Ceisteanna Eile - Other Questions
Táimid críochnaithe leis sin. Rachaimid ar aghaidh le ceisteanna eile chun an Aire. Tá Ceist Uimh. 101 i m’ainm. Táim ag iarraidh é a chur siar. If Members are happy enough, I will put that question back until I am out of the Chair.
Is that your question?
Yes, and I am being utterly magnanimous, or at least partially magnanimous.
Apprenticeship Programmes
102. Deputy Eoghan Kenny asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science his plans for a renewed action plan to succeed the Action Plan for Apprenticeship 2021-2025; if the new action plan will have a focus on apprentice wages; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37310/25]
This is a really important question. We are bringing forward a successor apprenticeship action plan. We are also looking at an integrated apprenticeship model, something I will be canvassing with stakeholders at the labour economic forum shortly. I have already met the unions and others in the relevant space and that is something we will continue to engage on. We are undertaking a review of the current action plan for apprenticeships and looking at a new five-year strategy that will guide the system from 2026 onwards. One of the priorities is to continue to strengthen the system to meet the skills needs of industry and adapt to workforce challenges.
It is only fair to put on the record that apprenticeship funding has grown significantly. We provided an additional €77 million in funding for apprenticeships alone in budget 2025, bringing the total to €339 million, which is an 84% increase since 2020. This morning, the Minister for Education and Youth, Deputy McEntee, and I brought an education indicators report to Cabinet that showed that the number of apprentices in the system had grown by one third between 2022 and 2023. We have seen really significant progress in the apprenticeship field in terms of people entering, the course options available, and the funding being provided. We have seen positive progress across the board.
There are some very new and interesting programmes, such as civil engineering, wind turbine maintenance, digital marketing, cybersecurity, software development and town planning. A number of areas have been identified as suitable for the apprenticeship model and are being expanded and rolled out through the consortia-type method. There is a positive broadening of the spectrum of apprenticeships, bringing in new and emerging skills and methods. It is a commendable way of training.
We support employers with training costs. There is a €2,000 consortia-led employer grant for the cost of taking on an apprentice because there are costs involved. I have met employers who have expressed concerns about costs. In the same way that apprentices themselves and their spokespersons raise issues about costs, employers do so, too, and it needs both to make the system work. The goal across the Government is to have 12,500 new apprenticeship registrations by 2030. That will be the central focus of the new action plan.
I thank the Minister. He made a very important point towards the end of his reply in terms of employers and apprentices meeting each other halfway. I have an aunt who has a hair salon in Mallow and I know from her of the difficulty of taking on an apprenticeship student and trying to make that work with one's own work schedule. Are incentives for employers to take on more apprenticeship students being considered? That would be welcome because it would incentivise employers to bring on more apprentices.
The main focus of my question is on the fact that €7.41 is currently the craft rate for year 1 of an apprenticeship. That is an extremely difficult rate for students who are coming out of school to be able to afford a car or even the use of a car. They might be travelling to and from a certain location during the apprenticeship. How would they be able to afford to live on €7.41 per hour? It is really important to address that in the new action plan.
I hear that, but neither my Department nor SOLAS is involved in the setting of apprenticeship wages. There are two types of apprentices. Under apprenticeship programmes developed before 2016, which are referred to as craft apprenticeships and are largely but not exclusively traditional construction-type apprenticeships, there are long-standing industrial relations mechanisms that determine pay. Collective bargaining between industry and employee representatives determines the rates. That is a well-established industrial relations system. Three quarters of the overall apprenticeship population falls under those arrangements. For the newer apprenticeships, some of which I mentioned in my initial response, wages are set between the employer and the apprentice directly. A contract is entered into and terms and conditions are set out, including pay, in the employment contract. On those programmes, the apprentice is paid by the employer throughout the programme.
Wages for apprentices are covered under the Industrial Training Act, which differentiates between an employee and an apprentice for the purposes of pay legislation. There are a number of reasons for this, including that employers must be able to balance the investment costs of training an apprentice. Ultimately, they are taking on a trainee, not a fully formed employee. As apprentices progress through the system, they will be paid more. By the time they are in years 3 and 4, their pay increases significantly.
I have a slight difficulty with wages being negotiated between the students themselves and the employer. The State must have a role to play in the negotiations between apprentices and employers in terms of how wages are set. While it is the case that employers are not taking on a fully qualified person but someone who is moving into the trade, it is important that apprentices get a fair wage. I do not believe that €7.41 is a fair wage to start off on, especially in the context of running a car, renting a room in a house, buying groceries and so on.
I welcome the improvements to which the Minister referred and the Labour Party will work with him on this.
I thank the Deputy. I appreciate that. In the bulk of apprenticeships, the story is one of success and progression. In an apprenticeship survey conducted recently, 90% of apprentices who qualified were in employment in that field two years later. They stuck with it. There was high stickability and the median weekly earnings were €935 two years out. If we look at a sample of rates, construction sector apprentices in year 2 were entitled to €11.50 per hour. In the mechanical contracting industry, apprentices received €13.82 in year 2, while mechanical rates were €13.36 per hour in year 2. Electrical apprentices got €11.78 as of second year, so we can see the progression there. They start on a low wage as trainees when they come into the system but they progress quickly, and by the time they come out the far side and are qualified, they are on a median weekly wage of €935 in most cases.
