Ms Patricia O'Sullivan:

On behalf of the HECA, I thank the Chair and members for the opportunity to speak with them. The attainment of high-quality graduate outcomes stands as the central purpose of professional accreditation and approval. It is a goal towards which HECA member higher education providers are absolutely committed, supported by the robust regulation of both QQI and CORU. All strive for high-quality education provision and professional training that needs to be responsive to changing societal needs and shifts in professional practice. We are very supportive of the valuable work that CORU undertakes on public protection and QQI undertakes to underpin the quality of educational awards offered.

In 2022, one private higher education institution, HEI, a member of HECA, and one public HEI withdrew their applications from the CORU approval process for their social care programmes. In the case of the private provider the withdrawal prompted diverse stakeholder responses, student disruption and HEI uncertainty and risk. It also highlighted the need for significant improvement in the current system overseen by professional, statutory and regulatory bodies, PSRBs, and educational awarding bodies. Given the shared responsibilities of all parties to produce graduates who are qualified to work in health and social care settings and given the high demand in Ireland for such workers, it is crucial to anticipate and avert future failures in the implementation of regulations. This foresight involves adopting proactive measures to avert severe outcomes such as withholding recognition, strengthening the existing regulatory mechanisms and interagency collaboration as well as maintaining clear, open communication lines.

HECA believes the shared responsibilities referred to can be best achieved through structures that might ensure a confluence of validation and professional recognition processes. Providers engage in complex academic and professional approval processes that are currently undertaken as separate processes. This leads to a lack of cohesion and potentially contradictory outcomes. To address this, the integration of the academic awarding body validation and CORU professional accreditation processes should be considered. This integration could take the form of a single panel undertaking a unified process, ensuring programmes are fit for shared purposes. This approach could also mitigate unnecessary duplication, thus reducing the administrative load on providers, QQI and CORU without compromising the rigour and protective essence of both processes.

We advise the committee to consider recommending the establishment of a national working group. The working group could comprise key stakeholders and include representation from private providers, independent providers, or both, to support the improved cohesion of these separate legislative processes. This would serve the best interests of students, clients and the public and prevent future contradictory outcomes.

The public's best protection is ensured when every student reaching the end of his or her course achieves the qualifying proficiency standard. This outcome is best attained through continuous consultation and early accreditation by CORU.

A specific instance of policy divergence between CORU and QQI arises with social care programmes. Here, the recognition of prior learning does not appear to be endorsed by CORU, conflicting with national access, transfer and progression policies outlined by QQI.

Such inconsistency may not serve the best interests of all students, especially those considering a transfer during their studies due to diverse reasons. It may also provide impediments to academic bonding arrangements for protection of enrolled learners involving course transfer.

In general, we would stress the need for enhanced clarity, transparency and timely information from CORU to all providers to improve common understanding. Current uncertainties in the areas of counselling, psychotherapy and psychology have caused anxiety among students and deterred potential applicants, which could lead to future professional shortages. Clear precise information and timelines for statutory regulation could help students make informed decisions regarding their courses. Additionally, providers should be enabled to deliver accurate information to students about progression routes and programme accreditation status.

With respect to psychology, some further clarity on the fields within psychology that will be regulated is required and how this may affect higher education programmes such as work and organisational, educational, clinical and sports psychology.

In conclusion, to support professional training and education provision, safeguard students, and maintain public confidence, it is crucial to streamline validation and accreditation processes, establish a national working group, harmonise policies, and address uncertainties in the fields of counselling, psychotherapy, and psychology. I thank the committee very much.