Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and join with her in thanking the three delegations for appearing before the committee and putting in the preparatory work in terms of their presentations and the briefing documents supplied to the committee in advance.

The key concern being outlined by ICTU is the potential impact of these fees on the availability of training programmes through the community and voluntary sector in particular. As we are aware, they play a very important role in reaching people who might not otherwise have educational opportunities. Perhaps I can put this question to ICTU. Given that the schedule of fees is dated from October 2013, have community and voluntary organisations been charged fees at this point in time? Are these fees in place and, if not, when are they likely to take effect? I note that the fee for submission of quality assurance procedures for approval in respect of new providers is €5,000 for further education and training programmes. Is each community and voluntary organisation expected to pay that fee up-front to QQI? I note also that for standard validation for further education and training courses the fee is either €2,000 or €1,000, depending on the type of course. Annually, there is a continuing validation fee which is a minimum of €1,500, according to the schedule of fees I have here. That can rise to €5,000.

Will the community and voluntary organisations involved in providing further education courses be subject to those fees? In terms of what it wants to achieve, what specifically does ICTU want us to endorse or what does it want us to ask of the Department and of QQI? It has indicated there is an opportunity within the legislation for exemptions and for fees not to be applied. Can the witnesses give us particular details on what ICTU wants in regard to how this can be implemented?

Ms Doyle outlined that previously, FETAC had 1,000 validated providers in the community, a significant number. QQI has also outlined how funding has dropped to half of what it was. The number of staff is also reduced to half of what it was. Obviously, we do not want to see a drop or reduction in the end product in terms of availability of courses for the marginalised, particularly courses provided through the community and voluntary sector. I have a question for all three groups, therefore. The role of SOLAS in this regard is unclear, but the Department in particular may be able to give us more guidance on its role. What role is SOLAS expected to play in terms of engaging with the 1,000 providers to try to ensure the courses and availability we have had in the past are not lost as a result of the significant fees being introduced for assuring and registering them?