Further and Higher Education
103. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science if he will confirm that SOLAS is in receipt of sufficient funding from the State to ensure that it can deliver on its annual service plan and operate accordingly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36974/25]
I thank the Deputy for the question. We have had some discussion on this in the Chamber previously. The funding SOLAS receives has increased substantially, with current funding in 2025 representing a €310 million, or 37%, uplift compared to 2020. That has enabled one in ten adults to engage in learning funded by SOLAS and highlights the vital role of further education and training in workforce upskilling and lifelong learning.
To date this year, I have allocated nearly €1.3 billion to SOLAS in total funding to deliver national priorities in apprenticeships, upskilling, reskilling, literacy and so forth. SOLAS allocates this funding to the 16 ETBs to deliver programmes based on agreed targets. SOLAS and the ETBs must work with one another to manage their allocations. I hear that some ETBs are looking for more while others are making the most of what they have, but that is a normal and healthy dynamic between a funder and a funded organisation. They have to work together.
It is important to point out that a funding pressure has been identified in the budget. A budgetary issue arose and came to my attention about two weeks ago. Funding was found to be insufficient to cover the needs for the current year and that is something I am working through. I have been engaging with the Minister for public expenditure on it since it came to my attention. It is a legacy issue that stems from a situation that arose last year and the year before. There was a backlog in apprentices and those that should have been progressing much faster through the system were not, which put pressure on the system. This goes back to the issue of pay because the apprentices still in the system were being paid a higher rate than they should have been had they been progressing through faster.
Ultimately, it is a legacy issue. I am aware of it and I am working on it. I have made the House aware of it. I do not believe we will see issues arising. I have written to SOLAS to say that no apprenticeship courses should be cancelled as a result.
I thank the Minister for being straight and upfront on the issue. I am glad that he has acknowledged that there is a dynamic between SOLAS and the ETBs and that this is probably an annual thing but there are still issues. If I went on the Internet tonight, I would see that there is allegedly an issue in Donegal. It is reported that there is a shortfall of €2.1 million. In Louth and Meath ETB, with which the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach is involved, a shortfall of up to €12 million has been identified. That is quite significant. The Minister has said this is a funding pressure that was brought to him and that he is doing his best to work through it. When did it first come to his attention? If there is funding pressure as a result of people moving forward from stages 4 and 6 of their apprenticeships, I assume that will have to be addressed in the forthcoming budget. Will the Minister identify how he hopes to do that?
This came to my attention about a month ago. I addressed it in the Chamber shortly after that. That funding pressure arises from apprentices being in the system for longer than was ever anticipated because of backlogs that arose previously. They are on an incremental scale so, as they remain in the system, they become eligible for higher rates. This means there was a requirement for greater funding than had been allocated. I have written to SOLAS. I wrote to the chair and I am also meeting the board. I have instructed that no apprenticeship programme should be cancelled as a result of this. It is not good enough. We cannot allow this situation to arise again. It is unfortunate that we had a backlog in the first place but we cannot have any further backlogs because it is so important to overall societal and Government priorities, including construction, green skills and the rest of the 77 areas of apprenticeships we now have, that we allow learners to progress through the system as rapidly as possible. I understand some ETBs are deferring places rather than cancelling them but I believe any apprentices who have been called will take up that call and progress. We may see some slippage in a couple of courses, however. It is regrettable but this is something I am working through. I have engaged with the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, with his Department and directly with SOLAS to try to address the matter.
If I understand the Minister, some ETBs are deferring. The issue still needs to be dealt with. Are we just kicking the can down the road and, in essence, just leaving the issue for the Minister to solve in the next budgetary cycle? He has said he became aware of this a month ago. Given the numbers of apprentices at the various stages, this should have been identified an awful lot sooner. If the Minister was only made aware of this a month ago, I would ask how whoever was responsible, whether inside the Department or elsewhere, missed this? It is quite significant. In essence, the Minister has said that we are facing the distinct possibility of many courses being deferred. As far as I am concerned, that is just kicking the can down the road. Ultimately, the only solution to this is additional funding in the budget. Will the Minister comment on my concern that we are kicking this further down the road?
It absolutely will not be kicked down the road on my watch. I assure the Deputy of that. I intend to tackle this. That is why I am engaging with the Minister for public expenditure and directly with SOLAS. I am meeting the board on Thursday. This needs to be tackled and brought to a head. Like all other agencies funded under the Department's aegis, SOLAS makes submissions as part of the annual Estimates process. It is required to ensure that it gets value for money but also that it is productive, uses the resources allocated to it in the correct way and measures and manages properly so that what it estimates is needed in its allocation is actually what it spends. If that is not done, it will cause difficulties, as we see in this case. I agree with the Deputy about kicking the can down the road. It is not the way to do it and it will not be done. We will get this tackled.
Third Level Fees
104. Deputy Paul McAuliffe asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science the means by which he intends to implement the programme for Government commitments regarding the cost of third level education; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37436/25]
105. Deputy Louis O'Hara asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science if he will reverse his decision to increase the student contribution fee for third level undergraduate students; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37415/25]
107. Deputy Maeve O'Connell asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science his views on his Department's plans for the reduction of the student contribution fee as per the commitments in the programme for Government. [37331/25]
110. Deputy Barry Heneghan asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science if he will explain the rationale for the reported decision not to proceed with further reductions in the student contribution fee, in light of the commitment made in the programme for Government to reduce these fees over the lifetime of the Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37631/25]
112. Deputy Roderic O'Gorman asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science to clarify his recent comments regarding the student contribution fee, and if he will give clarity on how much students and their families will be paying in September 2025; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37646/25]
Tá Ceisteanna Uimh. 104, 105, 107, 110 agus 112 grúpáilte.
