The Minister is very welcome to the House today. I invite him to introduce the Bill.

It is good to have agreement at the outset, indeed. I am delighted to be here to present the Bill, which amends the National Training Fund Act 2000. The Bill was published on 10 October and concluded its passage through the Dáil on 3 December. I welcome the support received in the Dáil for the Bill, which aims to provide capital funding from the National Training Fund, NTF, for the purposes of providing and improving facilities for training and skills development. Effectively, the fund has been a very useful instrument available to the training system for some time and this looks to the remit of it and allows it to be used for slightly more competencies and capabilities that enhance the purposes for which it is intended, which is the provision of skills for those in employment and facilitate lifelong learning, to provide training for those who wish to acquire skills to take up employment and provide information on skills requirements in the economy.

As the relevant Minister I am responsible for the overall management, monitoring and evaluation of the fund, while my colleague the Minister for Finance manages and controls the investment account. The fund is financed through a levy on employers that is collected through the PRSI employers’ contribution. Currently the NTF levy is set at 1% of reckonable earnings and that was increased in budgets 2017, 2018, 2019 up to 2020 by 0.1% and now sits at 1%. One of the key priorities of the fund is to strengthen and shape existing and develop new higher education, further education and training, FET, provision to ensure alignment with workforce reskilling, upskilling and lifelong learning requirements . This is essential to deliver on the talent needs of the economy and strengthen Ireland’s competitive position and reputation for an agile, responsive, and highly skilled workforce.

The accumulated surplus of the NTF at the end of 2024 was approximately €1.77 billion and during 2024 consideration was given to how the surplus could be effectively accessed and utilised to meet the existing and future skills needs for employees, those seeking employment and employers, together with addressing the funding needs for further and higher education within the spending parameters of the annual budget. Budget 2025 delivered a total NTF funding package of €1.485 billion over a six-year period for the tertiary sector, including €885 million current funding including increasing funding for higher education by a further €150 million per annum by 2030 and one-off current funding for the tertiary sector, including the areas of skills and apprenticeships. It also included a €600 million capital uplift to enable skills development, including facilities, in areas such as healthcare, veterinary skills, further education skills, supporting universal access to skills provision and across the research sector, including an increase in the PhD stipend. A further €50 million was then made available through the national development plan, NDP, review process for research and development, bringing the total capital package to €650 million. It is important to note that the NTF expenditure increases general government expenditure and can only be accommodated within the fiscal strategy agreed by Government. The NTF surplus funding package, therefore, is accomplished within those ceilings.

During the proposals being formalised in 2024, legal advice was sought on funding capital expenditure from the NTF. That legal advice noted that an amendment to the National Training Fund Act would be required to facilitate capital expenditure on land and infrastructure being part of that fund. Legal advice was further sought during the drafting of the Bill on whether an amendment of the Act was required to facilitate core funding for higher education and research innovation expenditure and the legal advice was received that an amendment was not necessary to facilitate enhanced higher education and research funding once the schemes developed met the purposes of the Act, which is the key point. They all do, they are consistent and the original purpose of the Act is not being amended in any way. The Bill, therefore, makes minimal amendments to the original parent Act of 2000. It merely provides for capital expenditure from the NTF. That will ensure that the new NTF expenditure announced in budget 2025 can be provided from 2026 onwards. This will provide key educational training facilities, opportunities for employees and opportunities for those seeking employment. The funding will also assist in meeting existing and future skills needs for employers. The NTF is a strategic national asset for reskilling and upskilling our workforce and the funding package of nearly €1.5 billion will deliver substantial and impactful investment to deliver the critical skills necessary for the 21st century.

I will recap on the main provisions of the Bill, which provides for minimal amendments for the parent Act. It does not amend in any way the purpose of the NTF Act, which is to fund schemes established to raise the skills of those in employment, or provide training to those who wish to acquire skills for the purposes of taking up employment or to provide information relating to existing and likely future requirements for skills in the economy. The Bill includes sections as follows. Section 1 relates to the amendment of section 7 of the National Training Fund Act. The section provides for the insertion of a new section 7(2B) to provide that payments from the National Training Fund in respect of a scheme may include payments in respect of the acquisition of lands, premises, furniture or equipment and the upgrading, construction or reconstruction, including repair and maintenance, of premises. It is important to note these payments must be made in accordance with a scheme 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 or to provide information in relation to existing, or likely future, requirements for skills in the economy. Any amendments under this Act and any capital expenditure is entirely consistent and in harmony with the aims of the Act as set out in the parent Act and as remain unchanged in these amendments.

