Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome everybody to the meeting. The agenda for today's meeting is the fees charged by Quality and Qualifications Ireland for the education programmes delivered through community and voluntary organisations. This matter is being discussed by the committee on foot of correspondence received recently on the application of new fees by Quality and Qualifications Ireland in respect of education programmes delivered through community and voluntary organisations. Given the role played by such bodies in education, it is important to understand the impact such fees could have on the sector.

I welcome the delegates from ICTU, Mr. Frank Vaughan, Ms Aileen Morrissey and Ms Claudia Darley, from Quality and Qualifications Ireland, Ms Trish O'Brien, Ms Mary Sheridan and Dr. Bryan Maguire, and from the Department of Education and Skills, Ms Mary Doyle, Mr. Brian Power and Mr. Hugh Geoghegan.

I draw the attention of witnesses to privilege. I inform them that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. If a witness is directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in respect of a particular matter and they continue to so do, they will be entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Frank Vaughan to make his opening remarks on behalf of ICTU.

Mr. Frank Vaughan:

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to make this presentation, for which we are grateful. We are pleased to discuss this issue with the committee. We represent the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which has an interest in this area and in the broader areas of vocational training and further education. We are here as a national social partner organisation that has been proactive in this respect at a policy level over the years. We are also here as a body that, through various trade unions, provides a range of training courses for trade unionists and for our members in a variety of sectors. As training providers, we are actively addressing what we still call the lifelong learning agenda, which involves trying to upskill our members. The Congress Centres Network, which operates under the auspices of Congress, was set up in the 1980s as a network of centres for the unemployed.

Most members of the committee will remember the 1980s. Unfortunately, we are repeating some of the experiences of that time. For example, we have to respond to high levels of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. The committee will be more than well aware of those issues. That network is in essence part of the community and voluntary sector. All the constituent centres that are part of the network are autonomous providers which work in communities to provide services to the unemployed. It should be noted that Congress has a formal community sector committee, which is concerned with trying to further develop the sector. My colleague, Ms Claudia Darley, is a member of that committee. My other colleague, Ms Aileen Morrissey, is responsible for training within Mandate, which is one of our bigger trade unions. The three pillars I have mentioned are represented in our delegation.

I do not want to take up too much of the committee's time. We acknowledge the huge challenges faced by Quality and Qualifications Ireland, QQI, which is a new body that is taking over the role of its predecessors. One of those challenges relates to certification and accreditation needs . We continue to enjoy a good relationship with QQI. We have always found QQI personnel to be very professional, approachable and committed.

We are aware that the fee structure which is being proposed is predicated on the fundamental question of resources. We recognise that resources are a key consideration. Congress is not formally opposed, in principle, to the idea of fees being charged as appropriate. However, we are opposed to measures that we perceive as being unfair or counter-productive. We are concerned that some elements of the proposed fee structure do not adequately reflect the environment in which much of the community and voluntary sector is operating. The introduction of fees, which may or may not be subvented by the State from other sources, would be an added burden for many organisations in that sector, which are essentially operating on a financial knife edge. It could be a decisive factor in determining whether community sector providers on a financial knife edge continue to be viable.

Many training providers in this sector do not have multi-annual funding. Certain requirements are often associated with the funding they get. The State funding these providers get from a variety of sources is often contingent on their ability to certify training. Congress certainly welcomes the development of accredited training. We want to see people being certified for training. In the absence of multi-annual funding, it is often difficult to put in place training courses that can lead to a major award. The timescale militates against providing such courses on an annual basis. If providers are not in a position to offer major awards, that can undermine their whole funding base. We see that as being a particularly critical factor.

Congress, like everyone in this room, is committed to a further education system that is centred on the learner. We need to get people into the system in the first instance. We need to get the bottom rung of people to engage with what we hope will be a ladder of progression in their training and certification. The community and voluntary sector has traditionally and historically had a unique and key role in accessing such people and bringing them into the system. Engaging such learners is intrinsically more resource intensive. It often requires one-to-one interventions to explain to people the benefits of getting involved in training. If we are to have a system that is generally coherent and equitable, we must ask why we should risk, through the introduction of further charges, prejudicing the ability of the sector to continue in this role. It has been acknowledged that the community and voluntary sector has an inherent awareness of, and flexibility, responsiveness and alertness to, the basic needs of learners. Nobody else has that access. I will not go into the detail of this aspect of the matter. Some of it was noted in our formal presentation. The ability to try to innovate, not only in terms of content but also in terms of the development of new programmes, could be undermined by a fee structure that would be simply untenable for many of those organisations.

