Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House to hear this debate. This motion commends the Government on its commitment to lifelong learning and upskilling, on implementing policies in support of activation and training, skills development and lifelong learning, and on the significant progress it has made in meeting the objectives set out in the national skills strategy. This could have been a good debate about upskilling and lifelong learning. Instead, because of the wording of the motion, it is reduced to a debate on whether the self-congratulation on the other side is justified. It is not. We must address the manner in which Private Members' business is framed. This side of the House is equally guilty in terms of proposals put at Private Members' time. Initially, we frame proposals on this side as a criticism of the lack of action and then proceed to make a further proposal. We should examine what we do in this regard because it frames the debates in an unnecessarily negative way.

Should we commend the Government on its commitment to lifelong learning? Senator John Paul Phelan outlined several indicators which suggest it should not be commended and I support his contention, although I will not go over those points again. I refer to the national skills strategy objectives, which are as follows: some 48% of the workforce should be qualified to National Framework of Qualifications, NFQ, levels 6 to 10, as against 38% if we continue as matters stand; some 45% of the workforce should be qualified to NFQ levels 4 to 5, as against 44% if we continue as matters stand; and 7% of the workforce will remain at NFQ levels 1 to 3 to reduce from 28% at present.

The Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, provided a progress report on national skills strategy objectives on 20 March last. Although the strategy was announced in 2007, his progress report was measured against 2005, providing a somewhat false impression of progress. I am aware the baseline figures were based on the position in 2005. The Minister of State remarked that the percentage of those in the labour force with higher education qualifications had increased from 33% in 2005 to 39% in 2009 compared with the target of 48% by 2020. When measured against the 2007 position in respect of third level education and above, a 5% shift in two years is not dramatic, but I seek the Minister of State's comments in this regard.

The Minister of State remarked that the percentage of the labour force with upper secondary level qualifications, including the leaving certificate, remained at 40% between 2005 and 2009, compared with a target of 45% by 2020. There has been no progress in this category. In this case, the 2005 figure is the same as the 2007 figure. There has been no progress in this category in four years. There is an argument that the rate of shift from this category upwards is greater than the shift from the lower level to this level and that is a factor to be considered. The percentage in 2007 was 25% and in this category a shift of 4% is not dramatic. The Minister of State referred to some progress at junior certificate level and below, with the percentage of the labour force at these levels falling from 27% to 21% and referred to there being some way to go to meet the 2020 target of 7%. Will the Minister of State indicate whether this is code for "We are not going to achieve it"? I seek his comments in this regard. This is the key area that must be addressed and tackled. What specifically is the Minister of State doing for those in this category, as opposed to a long-term strategy of working with those who are still in the education system? This is a real challenge, which I do not underestimate, but there is little evidence of progress. I call on the Minister of State to comment on this matter.

The quarterly national household survey figures for quarter 4 of 2009 inform us that unemployment levels among people with the lowest level of educational attainment, that is, lower secondary or below, are considerably greater than those among people with higher educational attainment. The representative figure for the former is 19% as opposed to the total workforce figure of 12.6%. There are no labour shortages in Ireland at present but there are skills shortages in the areas of information technology, science, sales and marketing, health, accountancy, engineering and management, which are all specialised high skill areas. Traditional manufacturing is almost gone from Ireland and is unlikely to return. Construction levels are seriously reduced at present and are unlikely to return to anything like the heights of recent years. Services and knowledge-based occupations are for the future and they require higher skill levels.

Let us consider the situation more positively. There are opportunities for people with lower level skills and these are referred to in the skills strategy. What is referred to as generic skills in the strategy are considered to be almost as important as technical or on-the-job skills for the future workplace. These include basic or fundamental skills such as numeracy, literacy and use of technology; people skills such as team working, communications and customer service; and conceptual, thinking or problem solving skills. Having worked in manufacturing all my working life until three years ago, I am aware such skills can be acquired through training and development initiatives. The focus of attention must shift from education attainment mix to a greater focus on upskilling of the current workforce for the new work era while recognising the need for formal recognition of skills attained. It goes without saying that we must improve the education levels of people entering the workforce. Early school leaving is a problem that must be addressed, as must the literacy and numeracy levels of those leaving school, to which other Senators referred.

It is obvious we need to prevent people from dropping out before completing second level education. We are aware that if pupils stay on in school, they will achieve more. The evidence clearly shows that young people without a leaving certificate are at a disadvantage in the jobs market and face an increased risk of unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. We are aware also that 9,000 students leave secondary school every year without a leaving certificate qualification.

I refer to the heartless targeting of access programme students by the Government in the last budget, a matter referred to by Senators on both sides of the House. We heard evidence at the Joint Committee on Education and Science last week that highlighted the need for the Government to provide more support to this group, not to diminish it. Student access funding is in place for those who do not have the conventional educational requirements to get into third level or who come from socioeconomic backgrounds which are under-represented in higher education. Between 800 and 1,000 access students enter third level every year, which is good progress, but not nearly good enough. By definition, students receiving support include those from a socio-economically disadvantaged background, perhaps the first in the family to access third level education, or a person in a targeted group, namely, the long-term unemployed, people with a disability, minority groups and Travellers. Despite the obvious need for support, the Government brought down the axe on many Access students in the 2010 budget.

Jobseekers are no longer entitled to receive the back to education allowance and the student maintenance grant. This has had a hugely negative impact on people's lives. Instead of assisting students who are trying against the odds to get an education, the Government has acted in a most destructive manner. Surely it should not be congratulated for this. Is it the case that the back to education allowance is not available to persons pursuing postgraduate courses? If not, why not? Given the need for people to move out of work areas which are not in demand and into those areas that are, perhaps the Government should reconsider its policy.

Is the Minister happy that scarce resources being used to provide much needed training for unemployed people are being used effectively? It has been brought to my attention that on a recent course on AutoCAD - I cannot confirm whether it was run by or for FÁS - 60% of the trainees were foreign nationals who had been in the country for less than four months. How could that be? We cannot afford to waste resources in this way, if that is happening to any great extent. Many complain to me that they cannot get a place on a FÁS course; therefore, if waste is a problem, it must be addressed. What controls are in place to ensure we are getting what we pay for? The Minister should have a review carried out of this important issue.

Overall, some progress has been made in this area but hardly enough for the self-congratulation in the motion.