Section 2 has the Short Title and commencement and the usual necessary protocols.

I listened carefully during the recent Dáil debates and exchanges. I thank colleagues across that House for their support for this legislation. I am confident that any issues that were ventilated have been addressed in the sense the amendments here are minimal and the €1.5 billion budget package will be enabled for full support to the sector and will allow that very necessary and important expenditure from the NTF. One concern raised in the Dáil was that capital expenditure from the NTF may be used for purposes other than for skills development. I reassure the House that the purposes of the NTF Act will not be amended by the Bill at all and that any capital funding utilised for the NTF can only be used and will only be used in accordance with the legislation, that is, for training, upskilling, reskilling, or identifying skills needs. The legislation does not permit the funding to be provided from the NTF for any other purpose than those I have just mentioned.

There was some mention of retrofitting premises and refurbishment of various buildings. They key point on that is any building refurbishment or refit will only be to provide a training space for those seeking to acquire skills for the purpose of employment and consistent with the needs of the Act. We need to provide facilities. We cannot train people in an empty space or in thin air so it is important we have state-or-the-art leading facilities and modernised facilities and equipment to conduct the training. That is a key part of the reason we have capital expenditure. In some cases, that may involve retrofitting an older building to bring it back into productive use. I have had the privilege of visiting a number of training sites in my time as Minister all over the country where some older buildings had exactly that experience of being retrofitted and brought back into productive use. I commend all the organisations, including the education and training boards, ETBs, where they have done that and that has enabled the creation of many more apprenticeships, for example, in many sectors. We have consulted widely, including with the National Skills Council and the high-level skills implementation group and stakeholders such as IBEC, ISME, and others on this legislation and to reassure them on some of the matters I have mentioned. This is something that has been called for for many years - funding the future, the deficit, the universities and skills provision. This will finally unlock that fund for the benefit of the higher and further education sectors. It is critical legislation and I commend it to the House.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive opening statement.

I welcome the Minister. It is great to have him back in the House again. I also welcome this Bill. I have heard the Minister speak many times since he took up his office and I have always been struck by how familiar he is with his brief. There is such rich tapestry of things happening within it. Hearing him speak again this morning I am struck by how much the Government appreciates and understands the link between our higher education sector, our skilled workforce and our economy and how funding and ensuring we put money and investment into our knowledge economy will allow us to do all of the other things the public wants us to do in terms of special needs assistants, healthcare, housing and infrastructure and all of the good work we are rightly focused on delivering. It also struck me how synchronised things are across government and how there is a whole-of-government approach to ensuring we drive on in delivering for the people while ensuring we develop a sustainable economy.

I am very pleased to support the Bill, which responds to a very practical challenge. While we can fund courses and programmes through the NTF, the existing legislation, as the Minister rightly pointed out, restricts us in the context of supporting the provision of many of the facilities and equipment those programmes require. We simply cannot train an engineer, a robotics technician, healthcare assistant or an apprentice in 2025 with outdated tools and buildings. This Bill ensures that the capital investments, whether they are refurbishments, retrofitting, decarbonisation works or accessibility improvements, are funded and that safeguard is hardwired into the legislation. It also allows certain research and core HE funding to be supported when it clearly strengthens the skills base.

I commend the work on the work the Minister has done in liaising with the different stakeholders in the interest groups. When this was first mooted a number of months ago, there was concern from the business community because this is the money it had built up, the fund it had contributed to and the question was what would happen to it? I had very few of those communications coming to me and very little of that concern was expressed to me in the past week as I prepared to meet the Minister today. The Minister has done well in the important work of communicating on this Bill with our partners and stakeholders.