We have noted QQI's policy document on fees. I acknowledge and applaud QQI for its efforts in communicating its strategy and developing and circulating policy documents. There is an opportunity to engage in a debate with QQI. I suppose this is a continuing part of that. We note QQI's statement that "the determination of fees will have regard to the nature, type and mission of providers and the programmes they offer". The policy document makes it clear there is an inherent flexibility in QQI's capacity to determine fees. The document also provides that "exemptions and waivers may be provided for in specified circumstances". I would like to set out the fundamental position of Congress in this regard, but I cannot speak on behalf of Congress other than by mentioning that the Congress Centres Network is a member of the community education network of Aontas - the national adult education body - which has made its views on this matter known to QQI. Aontas would take the same fundamental position, which is that fees should not be introduced at this scale and level and should certainly not be introduced up to level 5, in terms of the old FETAC levels. Historically, social welfare recipients and medical card holders have not been charged certification fees when they would have undertaken training. While there is no current proposal to change that, we note that it is to be kept under review. Notwithstanding the other comments we have made about the fee structure, we think it would be a retrograde step if that position were to be changed. I have set out the fundamentals of our position.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is great. I invite Ms Trish O'Brien to make a presentation on behalf of Quality and Qualifications Ireland.

Ms Trish O'Brien:

I thank the Chairman. I also thank Mr. Vaughan for his kind comments about Quality and Qualifications Ireland, which are much appreciated.

Quality and Qualifications Ireland, which I will refer to as QQI, thanks the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection for the invitation to appear before it. I also apologise on behalf of our chief executive of QQI, Dr. Padraig Walsh, who is chairing a board meeting of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education of which he is president. Dr. Walsh looks forward to attending the joint committee's meeting on 26 February when it will discuss community and vocational education.

Quality and Qualifications Ireland was established as a result of the amalgamation of the Further Education and Training Awards Council, FETAC, Higher Education and Training Awards Council, HETAC, National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, NQAI, and Irish Universities Quality Board, IUQB. It is a single national body responsible for the external quality assurance of further and higher education and training. It is also an awarding body. As an amalgamated body, QQI interacts with all parts of the education and training and qualification system. This includes the universities and institutes of technology, the newly established education and training boards, private providers that operate in the areas of further and higher education and training and English language training, and the community and voluntary sector.

While the scope of the new organisation's responsibilities is wide, it also presents significant opportunities. At the centre of how Quality and Qualifications Ireland approaches its work is the national framework of qualifications which emerged in 2003 and has become part of the education and training. While the framework is owned nationally, it is the responsibility of QQI to safeguard it. It intends doing so by ensuring it represents more than the association of a level with a qualification. As implementation of the framework continues, it must become a genuine symbol of the standard and quality of the qualification a learner has attained, regardless of where within our diverse education and training system it was achieved. The link, therefore, between qualifications and quality assurance is paramount. We must also ensure the ten level framework and the policies underpinning it keep the learner in focus and act as an enabler for individuals to pursue successfully the learning pathways of their choosing.

On the establishment of Quality and Qualifications Ireland in November 2012, the organisation proactively sought to meet education and training representative bodies. In the community and voluntary sector, it met Aontas and the Community Education Network, CEN. During these discussions and via the submissions received by the community sector as part of our consultation process on QQI's policy development programme, we had the opportunity to engage with the sector and understand further its concerns on a number of issues. These included the charging of fees by Quality and Qualifications Ireland, the range of State funding streams upon which the sector is largely dependent and the concerns on the part of some community providers of the association of this funding with the requirement for learning to lead to qualifications and thus to a relationship with QQI. While it would not be appropriate for Quality and Qualifications Ireland to express an opinion on the extent to which validation of programmes should remain a condition of public funding for the community sector, it is a discussion to which we would be very willing to contribute.