Following on from the earlier questions, I again ask the Minister whether the fees will be €2,000 or €3,000 for the next academic year. I have had countless people, students and families, in touch with me to tell me that, if the fees are increased for the next academic year, they will not be able to afford them. This is wrong. It is not a position people should be put in. We need clarity from the Minister on this as soon as possible.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 104, 105, 107, 110 and 112 together.
I note that a number of Deputies have similar questions and that these have been grouped. We will probably go around the House to take supplementary questions.
As I have said a number of times this evening and over recent months, I am acutely conscious of the financial challenges facing students and of the need for the progressive implementation of measures to address costs as a barrier to education. I am quite alarmed to hear that people are telling the Deputy they are unsure whether they can afford college because the entire system of SUSI grants, fee supports, contributions and interventions is geared towards avoiding that situation. Very significant supports are available and the income threshold stands at an all-time historic high of €115,000, meaning your household income has to be greater than that for you not to get some kind of support. I do not know if the people the Deputy has mentioned are in that situation and are earning more than €115,000 but, if they are and cannot afford these fees, we may need to have a conversation about that. There are a lot of supports. We had this discussion earlier on. There is evidence that people are not claiming some of the supports that are available. They may not be aware of them and they are not applying for them. If that is the case, we can engage on that point to see what exactly is missing there that leads people not to avail of the supports they are entitled to.
As the House will be aware, almost all full-time undergraduate students have their tuition fees paid in full by the State. The free fees initiative has been there for some time and the Exchequer still pays for it every year. Almost half of all students have their student contribution fee paid in full or in part by the State. The threshold for those interventions has increased again this year. I mentioned that €115,000 is the highest income at which support is offered but there is a sliding scale under which people can get support at 100% of the student contribution, 50% or €500. The House will be aware that a temporary once-off reduction of €1,000 was introduced in the last three budgets. That was part of a cost-of-living package that was put together to support students and other sectors of society. I am very keen to continue to support measures like that but it has been confirmed in recent weeks that there will not be a cost-of-living ancillary package across Government this year so we will need to do something different in budget 2026. We need to look at a different policy approach and a different funding approach.
I hosted an event on the cost of education in early April to better inform that approach and to better understand the interventions that are necessary and what kind of measures would be most helpful and most impactful. I met with representative groups. I will continue that consultation over the summer. I met with the previous executives of student unions. I understand new executives will be coming in around this time. I look forward to meeting them over the coming weeks.
I reiterate my absolute commitment to all of the commitments of the programme for Government and not just one. We have had a lot of focus on one in recent days but the programme for Government includes a number of commitments relating to my Department. I will work through each one of them. A number of them have already been fulfilled. I will continue to work through them all. I will honour every single commitment insofar as I can. However, it is also important to realise that it is not feasible to deliver every programme for Government commitment in full in year one. That is important to realise. There are commitments that are spread over the lifetime of the Government, which is exactly how I will approach them. I am working my way through them. That will be challenging at times. It is stated that this is to be done in a financially sustainable manner. That is part of it. I do not cherry-pick. I take it as it is. However, I fully intend to address these commitments, including reducing the student contribution over the lifetime of the Government and bringing about a system that is not temporary, once-off or a question of "will they, won't they" every summer, as we have now and have had over the last three summers, but that is permanent, costed and sustainable and that will form part of the baseline Estimates going forward so that students have certainty about where it is going in the future. The interventions of recent years were certainly welcome but progressing in a permanent sustainable manner will better serve students and their families and give them the certainty they need.
The comments the Minister made on national radio caused great uncertainty on this matter. We still do not have clarity on the issue nine days on. I will tell the Minister about the impact this uncertainty and the proposed hike is having on people. He said that he did not understand how people would not be able to afford this increase in fees. A mother in my constituency who has two children in college told me that she literally cried last Sunday morning when she heard the Minister on the radio. She said that finding another €2,000 for next year on top of everything else she is paying out seems undoable.
It is no good to her to hear Micheál Martin and Simon Harris on the radio saying they are going to reduce fees over the lifetime of the Government. She needs it now, or at the very least she needs things to stay as they are, not to increase. What does the Minister have to say in response to that mother and will he provide certainty to her and the thousands of students out there who would be affected by this?
I have one thing to add. I represent Dublin Rathdown, and UCD is obviously a significant institution within Dublin Rathdown. The key recommendation of the students' union there, in last year's report on student accommodation, was that reducing the student contribution fee is the most effective way to support students and their families. I think that highlights where the students are coming from and what their expectations are.
I reiterate the worry and terror that the Minister's words have spread. I know he has mentioned the great stuff he is doing, but for these parents who are struggling and the students who are struggling to pay their own way through college, is there reassurance he can give to them? I understand that he is tied by the budget of the Government, and he does not want to speak too soon. As Deputy O'Hara said there are multiple people who woke up in terror and are struggling at the moment with everything going on. There is another thing in that regard. We spoke earlier about students struggling with accommodation and we saw the students up here. Another thing that the Minister for housing is bringing in relates to the granny flats and cabins in the garden. The proposed rules are that they are just for direct family members. That should be changed so they can be for anyone to live in, which would benefit students who are struggling to find accommodation.