If I may, I want to focus for a moment on Limerick. I know the Minister is very familiar with Limerick because he visited us a number of times since he took up office. I want to highlight one example that perfectly illustrates the possibilities the Bill will present. It is the Centre for Robotics and Intelligent Systems, CRIS, at the University of Limerick. I know he had a briefing on it. I have had multiple briefings on it. Our colleague Deputy Cathal Crowe is passionate about the strong work that it does. When the Taoiseach was in Limerick some weeks ago, he had a private briefing on the work this group does. It is a leading centre for robotics, automation and intelligent sensing systems. The work that it does is very focused on marine surveillance - underneath the ocean, on the water and in the air. It develops its own drones, autonomous boats and autonomous submarines but it also buys in some and customises them. The centre has all of the technology and systems developed in its base in UL in Limerick whereby it can monitor in real time the work those autonomous instruments are doing anywhere in the world. The centre has partnered in its work with the Garda, the Coast Guard and the Navy here, and with other important state bodies around the world. There is huge potential and demand for the skills it is developing in the offshore wind sector and in our security and surveillance sector. It is also involved in the designated maritime area plans, DMAPs, work that has to be done to ensure we unlock the potential from the west coast. This type of technology is crucial in that regard, so it is very much in demand.

The centre is doing all of this incredible work – researching, developing PhD students and working with the various institutions to help train their in-house staff - from a tiny laboratory facility; the same one it started with 20 years ago in UL. This is an example of an absolute gem of a skill set that we are developing, which is highly specialised, hugely in demand and will be going forward, and the fund could potentially facilitate the centre to develop its facilities.

That really brought to life for me what the Minister is trying to do here. Centres like CRIS require highly specialised equipment and modern facilities. That is what the fund is for. This amendment corrects the current position and ensures that places like UL can continue to innovate, expand and train people using the tools that industry requires today. CRIS is not alone. Significant work is being done in the Limerick campus of the Technological University of the Shannon, TUS. It is delivering apprentices that we badly need across the construction sector, working in renewable energy, construction technologies and digital systems year-on-year. These programmes need modern workshops. The Minister is very familiar with this.

The LCFE on Mulgrave Street in Limerick is an excellent centre that draws many school leavers and does wonderful training with them. Again, the facilities are older and we would love to upgrade them, modernise them and potentially it may be able to apply for those facilities through the NTF.

Ireland's success has always rested on the strength of our talent pipeline. We are competitive, not because we are the cheapest, but because we have the workers who can adapt, learn, retrain and thrive in fast evolving industries. The NTF's income has grown, as the Minister mentioned. It is right that we are ensuring that this fund can be fully and responsibly deployed for the purposes for which it was created. This Bill does that. It protects the fund's objectives. It tightens the link between spending and skills, and it gives us the flexibility to use the fund in a way that makes sense in 2025.

This amendment is modest in form but significant in impact. It ensures that workers, apprentices, learners and jobseekers across the country get the very best chance to develop the skills our modern economy demands. The Minister has seen the potential on the ground. He has seen the ambition of the institutions to deliver more, and he knows what is possible when we match that ambition with the right legislative tools. For these reasons, I am very pleased to support the National Training Fund (Amendment) Bill. I encourage colleagues across the House to do likewise.

I welcome the Minister back to the Seanad. There is a kind of festive feeling to this Bill. All is going well. I am pleased to contribute to this debate and to welcome the National Training Fund (Amendment) Bill 2025. As Fine Gael spokesperson on the committee for higher and further education, I commend the Minister on bringing this legislation to the House. The Bill is concise in its drafting but very significant in its impact.

As has been stated, the Bill makes a focused change to the National Training Fund Act 2000. It amends section 7 to allow payments from funds to include capital expenditure. We welcome that. It also allows for the acquisition of land, premises, furniture, equipment and the upgrading of construction and facilities. As the Minister stated, it can either be for retrofitting or a full refurbishment. I wonder if it is for full new builds.

This is a necessary adjustment. Until now, the fund could only be used for current expenditure. That restriction meant that while we could finance programmes and training schemes, we could not invest directly in the infrastructure we needed to deliver. This amendment corrects that limitation and ensures that the fund can support the physical capacity required for skills development.

I welcome the unlocking of the surplus. At the end of 2024 the fund held a surplus of approximately €1.7 billion. Budget 2025 set out a six-year plan to progressively spend €1.48 billion of that surplus between now and 2030. That is the reason we are here. This Bill is the legislative mechanism that allows the plan to proceed. I am only restating what has been included in that package, namely: €885 million in current funding for tertiary education and training; a €150 million per annum increase in higher education funding up to 2030; €235 million in one-off current funding for skills and apprenticeships. Wonderfully, there is a €600 million capital uplift to build and upgrade facilities in areas such as healthcare, veterinary training, further education and to support universal access to skills provision.