In addition to the challenges routinely faced by the community sector, in which training is often only one part of its service to the community, the shifting environment which all actors in education and training are facing is a further concern. The further education and training environment has seen the establishment of the education and training boards into which FÁS training centres are being moved and SOLAS has been established. The way in which all of this will impact on the community sector is unclear and will, I hope, become clearer in the further education and training strategy to be presented to the Minister for Education and Skills next month.

The establishment of Quality and Qualifications Ireland under the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012 also constitutes change. The legislation identifies that any provider of education and training programmes must be able to demonstrate the capacity to quality assure its provision and validate a programme before it is recognised by QQI. Assured and consistent quality of education and training is, therefore, the objective that underpins QQI policy. All providers will need to satisfy QQI that their capacity and quality assurance arrangements are appropriate to their provision. Providers which made the transition to Quality and Qualifications Ireland from the organisations that amalgamated will thus need to have their quality assurance procedures approved by QQI. In accordance with the extensive consultation process to which the organisation has committed, a Green Paper was published on this subject in May 2013. A White Paper will be published for consultation shortly with the details of how we propose to undertake this re-engagement process. The continued effectiveness of providers' agreed quality assurance arrangements will be monitored and externally reviewed by QQI.

In carrying out these legislative responsibilities, the first priority of Quality and Qualifications Ireland is to provide reasonable assurances to prospective and current learners, members of the public, society, employers and international parties regarding the quality of any provider that has access to the privilege of State awards. In implementing this external role in the interests of public confidence, it would be neither feasible nor appropriate for QQI to provide support for individual providers to meet the quality assurance standard required. Having completed this quality assurance transition process, Quality and Qualifications Ireland hopes to invest more of its time and resources in working collaboratively with agencies such as SOLAS and the Higher Education Authority on continually improving quality and facilitating providers to come together to share good practice and expertise.

The charging of fees to providers is enabled by the 2012 Act and is integrally linked with how Quality and Qualifications Ireland intends implementing its quality assurance and quality improvement role. The development of adequate internal and external quality assurance systems incurs costs. QQI has adopted a fee schedule in part on the basis of the cost of engaging with a provider. Some of these costs are fixed, regardless of the scale of a provider's provision. For example, sending a reviewer to visit a provider's facility incurs travel costs. The current fee schedule has been developed for an initial number of agreed policies and will be extended as further policies are agreed through the comprehensive policy development programme. The fees to date have been approved by the board of Quality and Qualifications Ireland, with the consent of the Departments of Education and Skills and Public Expenditure and Reform. It is important to note that from a learner perspective, a certification fee was previously applied by FETAC. Where waivers of this fee were granted by FETAC, this practice has continued in Quality and Qualifications Ireland. This has resulted in a blanket exemption in learner certification fees at levels 1 to 3 of the national framework of qualifications as well as exemptions for holders of medical cards and certain provider centres, including Youthreach and vocational training opportunities scheme centres.

The fee with the greatest impact for providers to date is related to programme validation. To reduce costs, Quality and Qualifications Ireland is incentivising providers to make a number of applications for validation in one submission. In addition to reducing costs, this aims to encourage providers to think strategically about their programme requirements over a longer period.

In imposing fees on providers, the principles of consistency and equity must also be applied. Higher education providers were subject to fees by QQI's predecessor bodies. In addition, within further education and training, private providers are offering the same programmes as those offered by some providers in the community sector. These include qualifications in child care. In the light of this, it would be inappropriate for Quality and Qualifications Ireland to determine a fee schedule which would subsidise one part of the education and training system over another.

This is the first time that any fee has been levied at providers in the further education and training sector by Quality and Qualifications Ireland or its predecessor body, FETAC. In the context of the uncertainty the community sector is experiencing on a number of fronts, it is not surprising that it has reacted negatively to this development. By their nature, community sector providers often have relatively small numbers of learners. This is not a negative comment on the importance of the community sector to the individuals in question or the continued need for this provision. However, it raises questions regarding the multiple small providers with which Quality and Qualifications Ireland is interacting in the community sector and the proliferation of quality assurance systems that will be operating to support this provision. In 2012, approximately 150 providers categorised as "community and voluntary" sought certification for learners from Quality and Qualifications Ireland. This represents 20% of all the providers in the further education and training sector for which QQI made awards in that year. The number of learners for which certification was sought was approximately 5% of the number of certificates issued to learners across the further education and training sector.