The Minister has spoken in great detail about the various supports that exist for students, but the issue people want clarity on and need to know about is the question of how much the student contribution will be in September. The reason they are asking that question is because of his comments on "This Week". He opened this Pandora's box, and he has the capacity to close it if he so wishes. He was not helped by the contribution of the Tánaiste and his liberal briefings across media over the past number of days suggesting he was going to do something. That has actually compounded the confusion. Parents and particularly students need to know how much they will pay in September. It is not okay for the Minister and his colleagues to spend the next three months saying it is the normal budgetary process and they cannot talk about this. He needs to give people clarification. He opened this question. He needs to answer it.
Part of me is surprised at the surprise, because I said this at parliamentary questions in February, March and April. I said it in the Irish Examiner, in The Irish Times and in other local radio interviews. I said it in multiple places, so I wonder why anyone feigns surprise. Of course, the general public do not tune into this Chamber, but there are spokespersons and people in the House, and those who follow. Deputy O'Gorman was a Minister who did the cost-of-living package in the previous Government, so he knows it was temporary. There should not be any surprise on his behalf. This is exactly the same situation as prevailed last year and the year before and the year before. In those situations, the €1,000 contribution rebate was not applied until October. It did not kick in in June, July or August. I remember getting representations from students and their families over the past couple of years, querying it myself and being told it was a budgetary matter. It did not get the same attention.
Deputy O'Gorman said earlier that I gave a straight answer. Maybe I should have fudged it and done the political thing of saying there is nothing to see here. I tried to be straight about it and perhaps I have learned a lesson, but if that is the case it is to be regretted that we have to fudge things to get through these interviews. That is regrettable. It is not how I do business. It is a fact that none of us knows, in any Department or any part of government, what our budget is for the year ahead, what we will have and what demands will be placed on that money. We cannot know that until October. What I can say, as I have said repeatedly, is that we already have for September multiple new schemes, benefits and thresholds. I have stated my absolute commitment to see through the programme for Government in full. There may be challenges about how we do that, but the job is to rise to challenges and meet them. I intend to do that and to see reductions to the student contribution fee in a financially sustainable way. That is the bit that gets least attention, but the parties were every bit as adamant that it be inserted into the programme for Government. I will see the programme for Government through to the letter.
I raised the case of a woman in my constituency, and I ask the Minister for a response to that particular case and the questions that woman has about how she is expected to afford an increase in fees. Students need to be able to plan and budget in advance for the upcoming academic year and they need certainty around this. I want to know because this is the second time in recent weeks that students have been thrown under the bus by the Government. We had the rent reforms recently, which are going to have a disproportionate impact on students. What does the Government have against students? Students cannot just magic up €1,000. My constituents are telling me that. I know people from across the State have been writing to the Minister in recent days telling him that. I urge the Minister to listen to students and their families, and outline how people like this woman in my constituency are supposed to afford an extra €2,000 for the next academic year.
I understand the constraints the Minister is under when it comes to the budget, and he is not 100% aware of what will be in his Department. I go back to my other question. I was wondering if he would clarify his opinion. He will obviously be looking at students in this. The huge burden they have at the moment is accommodation, especially students who are coming to visit and to live in Dublin. The Department of housing is bringing in measures to allow cabins in gardens to be developed. Is the Minister of the opinion that there should not be a restriction that these cabins should only be for direct family members? For example, Mrs. O'Brien has a house and an area where she can put in a cabin. Why should she only be allowed to allow a direct family member to live there, when a student can travel from counties Meath, Galway or Cork to Dublin and avail of that accommodation? It makes complete sense. I do not understand why we allow it just for direct family members.
The Minister is right. I was in government when the cost-of-living measures in the area of the student contribution were agreed. That is why, whereas there is a lot on the programme for Government I am critical of, I welcomed the commitment in there to continue to reduce the student contribution fee over the lifetime of the Government. I took from that the clear meaning that every student in the country took, which was that this was a process that would see further reductions. What the Minister announced was a full-on increase of €1,000 that students are now dealing with. He talked about trying to be up front and honest. We then have to deal with the situation of his coalition colleagues. The Tánaiste is giving this broad stage wink to students like he will look after them in September. It is not fair to create this level of confusion. The Government has created the confusion, and the Minister can clarify it. It is not fair to ask people to wait three months.
An Teachta Heneghan spoke about student accommodation and backyard cabins and such like. Regardless of whether I comment on my own brief, it would probably be unhelpful if I were to start commenting on the Minister for housing's brief. I hear what the Deputy is saying, and I will mention those points to the Minister. I am not across that section so it would not be appropriate for me to get into commentary on it. However, the Deputy highlights a point that ultimately the costs of education are multifaceted. There are fees, living costs, accommodation costs, transport costs and materials costs. We have been through this a few times in the House, but I will recap. One of the many ways that I hope to tackle the cost of education is by producing a cost of education paper. I met with students’ representatives in April in Croke Park.
I met the USI in March, again in April and again in June. I met many other representatives across the education system, including access officers and advocates for disadvantaged groups. From that stakeholder engagement, which is ongoing and on which I am open to submissions, I published a costs of education paper that sets out the choices. There are choices and costs but they are not just financial costs; there are opportunity costs. If we do this, we cannot do that. Those are the choices we have to make.