I listened to the Dáil debate on the Bill. Everyone welcomed the investment. When the allocation for the NTF is being hammered out, will the Minister and the Department take heed of what will benefit the skills sector most? The temptation might be to use or abuse the fund to plug funding gaps that could arise elsewhere in the third level sector. The National Training Fund, as the Minister stated, was created with a clear statutory purpose – to raise skills, support training and provide information on future skills needs. That purpose must remain central. Employers contribute to the fund through the levy, and they rightly expect that their contributions will be channelled into skills development not diverted to solve unrelated budgetary pressures.

If managed properly, this investment will: provide modern facilities for higher and further education institutions; expand capacity in critical-skills areas, such as healthcare and veterinary science; support universal access to training by ensuring infrastructure is fit for purpose; strengthen Ireland’s research base and help to attract and retain our talent; and ensure the fund continues to meet its statutory purpose of raising skills, supporting employment and providing information on future skills needs.

By allowing capital expenditure from the NTF, we are unlocking a surplus of nearly €1.5 billion to invest in facilities, infrastructure and the research capacity Ireland needs. Talent is our greatest natural resource. This legislation ensures that this fund can be used not only to finance programmes but also to build the physical foundations of our skills system.

Fine Gael welcomes this Bill and sees it is as a vital step in strengthening Ireland’s competitiveness, supporting lifelong learning and preparing our workforce for the challenges ahead. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

Before I move on to Senator Tully, I welcome to the Gallery the visitors from Naas Women’s Shed. They are led by Barbara Hennessy, I believe. They are guests of the Minister, Deputy Lawless, so they are seeing him in operation here today. I hope they have a lovely trip around this beautiful building.

It is important that the NTF, which was established in 2000 for the purpose of supporting the training and upskilling of those in or seeking employment, be maintained. I recognise that the fund has accumulated significantly. It needs to be unlocked. However, we must not lose sight of the intention behind it. It is not like there are no gaps in skills and training. There are gaps. It was pointed out to me that in 2014, 82% of the fund was used on training programmes. Last year, the proportion was only 55%, representing a huge drop in the percentage used for training programmes. We need to remain competitive as a country, and the best way to do so is to ensure we have a skilled and educated workforce. We need to provide supports to ensure that people have the ability to access lifelong training.

In Cavan just over a year ago, adult education courses were all cancelled because of a lack of funding. That left people unable to take up courses they were interested in. Some were unable to progress in existing courses because they were cancelled for a series of months. This left tutors high and dry, with no employment. They received only about two weeks’ notice that they would not be providing classes. Even when classes did resume after Christmas, they were seriously curtailed. We need to provide significant opportunities to people to gain access to various forms of training and upskilling. They need to feel much more supported.

The fund should also be used to target marginalised groups more. Ireland has a dismal record of employing disabled people, for example. It is the worst in the EU in this regard. We need to ensure we are providing supports for disabled people to gain access to training, be they in the form of personal assistants or in other formats. We also have a very poor record of employing Travellers. Travellers and other marginalised groups must be targeted. People who come to the country and who may need supports to access skills and training, and subsequently employment, should also be considered. After training, they become contributors to the economy.

The fund was created by employers and businesses. Have IBEC, ISME and other representative groups been consulted about the proposed changes regarding how the fund will be used? It was very clear why it was established. If we are proposing to change how it is being spent, there needs to be consultation. Is this happening? There need to be clear guidelines on how the fund will be spent in different areas. I am a little concerned that the Minister is proposing to spend money on things that should be provided through the Exchequer by way of capital funding. I can absolutely see the sense in upgrading laboratories or items of equipment for training where these have become outdated, but I am not sure whether the fund should apply to buildings and decarbonisation when funding should be provided by other sectors. I am not saying we do not need investment in our educational institutions but I am not very clear on whether the money should come from the NTF. I am a little concerned.

Technology is constantly changing, so we need to use the fund to keep abreast of change and remain competitive. The fund is in place to provide information on existing and likely future skills requirements and it should also be used for research. IBEC has described Ireland’s national research and innovation infrastructure as becoming obsolete and out of date. Therefore, we need to increase spending on research and innovation. We are very far behind the EU average in this regard. IBEC has also called for the fund to be used to attract skilled research talent. As well as investing in our domestic workforce and people seeking employment, we should be trying to attract research talent to the country.

I would also like to see the fund used for North-South initiatives to increase and improve collaboration across training and apprenticeships, such that training or an apprenticeship could be accessed regardless of where you live on the island.