With decreasing resources across the public sector, the 2012 ICTU report, Downsizing the Community Sector, makes an important reference to the sector working alongside public services in the face of the cumulative impact of cuts in spending. In this regard, Quality and Qualifications Ireland would welcome the opportunity to work centrally with the ICTU community sector committee, Aontas or any other community sector representative body to establish the feasibility of providers reconfiguring themselves into networks or consortiums which could introduce and sustain quality assurance systems at this level, instead of allocating resources to the development, implementation and review of a multiplicity of quality assurance systems at an individual provider level.

This would appear to be consistent with the view of Aontas, submitted to us as part of the consultation on our strategy statement, that collaborative linkages between providers and the sharing of good practice will be important. The establishment of networks of providers may also provide an effective means of boosting the quality assurance capacity of the community and voluntary sector, increasing the level of quality assurance oversight within and external to the sector, and potentially reducing the overall cost of programme validation. Such a reconfiguration would also require a discussion with SOLAS in the context of the statutory FET strategy and how it envisages the ongoing development of the community and voluntary sector.

QQI has undertaken in its strategy statement to carry out its regulatory and quality improvement functions collaboratively with providers and with Government agencies. With the level of change being experienced by providers in the community and voluntary sector, we suggest that it is in the absolute interest of learners that the relevant parties would come together to constructively consider the impact of these changes in as comprehensive a manner as possible.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Our final speaker is Ms Mary Doyle, on behalf of the Department.

Ms Mary Doyle:

I am accompanied by my colleagues Mr. Brian Power and Mr. Hugh Geoghegan. I will be as brief as possible. We are glad to appear before the committee to discuss issues relating to the charging of fees by QQI. I will focus on the reasons for the establishment of QQI, the roles of QQI and the Department and other issues which are relevant to further education and training. As the committee will be aware, the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills wrote to the committee on 24 January 2014 providing information on this issue, and I will of necessity cover some of the same ground in my comments.

QQI was established in November 2012 under the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012. That Act also provided for the dissolution of the Further Education and Training Awards Council, FETAC, the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, HETAC, and the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, NQAI. QQI was given responsibility for the functions of those bodies across further and higher education and training, in addition to the external quality assurance function formerly carried out by the Irish Universities Quality Board, IUQB.

The purpose of the amalgamation of these bodies into QQI was to bring greater coherence to the sector, creating a single body which can deliver a more efficient and integrated service and uphold quality and standards in Ireland's qualifications and educational institutions. It is also important to bring a stronger focus to the creation of flexible pathways for learners. As such, it is an important structural element of our education system, focusing on quality assurance.

Since its establishment, QQI has been undertaking a comprehensive policy development programme involving structured consultation with relevant stakeholders, and I am aware that reference has been made to that consultation process in earlier interventions. QQI has prioritised the development of its policies on initial access to validation, programme validation and fees. In accordance with section 80 of the 2012 Act, QQI determined its fees and submitted them for the consent of the Minister for Education and Skills and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The consent of those Ministers was conveyed to QQI in October 2013.

FETAC, QQI's predecessor body in the further education and training sector, had approximately 1,000 registered providers to which it provided services and to which QQI continues to provide services. It is considered unsustainable for QQI to continue to engage with such a large and growing number of providers in the further education and training sector without charging fees in respect of those services. This is particularly the case given the reduced resources available to all public sector bodies.

In this regard, I inform the committee of the reduction in resources available to QQI and its predecessor bodies in recent years. In 2008, the NQAI, HETAC and FETAC together received total Exchequer funding of some €14.4 million, of which approximately €13 million related to current expenditure. In 2013, QQI received Exchequer funding of €6.4 million, representing a reduction of more than 50% in five years. At the same time, QQI's staffing complement has decreased from more than 120 members of staff to 80.

There is a significant amount of work involved in assessing applications from providers seeking access to QQI's awards, so that QQI can be assured that they meet its rigorous quality standards. The purpose of those standards is to ensure that providers have the capacity to provide high-quality programmes of education and training to their learners. The fees, therefore, underpin QQI's ability to ensure and monitor compliance with its standards. Furthermore, the fees help to ensure that only those providers that are serious about complying with those standards apply to QQI.