Among them are choices about student accommodation. I brought to Cabinet a fortnight ago a blueprint for student accommodation. I want to publish by the end of this year a student accommodation strategy. Ultimately, the solution to finding comfortable, affordable units for students is building student accommodation at scale. We have 116 beds coming on stream in Maynooth and 493 recently announced by UCD with support and funding from my Department. DCU is in a process before its board investigating its tenders. Those are the first three projects coming on stream in the near future. We have many other projects around the country. I am seeking significant funding in the national development plan to invest further in purpose-built student accommodation.
The Deputy mentioned people travelling further having a greater burden. In the SUSI scheme, there is the adjacent grant and the non-adjacent grant. Those who live further from their college qualify for a higher maintenance grant, as is right and proper because it costs more to get there.
Deputy O'Hara talked of a family in his constituency. I am happy to take that discussion offline. If he brings me that case, I will investigate it. That goes for any Deputy in the House if there are particular cases they are struggling with. Let us see whether, with the supports and schemes already in place, some people are falling through the cracks. If so, why? If not, great, let us get them the support they are entitled to. There may be a flaw that means they are not getting support. I hear a lot of hardship cases. I hear them in my constituency and have for years, long before I was in this Department. Now I am in a position to do something about it. If Deputies find gaps in the system or anomalies, tell me so I can fix them.
Apprenticeship Programmes
101. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science to provide an update on the progress made regarding the funding issues at SOLAS and ETB apprenticeship training programmes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37556/25]
I ask for an update on the progress made on the funding issue at SOLAS and the ETBs and the impact this is having on apprenticeships, the community sector and adult education within further education. Will the Minister provide some detail? We have all heard of a hole in the budget of between €40 million and €50 million but some clarity on that would be appreciated.
In fairness, the Deputy was one of the first to raise this matter in the House a few weeks ago. He and Deputy Cullinane raised it in Topical Issues a couple of weeks back. As he is aware from that engagement, my Department and I were informed that, following engagements between SOLAS and ETBs on budgets, a funding pressure was identified for the 2025 apprenticeship budget. As I said a few questions back, that relates to allowances where apprentices are in the system longer than was anticipated because of backlogs that arose. They then became eligible for higher rates of payment which placed a strain on the funding of SOLAS and the ETBs. That is how it came about. SOLAS is the State agency tasked with the further education training sector and a key part of its remit is managing budgets and allocating funding to the ETBs to deliver those programmes.
Since the Deputy raised it last, I have engaged with SOLAS in person and in writing and I will meet its board this Thursday along with the Minister of State, Deputy Harkin. We are both going out to visit its board and will bring certain messages which I will not go into now but the Deputy can be sure this item will be on the agenda. I have written to the chair of the board, instructing him and SOLAS that no scheduled apprenticeship classes are to be cancelled. As we heard from Deputy O'Sullivan, it would be unacceptable for a backlog to be recreated. We need the apprenticeship system to work. We need employees to come through that training. A skilled labour force is essential.
SOLAS, with the full support of my officials, is working with the ETBs to identify solutions and that work is going well. We have identified moneys that can be allocated to that. I am engaging with the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation on additional supports. We will move might and main to make sure this gets through the system, the backlog is cleared and this does not go into another year. I do not think that would be acceptable to anybody.
Can we get a figure for how big a hole we are talking about? I have heard it is between €40 million and €50 million and I have heard in relation to Louth and Meath ETB that it is between €8 million and €11 million-plus. It is necessary that the Minister engage with SOLAS. Like Deputy O'Sullivan, I think at some point we will need to know how this came about. The Minister only discussed this a month ago. Many of us heard this only in the recent past. It is a question of how this was missed and of ensuring protocols exist such that a situation like this cannot arise. It is a necessity that the Minister have that conversation with the Minister for public expenditure and secure the funding. Our fear is that, while we might not have cancelled apprenticeships, we are having postponements and a slow-up in the system, and that is not acceptable.
I completely agree it is not acceptable. This is why I have taken strong, proactive steps to address it since it came to my attention. As well as directing SOLAS that no courses should be cancelled, I directed it to engage with ETBs to set out the programme of phase 2 classes through to the end of the year and to work out funding implications across the board to December. What does the revised schedule of classes look like? It means no classes will be cancelled but some may start later in the year than previously planned. That will be managed. My message to SOLAS and the ETBs is to manage it proactively and minimise the impact on apprentices. Instructors will be working. They have many other tasks to perform as part of their curriculum development. There are different challenges. Some ETBs are impacted differently than others, and some trades are impacted differently than others. The plan SOLAS is working on takes account of those variances. The response I received from SOLAS is that, once it is managed practically, it will not materially impact progression to the following year, which is very important.
It would be hard to say I am still not apprehensive about this. We will need some detail on how these postponements will happen. I agree with the Minister that pressure has to be put on in relation to the fact the apprenticeships must not be cancelled. We need to find the money and make sure everything is not held up. I agree with the work being done on the funding implications through to December. When does the Minister expect to have that? If we could at some point, if not today, get the overall figure and the breakdown for individual ETBs, that would be useful. Will this have an impact? The adult educators will be out here tomorrow and they are talking about tutors who have been told they have less work or will not have work across ten ETBs. We know the issues with LTIs so we are very worried across the further education piece. Clarity needs to be brought, alongside the money. We must find out how this happened and ensure it does not happen again.