While I am not opposed to the Bill, I have some concerns about its intentions. I would like to see more clarity. I am aware that we will have an opportunity to discuss this further next week.

The Minister is very welcome. It is good to have this debate on Second Stage in the Seanad. The Labour Party is broadly supportive of the Bill and has long argued for better use of the NTF surplus. The budget 2026 documentation shows a projected surplus of €230 million for 2025 and a similar surplus of €226 million for 2026, further adding to the surplus. It is important that we utilise the surplus in the best way possible.

During 2024, consideration was given to how the NTF surplus could be accessed and utilised to meet existing and future skills needs for employees, those seeking employment and employers, while also addressing the funding needs for further and higher education within the spending parameters of the annual budget. In budget 2025, the Government announced the following funding to come from the NTF up to 2030: €650 million by way of a core funding package for higher education, increasing funding by a further €150 million by 2030. Also announced were a "€600 million capital uplift to enable skills development, including facilities in the areas of healthcare and veterinary skills and further education skills; supporting universal access to skill provision; and the research sector (including an increase in the PhD stipend)" and "€235 million for the tertiary sector as one-off current funding, including skills and apprenticeships".

The Labour Party has long argued, since 2017, that the NTF should be progressively increased to fund further and higher education, expand the social safety net and provide upskilling opportunities for workers. Despite Government plans to spend €1.5 billion of the accumulated NTF surplus, which is expected to be close to €2 billion by 2030, across a range of measures, the NTF will still have an annual surplus of €230 million in 2025. The Labour Party has long advocated the allocation of this sustainable revenue to fund further and higher education, which provides the skills and talent that drive our economy. We would develop this as a permanent feature of our employment and social protection safety net. We would have a permanent short-term wage subsidy scheme to support workers and businesses if a downturn or recession strikes. This short-term working scheme, which we call Obair Gearr, would protect employees from lay-offs. Another element would be State subsidies when companies encounter difficulties and need time to adapt. This would ensure SMEs could retain staff and skills.

Importantly, as with the German scheme, our scheme would guarantee that each worker would have an individual training or upskilling plan to improve productivity and prepare workers for potential opportunities. Artificial intelligence is a phenomenon to which workers will need to adapt. The measure would be funded through the Social Insurance Fund and the NTF and act as an automatic stabiliser in future recessions. It does not have an immediate upfront cost.

The Labour Party would also unlock a portion of the surplus in the National Training Fund to allow workers who are mid-career to stop and switch and pursue upskilling or a new career direction. This would be managed by SOLAS and be demand driven where a worker has a minimum of ten years of continuous social insurance contributions, inclusive of credited leave.

When in work, upskilling opportunities are most often controlled by the employer. We want to give workers more personal freedom to choose for themselves after making years of contributions by funding skills vouchers and free part-time third level courses from the National Training Fund.

As I said, the Labour Party is broadly supportive of this Bill.

I welcome the Minister. When I saw the comprehensive army he brought with him from Naas, I was glad that we are on the same team and that I was not going to take him to task. I warmly welcome the Bill. We have discussed it at length among ourselves, within our group and whatever. It is a no-brainer.

When it was announced first that I and Senator Ryan were going to be the Fianna Fáil representatives on the higher education committee, we had numerous requests from stakeholders for meetings and we met them together. There was one common theme throughout and it was how facilities had fallen so far behind and had not kept up with the advances in technology. They were facilitating research and development on materials, ideas and equipment that was never dreamt of when the facilities that they were working from were built and developed. That was their one big ask, that we could try and get facilities up to the required standard for today.

As I say, I and Limerick's Senator Ryan have worked well together. I have, however, to call the Senator to task here this morning on one issue. While she was complimentary, and rightly so, on TUS, she did not mention the jewel in the crown, which is that formerly known as Athlone Institute of Technology.

My apologies.

I would not like to think that Limerick would become top heavy in that particular institute in any future spending. We will differ on that one and we will fight our own parochial arguments on it.

As the Minister will be aware, I would be from a practical background. The examples I will give the Minister are where I see it is really necessary. While I hear what Senator Tully is saying about buying land, etc., I will use the example I have used on numerous occasions when we were dealing with apprenticeships in the higher education committee, and that is 3D printing. 3D printing and modular homes are the future of house building. These are massive machines and equipment and you do not train on them. I remember being down in Senator Kennelly's country years ago when I was on the Education and Training Boards Ireland, ETBI, in Tralee, where they were working on wind turbines, but they were working outside. I know wind turbines are outside, but for training purposes, you are not talking here about building Portakabins. You are talking about building big buildings to facilitate some of these machines. The expenditure on the machine is one thing, but you need the land and you need the housing facility. It is vitally important. When the need is there and the money is sitting almost dormant, it is a no-brainer.

