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.

Sentiment score: 0.13

We are all learners.

Sentiment score: 0.00

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.

Sentiment score: 0.09

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.

Sentiment score: 0.26

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.

Sentiment score: 0.23

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.

Sentiment score: 0.14