The Deputy has engaged in good faith throughout on this matter. I hear his queries and share them. It is important a solution be found, including a funding solution, in the coming weeks. The cut-off for classes starting in December is September. There is a lead-time for apprentices to be called up and September is the deadline for December classes. We do not have time on our side; however, I am confident. Significant progress has been made in the few weeks since this issue emerged. We are engaging on sustainable funding options to get SOLAS and the ETBs to the end of year. Normally, the Supplementary Estimate takes place in November but we may need to bring that forward to bridge this gap. I am quite confident the matter is receiving significant ministerial attention from me and the Minister of State. We are aware of the issues and keen to progress them. I am engaging across government to ensure that happens in time for the next round.
What about the adult education and community piece?
I do not know if that is connected and it probably would not be wise or fair to start putting on the record things I am not 100% certain on.
106. Deputy Grace Boland asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science to detail the uptake of the supports to help to achieve a better gender balance in apprenticeships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37513/25]
I call Deputy O'Connell on behalf of Deputy Boland.
I thank the Minister. Will he detail the update on supports to help to achieve a better gender balance in apprenticeships?
I thank the Deputy. I really appreciate the question because it is something that is very important to me.
Ensuring Ireland's apprenticeship population reflects the diversity in our society is a cornerstone in implementing the Action Plan on Apprenticeships 2021-2025. A key objective of this is improving gender balance across all apprenticeship programmes. In implementing the action plan in January 2022, the Government introduced a targeted grant of €2,666 which is available to employers who employ apprentices from a minority gender on programmes which already have over 80% representation of a single gender. This initiative was designed to encourage greater gender diversity in traditionally male or female dominated fields. Of course, as the Deputy knows, it is traditionally male dominated fields. Since its introduction, we have seen a 64% increase in female participation in apprenticeships. In truth, as the Deputy and I know, we are starting from a low level so an increase of 64%, while substantial, still means we have a lot more work to do. An important point to make is that the introduction and growth of consortia-led apprenticeships in 2016 has considerably increased female participation. Of the 2,579 female apprentices at the end of 2024, more than 2,000 were participating in consortia-led apprenticeships.
Apart from that, my Department has launched the Careers in Construction action plan, with initiatives to highlight opportunities in construction for women and girls, including the "building heroes" social media peer to peer campaign, which I will deal with a little bit more later, along with the "facts, faces, futures" campaign, which I will give the Deputy more detail on in a minute.
I thank the Minister of State. There have been some notable successes. For example, with aircraft mechanics, women's participation has gone from 11% to 18%. That is possibly an area from where we could take some learnings on it. One of the other things I wanted to follow up on is the fact the targets for female participation are quite ambitious. From 2023 to 2025, we are looking for an increase of 124%. That is why I ask about the measures we have in place. How will we get there and how effective are those measures? The €2,666 contribution per apprentice is an interesting contribution and I wonder has there been any uptake by male apprentices of that or has that gone mostly to people employing female apprentices?
I thank the Deputy. The main area we are looking at there is the area of hairdressing. It is the one area where that would have increased. Gender balance in craft apprenticeships has increased significantly since the launch of the action plan, with the number of female craft apprenticeships more than doubling from 260 to 533, an increase of exactly 105%. I will be honest with the Deputy. When you start from a low base, having a big increase is not that difficult. The gender bursary has made a real difference and we can see from the figures that it increased from 260 in 2021 to 537 in 2024. At the end of June this year, 533 women were in that sector. Those are real signs of progress in getting more and more women involved.
I thank the Minister of State. I will come back to the bursary again. Are there specific sectors where the uptake was more than others? Is there thus an opportunity to target other sectors with low representation, particularly of women? I agree and assumed hairdressing was the one area where there might be a balance to be struck. Are there learnings from sectors which may have been more successful in taking advantage of that bursary that can be applied to other sectors to try to encourage more women's participation? I agree, we are starting from a very low base. The numbers are moving in the right direction but the target of a 124% increase in two years is very ambitious and I would like to see that we have the measures in place to help us to achieve that.
As I explained, the increase in craft apprenticeships is quite significant. We also have another campaign, the faces, facts, futures campaign, which was launched in 2023 and connects all-girls schools in the country with the National Apprentice Office, which publicised this campaign. Looking at registration figures for apprenticeships, they have increased significantly since the launch of this campaign by approximately 31% between the end of 2022 and 2024. The Deputy asked for stats and we saw 887 female apprenticeship registration figures in 2022. At the end of 2024, that figure had increased to almost 1,200. That is an ongoing campaign. It is really powerful. Of course, we also have the "building heroes" campaign. I do not know if the Deputy is familiar with it but these are men and women, but women also, who are involved in the construction sector. They are speaking about the opportunities that are there. To me, it is a social media campaign that is one of the most powerful campaigns I have ever seen. It is yielding results.
Question No. 107 taken with Question No. 104.
Third Level Education
108. Deputy Naoise Ó Muirí asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science the impact of the increases in the SUSI grant levels introduced in 2024; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37308/25]
I thank the Deputy. I welcome this question. It is an opportunity to talk about the impact the SUSI grant can have. There has been continued investment and improvement with it but there is still more we can do. If we look at certain measures within the schemes and bands, there is an opportunity to go further there. Significant improvements have been made over the last number of years. In 2024, the once-off cost of living measures benefitted a proportion of grant holders in 2024. It is desirable to continue that beyond a once-off, temporary measure and into more permanent measures and to provide certainty to students because they are of significant impact and continue to benefit students.