In his opening statement, the Minister explained how it works at present where the Minister for Finance controls the account and the Minister present is in control of where it is spent. For our own information, if these amendments are made, will that operate similarly going forward? Does the Minister have to go the Minister for Finance or does it give the Department that little bit more leeway in drawing down the money without having to ask permission on every occasion?

As I say, we have money at present and we have full employment so now is the time to make the capital investment. I take what Senator Tully said about the drop in training from 2014. In 2014, we were coming out of a recession. We were training people, upskilling them and trying to get them different jobs, and moving them from a job they had previously into new positions. We are lucky enough at present to be at full employment. We need people to come into the country to fulfil a lot of jobs. While there is always a need for upskilling and training in the development of technology, etc., there is not the same need for skilling and training of people who are out there looking for a job or have to change job because circumstances have changed in their old job. That is the time, in my opinion, to make the capital investment so that if and when - I would hope never but it is all cyclical - the next time there is a need to reskill people for changes of career options because of a downturn, we will have the equipment and we will have the facilities. Now is the time to do that for the future.

I call the Minister for his closing remarks. It is great to have a Minister in the House who uses the word "agile", which means that they are prepared to make changes as they see fit. Not every Minister has that in their speech so it is important to acknowledge it.

I thank the Acting Chairperson for those kind words and her support with facilitating this session today.

I thank the Seanad, more generally, for facilitating the passage of this Bill because it was something that was important to get through by year end so that we can begin to spend this money in 2026. It has been talked about for a long time but, finally, we can begin to open it up and do it. I will reply insofar as I can to the individual contributions and maybe make some general points.

I thank Senator Ryan. The phrase "a rich tapestry" the Senator used is apt. It is a rich tapestry. It is broad and deep. I was in UCD this morning at a conference on space. I was out yesterday meeting apprentices. I have met people across many fields of research, innovation, higher education and further education in the time I have been in this role and it has only been a short ten months. It really is very broad and wide and there is great passion across every sector and across every learner who I meet and, indeed, all the tutors.

It very much is, as Senator Ryan said, an economic portfolio because this is how we build the skilled workforce and labour force and talent of the future. Our people are our greatest national asset. We have a knowledge and skills economy, and to keep that rolling, as Senator Daly said, we need the pipeline of people coming through it to keep that going. That is true.

I will touch briefly on the Centre for Robotics and Intelligent Systems, CRIS, in UL. I visited it, with Senator Ryan and Deputy Crowe, a few months ago. I was also very impressed. The Taoiseach, as the Senator said, also visited it. In a world where we have increasing strategic importance in things such as subsea cables and strategic security, CRIS can only play a greater role. While it is not strictly an NTF-funded project, using the INSPIRE research fund, which is a €750 million fund for research infrastructure and research equipment and upgrades, I would envisage that the likes of CRIS may be in a position to pitch into that competitive tender process in the new year. It is exactly the kind of project that I hope will get some momentum from the various funding initiatives that I am creating.

Senator Tully asked about a number of things and I will try to address them. First of all, on the consultation with business, the Senator will be pleased to hear I have consulted widely with both IBEC and ISME. I have met them and engaged them in correspondence. I would like to think that their concerns have been addressed. Initially, they particularly took issue with the idea of decarbonisation being a pattern. What I have said to them, and I think they are more reassured now, is that, first of all, the Bill remains absolutely true to its original purpose, as in the Act of 2000, to support the skills of those in employment or seeking to take up employment or to provide information as to future and current skills needs. That remains the sole purpose of the Bill and that has not been changed at all in the legislation.

