot get tradespeople. The people there are getting old and they are asking me if the Government understands this. A lot of young people do not feel there is an incentive there to get into the trades. The thing about it is that when they do get into the trades, they really enjoy them because they are very worthwhile. The point is that when we look at the wages of first- and second-year apprentices, they are just too low.

I ask the Minister to look at this amendment again. At the end of the day, we want to get more people working and more people in the trades. We need them to build houses. I know it is not all housing, but the bulk of those trades are in housing. This would be a win-win for everyone. We need to start treating trades like they do in Europe, especially in places like Germany where training is on the same level as third level and is respected.

I will tell the Minister another thing. I was out canvassing in Kerry Pike at the weekend. I stopped afterwards in the petrol station and I met a fellow buying a house out there in Kerry Pike for €500,000, or the bones of it. He told me he is working every hour God sends and asked me if he was doing the right thing or if he should head off. He has got a partner and they have one child. He wants to live here. They want to stay close to the northside, but then he is looking at the cost. He will be going to work every hour God sends for the next 20 years. We need to look at that.

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

I think we are all in violent agreement that we need more apprentices. It is a programme for Government commitment I am working towards. The exact intention of this legislation is to give effect to it. We are opening up a €1.5 billion fund we can use for exactly the kind of things Deputy Gould spoke so passionately about.

Cork Education and Training Board has many proposals for training centres it can develop which will host apprentices. It has my support regarding those initiatives. These are the kinds of things we can look to do on with moneys from this fund once we have managed to unlock it. It will certainly benefit apprenticeships and apprenticeship training.

In the budget, we provided a record level of funding for apprenticeships, €410 million, which is an historic high, with an additional €79 million pledged this year alone. It is the largest increase ever. We are also working on the action plan for apprenticeships for the next five years. That is to run from 2026 to 2030. It is a work in progress. We are looking to go on from 78 to 79 to 80 etc., and to continually increase the number of occupations that can be accessed through apprenticeships. We are continuing to increase the numbers. As Deputy Cummins noted, we have a link to apprenticeships on the CAO page in order to promote a common entry point.

There is very high demand for tradespeople and for apprentices more generally. That is exactly why we are supporting them by means of this legislation. What this legislation will do is enable us to provide more training centres, training equipment, courses, skills and provision in order that we reach our shared goal of increasing the number of apprenticeships in the system.

Turning to the amendment, there are many ways to achieve a similar result, including by means of a guidance note and some procurement. I note Deputy Gould's point about how other EU countries may transpose directives in different ways. Right now, the European Commission is looking at the procurement directive. Perhaps engaging as part of that process would be the way to proceed. If we were to jump the gun and introduce domestic legislation that may be in contravention of the EU legislation that is currently being reviewed, the sequencing would be wrong. The Attorney General's advice is that it would not be appropriate in any event. For that reason, unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment. The Deputy will understand that, but I absolutely support the goals outlined. We can achieve those in other ways.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Glaoim ar an Teachta Kenny. Tá dhá nóiméad aige.

Eoghan Kenny (Cork North-Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank colleagues for their contributions on the amendment. As the Minister stated, everyone is in agreement. We need apprentices. My constituency colleague Deputy Gould is right, however, in that we actually cannot get apprentices. There are people who have contacted my office and said that something broke at home, that it has been two weeks and that they cannot get somebody out to fix it. They need a joiner, for example, but they cannot seem to get one. The evidence is there that there have been systemic issues either in the Department or in government for many years whereby people did not appreciate the role of apprenticeships. I hope a change is happening in that regard.

I welcome the fact that there has been a historic allocation for apprenticeships in budget 2026, but we need to continue to progress that. We cannot allow it just to be an historic amount of money that is being given. In the context of each budget, every year the Department must look at how apprenticeships can be promoted even more. Third level education and apprenticeships must be on the same level. That is a fact. We must not stigmatise apprenticeship. We must make that very clear to people. The way we will have to do this is make it clear to people who want to pursue apprenticeships that they will be paid well. That is the bottom line. What we do not want is big employers and companies that are making billions in profits taking on apprentices and paying them a pittance. What we want to see is a good day's pay for a good day's work. Anyone taking up any of the 78 apprenticeships currently in place wants that also.

We need a clear focus on apprenticeships. I understand the reasoning behind the amendment and how the Minister cannot support it, but we need a clear understanding that this Parliament must support all young people who wish to seek a future by means of pursing apprenticeships.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirfear an Bille chun an tSeanaid anois.