We also have to look at it from a wider perspective. Undergraduate students deserve and receive the most focus but there is also the postgraduate student population. Maintenance was restored to them on a similar basis in September 2024, with a pro rata increase from January 2024. A total of 1,741 postgraduate students benefited from this measure in the previous academic year. Effective from September of last year and coming into this year, all non-adjacent maintenance rates increased by €615 and all adjacent maintenance grant rates increased by 10%, with a pro rata increase effective from January 2024. This benefitted 48,652 students, including the postgraduate students who I mentioned.
From September 2024, the special rate threshold increased in line with welfare. The band 4 maintenance increased to €50,840, the band under which to receive the grant, with the threshold for the 100% student contribution grant increasing by 10% to €55,924. Every student or their family up to an income of €55,924, just under €60,000, received their 100% student contribution grant as well as their SUSI grant. Those thresholds have expanded further for the upcoming year. It is important to also talk about and recognise the part-time fees scheme, which I will come back to in the supplementary.
It is very interesting if you look at the data, particularly for mature students. This is over a period of time. I do not think it is for that particular year but for mature honours degree students aged 23 and over, 71% of SUSI grant recipients completed their degree compared with 65% of those who did not get SUSI support. It seems that mature students get through at a better rate if they have more support. It is the same for mature general degree students who receive SUSI support, with 70% of them getting their degree compared to 59% of those without SUSI support. For mature students, it seems to have a particularly good impact.
I have seen the statistics for the various counties and the number of students getting support. They are very substantial, with more than 80,000 in total. With the Minister's maths hat on and his interest in data, what I am really interested in - perhaps his officials could deliver in due course - is as he makes changes to these schemes, how can he see the impact the year after or can he track back and link back making the changes to some level of outcome afterwards?
I think the Deputy has got to the heart of the recent debate; he has actually nailed it. It is so important that with whatever intervention we make around fees, grants or supports, we understand what the policy objective is. Is it to broaden the net? Is it to give something to everybody? Is it to give most to those who need it most? Is it to bring into the system people who would not otherwise have access third level education? Is it about a life-changing intervention for a family who has never had anybody go to college before? Is it for mature students who want to make the leap to return to college, perhaps after having been in the workforce? Let us be clear on the policy objectives and the problems we are trying to solve. If we are clear about those, we can design and tailor an intervention to match. Along those lines, I have instructed my Department to prepare research on the impact of various interventions and the levers we can pull, in addition to the policy consequences of those levers. I will include the Deputy’s position in the mix because it is important.
If I understand the Deputy’s point on mature students correctly, mature students seem to have proportionately benefited even more from some of the measures than others. That is an interesting point.
That is the point I was making. It looks like the data indicate mature students who get the SUSI support do better in the long run than those who do not. It is a matter of closing the loop over the research and considering it in the long term to understand what happens when levers are pulled. When the Minister pulls levers, it is a case of asking whether he is just bringing more people into the system who will ultimately leave without success or targeting the resources at particular groups of students. It would be useful at the right time to get more information on that.
For the benefit of the House, let me recap on some of the measures kicking in this year. I will investigate with regard to the cohort mentioned. It is worth saying that the special rate of maintenance threshold increased this year from €26,200 to €27,400. All grant thresholds increased by 15%, meaning the highest threshold is now €115,000. I signed a statutory instrument about four weeks into this job to bring 100 additional part-time courses into the SUSI net and the support net for the first time. Therefore, we are broadening and deepening the system, and we are providing more supports to more students than ever before.
Education and Training Boards
109. Deputy Darren O'Rourke asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science for an update on the funding cut to apprenticeships in Meath and across the State; his assessment of the practical impact of this cut; the measures he is taking to address this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37297/25]
I thank the Deputy. We have had a few variations of this discussion over the evening. That is to be expected because there were impacts in different areas in different ways. There has actually been no funding cut to the apprenticeship system in 2025. In fact, investment through the Revised Estimates has increased by €41 million by comparison with the figure for last year. Instead of a funding cut, there has been a funding increase for the system from my Department.
The Government has demonstrated a strong and sustained commitment. Since the formation of my Department, investment in apprenticeship training has increased by 84% from €184 million in 2020 to €339 million in 2025. There was an additional €77 million in the last budget, putting apprenticeships on a scale they were never on before in terms of supports, including practical supports, and the scope and number of courses that can be accessed.
It is the responsibility of SOLAS to work with the individual ETBs to plan their provision within the funding allocation made available by central government. There are complexities. It is a demand-led system but with a finite funding envelope. Funding is allocated on an Estimates basis each year but there is a demand curve. It can be difficult for these to align. It is up to SOLAS to manage this with the ETBs. It has a quite generous budget of over €1 billion and it allocates to the ETBs depending on demand in each area. It is tasked with managing and predicting demand and working with the ETBs to plan in this regard.
Bearing in mind Louth and Meath Education and Training Board, LMETB, which I know is important to the Deputy, issues have been identified with SOLAS at national level. I spoke about these in response to a different question. My Department is working with SOLAS to progress solutions to these by way of supplementary funding. That is going well. There is a need for some further intervention. I am to meet the board of SOLAS on Thursday and I have instructed that no apprenticeships are to be cancelled, but I am confident we will have a resolution quite soon.
Is that the case with LMETB or are there specific circumstances in its area? I do not know whether the Minister was going to make a point on that.
The figures I have from the service plan for 2025 show further education and training funding was €87 million and that this was revised on foot of a funding letter down to €73.7 million. That is a cut of in the region of €14 million, by any measure. There are genuine concerns in relation to it.