I suppose where they might have had a query, and we touched on this in the debate already, is that we need to provide facilities to provide training for those in employment and we cannot train people on thin air. Senator Daly gave the example of people getting out in the open air in the past where they did not have proper facilities. We are in an advanced economy. We need things like robotics in manufacturing. It is a complex world and the number of apprenticeships, in particular, continues to grow. We now have the wind turbine maintenance apprenticeship, which I saw with Senator Kennelly in Kerry not so long ago. The facility is there in Tralee. We have cybersecurity apprenticeships. We have original equipment manufacturer, OEM, manufacturing apprenticeships. Then we have all our craft skills such as our electricians, our plumbers and our tradespeople so critical to our national emissions, particularly in regard to housing and building out the infrastructure. All those people need a roof over their heads and four walls. More than that, they need proper state-of-the-art facilities and equipment under which to train and that is where we go the capital piece of this. In some cases, it may be considered that a particular facility is right for repurposing. I visited a centre in Killybegs recently, for example, where we are now providing electrician and refrigerator apprenticeships. That was an old building. It had many uses dating back over a century and it is now being used as a state-of-the-art apprenticeship school. I make no apology for supporting the refit and refurbishment of such buildings to bring them back into productive use for the benefit of training and of the economy.

There are examples like that all over the country. That is exactly what we are enabling. Having had that conversation with ISME and IBEC, they are somewhat reassured by that because this is about training people up to take up productive positions in employment and utilising all the assets available to us to do that, including both greenfield and brownfield sites.

Senator Tully mentioned Cavan and some courses being postponed at one stage or maybe even cancelled. I am not familiar with the individual situation but each ETB is autonomous. Each ETB has its own independence and makes its own decision about funding. They are funded through SOLAS, which, in turn, is funded by my Department. SOLAS has record levels of funding. It has never had more funding than it has now. This year was another record year for funding and it got over €1 billion. How it manages, allocates and prioritises that is up to SOLAS. Ultimately, it will have to make localised decisions about what they fund or do not.

There was a bottleneck on apprentices earlier this year, which is still an unfortunate hangover from Covid because it has taken a while to work through the system. I directed that apprenticeship training should be prioritised. That was key for all the reasons we have been talking about in this debate. Some ETBs may have chosen to move other courses around to facilitate that. In terms of money and support from my Department, it has never had more. That is something I am very engaged on and working with SOLAS on at the moment.

I thank Senator Harmon and the Labour Party for their support for the Bill. We have had some very good debates on it in both Houses with the Senator and her colleagues. She mentioned the PhD stipend and the research piece. There is an issue there in the sense that the PhD stipends, which are provided by the State through Tailte Éireann and State agencies, are now at a level of €25,000. There are some privately sponsored PhD students who tend to be reasonably well remunerated. There are some from various schemes and funds which are outside the control of my Department and my remit which are not yet at that level. It is a conversation I will continue to have with the higher education institutes, HEIs, to see if we can raise that level. We have set an ambition of €25,000 as the base level of stipend. Any I fund through my agencies will be at that level but we absolutely have a bit of work to do on the broader point.

Senator Daly talked about TUS Athlone and Senator Ryan talked about Limerick. I will not referee there but I am a big supporter of balanced regional development. It is to be hoped there will be plenty for everybody. The Senator had a question about the Minister for Finance and what the mechanics of the fund are. It is a good question. The Minister for Finance and his agencies will manage the fund, its investments and interest - it is a very significant amount of money - but discretion rests with me in terms of the spending and allocation of it. It will work through the Houses in terms of Votes and Estimates. On that point, the question arose if it should be from the Exchequer. It is the Exchequer because the ceilings for expenditure are the same. Unfortunately, we do not get an extra top up from the NTF. The NTF, along with the voted Estimate, is the sum total of the Department's ceiling. In a way, it is all the one set of money from an accounting perspective so we cannot exceed it by going in different ways.

Senator Kennelly made a number of points. In terms of the employer levy, I welcome the Senator's support and positive words about the initiative in the Bill today. Something to note is that the employer's levy includes public sector employers as well. It is not just the private sector. The private sector plays such a major role in our economic direction and I always thank the private sector for its enterprise, which creates the resources to satisfy the public good. I am very much apprised of the work of the private sector, but just to note the public sector also makes a significant contribution. Every public sector employer in the country pays the levy also. A number of years ago, there were various, narrow sectoral funds through different levies and it was very messy and convoluted. Some time ago, it was decided the NTF was the best vehicle for a single fund and single employer levy. Of course, a number of years back, the Government increased that by 0.1% per year between 2018 and 2020 to reach the 1% it is at now. That is where that arose from.

In short, I hope I have answered some of the queries that arose. If Members do want to follow up with me afterwards on any particular issue, I am very happy to take them offline. I thank the Seanad for making the space available today to do this. I think I am back here next week for the next Stage.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Next Tuesday.

Is that agreed? Agreed.