Mr. Frank Vaughan:

The Deputy asked how the waiver might be implemented. I said at the outset that this is fundamentally an issue of resources. We acknowledge the entitlement of QQI to raise fees. It is part of the reality of the economic environment in which we live now that there is no longer something for nothing. In a way, this is a question of equity and fairness. If we say the community and voluntary sector has an important contribution to make, but on the other hand there are real obstacles to its financial viability, we must make some choices. What we are saying, therefore, is that if we are including extra tiers of expense that this sector must sustain, there is a fundamental contradiction and we are undermining ourselves.

What we would like to see for the sector is that the validation fees would be waived. We would also like to see the application of certificate fees up to level 5 being waived. I accept the point made that there are a large number of providers. This is a function of the sector being in touch with its communities. Many of these providers are community-based organisations. Administratively, it would be easier for all of us if, for example, QQI had only ten training providers to deal with. Financially and in every other way, this would make things a lot easier. However, we must make provision for the fact there are so many groups. We can look at it, and congress will do what it can in facilitating sharing in whatever way possible. Trade unions themselves have concrete proposals to do precisely that and we would certainly add our voice to suggestions that this kind of sharing should take place in the community and voluntary sector. Nevertheless, we feel the fees are an unwarranted burden.