The Minister mentioned in an earlier response the possibility of a supplementary budget, which I hope will come soon. Is that his intention? Is it his understanding that the figure for the LMETB area is €14 million or such a sum?
I do not have to hand a figure for LMETB per se. The overall system has received €41 million more this year than last year. What SOLAS allocates to each ETB is a matter for it. It is devolved from my Department and my control. If LMETB has a figure above or below what was expected, it is between it and SOLAS. The overall budget envelope for which responsibility has been devolved to SOLAS has actually increased.
There is no doubt but that there are issues, however, and these stem from the backlog of apprentices that arose last year and the year before. Many apprentices were on a higher rate of pay than anticipated because they were in the system longer. They have not exited the system and that has caused funding pressures. I am working through that, along with the Minister of State, Deputy Harken, our officials and SOLAS.
I mentioned in response to an earlier parliamentary question that the deadline for December calls to start apprenticeship training is September. That is our window. We need to act. We are acting already and I am confident we will have this addressed, through Supplementary Estimates if needs be, before the deadline.
It is really important that these courses proceed and that people be allowed to work their way through the system because we need a conveyor belt of graduates in all courses.
There was a reference earlier to reflection on how we have ended up in this place. None of the students or apprentices has dropped out of the sky; they have been in the system. Has SOLAS dropped the ball? Did the Minister’s predecessor, Deputy O’Donovan, do so? What has gone wrong such that we have ended up as we have? I hope that through the Minister’s and collective efforts, we will get out of this, but it is a serious concern. I wonder what is at the heart of it.
My immediate focus is on fixing the problem but I hear what the Deputy is saying. The immediate response is to address the funding gap to ensure no courses are detrimentally impacted to the extent that they would not progress into next year. I have written to the chair of SOLAS to instruct that no apprenticeship classes be cancelled. Once this is resolved – I am confident it will be in the short term – there may need to be some governance amendments and stronger protections within the system to ensure an early warning, far in advance, of issues concerning financial management.
Let me finish on a positive. To an extent, this is a feature of success. The demand for and interest in the apprenticeship route have increased considerably over recent years, to the extent that craft registrations, for example, amounted to 7,100 despite the 6,800 forecast. This is mirrored across most of the cohorts. Therefore, we have more people who want to do apprenticeships than ever before.
Question No. 110 taken with Question No. 104.
Question No. 111 taken with Written Answers.
Question No. 112 taken with Question No. 104.
Question No. 113 taken with Written Answers.
Further and Higher Education
114. Deputy Naoise Ó Muirí asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science if there is a detailed plan on how the National Training Fund will be expanded; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37309/25]
I thank the Deputy. There is a simple answer, but since the Deputy probably wants some details, I will tell him a bit more. I am very passionate and excited about the opportunity we have provided through the National Training Fund. There is a surplus in the fund of almost €1.5 billion and that has been accumulated through employer contributions over several years. The issue today is that it has been difficult to fully harness the potential of the fund because it was first envisaged as a labour activation measure in times of economic turbulence when people on the live register were trying to get back into the workforce for reskilling and upskilling. This is still important but thankfully, for now, the economic climate is more robust.
The use of that money can be more purposefully put towards plugging the core funding gap in higher education, for example. The Cassells report identified €307 million of a shortfall between what the colleges were receiving and what they actually needed to operate. I intend to put €150 million per year current funding into the colleges to plug that gap. That should close the funding gap once and for all. It is a really significant measure if we achieve that. There is also money ring-fenced for apprenticeships and for the further education system. There is also money ring-fenced from capital spending and decarbonisation of the higher education estate. There are moneys ring-fenced for the likes of the new courses in medicine. We have new courses starting in Galway and Limerick, pharmacy and veterinary courses in ATU and SETU, and a number of other professional courses which are being supported through the National Training Fund, along with investment and research. The research stipends have increased to €25,000 from €16,000, a very significant leap. They are really the fuel that drives our information economy, our PhD students and researchers. That is being supported through it as well, along with some capital allocation. To do that, I need to legislate for it. As originally envisaged, it is not allowed for the money to be spend in that way. I hope to bring that legislation before the House this year.
As I understand it, it is a 1% charge which is collected through employer's PRSI. I was looking at employer's PRSI and could not find it anywhere so I presume it is just buried within the employer's rate. Will the Minister give us a sense of this? It is going up year on year, with buoyancy in employment it should be going up more. Roughly how much does it go up by year on year? That sets out the scope of operation in terms of what can be done.
The question is a good one as to where it goes next. Before I answer that I will talk about the steps my previous answers were stepping through. We need to bring in legislation because the National Training Fund Act does not envisage the type of uses I have just outlined. I think they are important. I met with IBEC and other employer representatives on it. There is a general shared understanding that we need to invest in education and all the things I have just said. This is a very useful resource towards that. The heads of the Bill are being drafted. That is before the relevant committee. I think there was a briefing on it this evening. The intention is to get that legislation before the Dáil very early in the new term. If that legislation is passed through all Stages, which I very much hope and think it can be, early when we resume after the summer break, we can then begin to spend that money and get some impact from that.
The Deputy's question is very perceptive. That is the situation to date but it will continue and there will be more moneys coming into that. It is important in fairness to employers who pay the rate that they see some return on it as well. When they have a return on investment from education, we absolutely need to incorporate workforce skilling and practical measures to support employers as well.
Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar www.oireachtas.ie.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.