asked the Minister for Labour if he is aware of the criticism made by the chairman of the Construction Industry Federation in relation to the AnCO apprenticeship scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I have seen the recent Press statement made by the president of the Construction Industry Federation in relation to the training of apprentices in that industry involving criticism of AnCO in that connection.

I have also seen the statement issued by the director general of AnCO in response to that criticism and I am fully satisfied from inquiries I have made that the position is as stated by the director general.

Deputies will also have read the Press report of a recent statement on this matter by the chairman of the apprentice committee of the College of Technology, Kevin Street, Dublin.

The Minister will be aware that the contents of the statement of the president of the Construction Industry Federation were very serious. The president implied that there were vacancies for up to 1,400 apprentices in the building industry but for the neglect of AnCO. Would the Minister care to comment on that statement?

I have also seen the statement by the director general. In 1977 alone AnCO spent £1.2 million on training nearly 400 apprentices for the construction industry. In those circumstances, and with that contribution to training, it seems an unfair criticism. I would also draw the Deputy's attention to a statement by the chairman of the Committee of the College of Technology, Kevin Street.

In reference to the statement by the director general of AnCO, he does not say that what the president of the Construction Industry Federation said was untrue. He does not deny that there are up to 1,400 vacancies for apprentices in the construction industry. I want to know from this Minister, who is responsible for creating jobs, what he has done to rectify that situation, whoever is to blame?

Nobody is saying that any situation has to be rectified or that anybody is to blame. I am pointing out the facts of the situation. Other industries recruit and train their own apprentices to meet their future needs at their own expense with the assistance of AnCO. In this case a very substantial sum of money was spent in 1977 for training 400 apprentices for the building and construction industry and this will continue. I believe AnCO are providing a very useful service to the building industry.

This is a very serious matter dealing with employment for young people and I know the Minister is concerned about it. There are two sides to this argument. I hold no brief for the Construction Industry Federation.

The Deputy is making a statement.

Here we have a situation where there is said to be employment for 1,400 young people. Will the Minister take some action to clear whatever bottleneck exists?

What I have been saying to the Deputy is that primarily the responsibility for the cost of training must rest with the industry itself. I believe and I am convinced that AnCO are making a very worth-while contribution to training for the construction industry as instanced by the amount of money spent last year.

Is the Minister telling the House that young people seeking employment can go and get stuffed because he will not take any action?

I am not saying that. Do not be silly.

That is the effect of what he is saying

Do not be ridiculous.

Question No. 14.

One final supplementary?

No.

Would the Minister discuss with the construction industry the criticisms of the president?

I have already answered that.

I am calling Question No. 14.

14.