It should be noted that QQI's role is not to provide access to awards to all providers who wish to have such access. The 2012 Act requires that quality assurance underpin the relationship between QQI and the providers with which it engages. Therefore, QQI is statutorily charged with providing access to a range of quality-assured awards only to those providers that can demonstrate their ongoing capacity to assure and enhance the quality of the programmes of education they provide.

It is open to organisations, including those in the community and voluntary sector, that find the revised arrangements put in place by QQI onerous to give consideration to working together. This would allow them to share resources and expertise and thereby build the capacity to engage meaningfully with QQI. Bodies wishing to have access to QQI awards could also seek to engage directly with providers which have themselves had programmes validated by QQI, including, for example, the new education and training boards which have been established through the amalgamation of the VECs.

In addition, there is a wide range of other awarding bodies operating in Ireland, with awards which are recognised through the National Framework of Qualifications, which providers may seek to engage with in order to gain certification for their programmes of education and training.

I can assure the committee that the role played by the community and voluntary sector in providing training and educational opportunities to marginalised communities is both important and valued. However, we must recognise that learners, particularly those who may be disadvantaged due to unemployment or who come from marginalised communities, deserve to be assured of the quality of the programmes they undertake and the awards they receive. Given the establishment of QQI and the reforms taking place in the further education and training sector in general, it will be necessary for providers in this sector, including those in the community and voluntary sector, to work with QQI to ensure they continue to provide a high-quality offering to their learners.

Clearly, there is scope for further clarifications and discussion on this issue. The Department would welcome these discussions taking place at an early date, particularly in the context of the emerging policy and provision landscape being developed in the further education and training sector.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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?

Mr. Frank Vaughan:

My colleagues in QQI will correct me if I am wrong, but in regard to whether the fees are applicable currently, my understanding is that fees exist in a number of different respects. The fees in respect of validation of new programmes which have been included in the common awards system are being applied currently and have been applied since October 2013. I am sure committee members understand that in moving to this new competent award system - this is the core of the issue - providers must develop new programmes and these must be validated. This is associated with the quality assurance, as mentioned by colleagues from QQI and the Department. The validation fees are currently in place. Therefore, a provider seeking to provide a training course in any area or level will be asked to pay a validation fee to have the programme validated.

I understand the application of the changes in the fee structure for the issuing of certificates has been deferred by QQI until the beginning of July 2014. We welcome that and would like to see the deferral sustained beyond that. I will not comment on what I am not clear on, but I know that, as QQI mentioned, there is an option to introduce various other fee structures as part of the implementation of policy in a number of other areas. I confirm that validation fees are currently in place. We have some experience of this ourselves because, through congress, we submitted programmes for validation on a shared basis in July last year. We included a number of elements that were subject to no fee, but we have found that since October they are now subject to a fee for validation.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Were all of Deputy McConalogue's questions answered there?

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.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy asked about SOLAS and the role it will play in bringing the various providers together.

Ms Mary Doyle:

In terms of the structure, the role of QQI relates to quality assurance of learning outcomes, the role of SOLAS relates to policy and strategy in the further education sector, and the role of the Higher Education Authority is similar, but in the area of higher education. This is a dynamic landscape currently, with the recent establishment of the education training boards and the establishment of SOLAS. One of the major pieces of work that is ongoing is the development of the further education and training strategy. This is the major work in regard to the design and development of the future of the further education sector, and QQI has a major part to play in this in the context of quality assurance.

I agree with Deputy McConalogue that it is important that the end result does not result in a reduction of the education and training opportunities available to people, particularly in marginalised and disadvantaged communities. I know from colleagues who lead on the further education and training side of the Department that this is something they have prioritised in the development of the strategy. It is important to set out in the strategy the key objectives for the future of the sector and to align and mobilise scarce resources. There is an issue with regard to how we can best use our existing resources and ensure they are sustainable in the longer term.

We accept, particularly for the community and voluntary sector, that one size does not fit all. However, this does not mean that the existing arrangements are the best arrangements we can achieve. For this reason, the Department, in consultation with QQI, believes a discussion should be had with the providers, ICTU and the major players in this area to look specifically at the issues that are emerging, given the competing concerns of the various stakeholders.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Ms O'Brien recognise that one of the most intractable fees - which is how she described it - is in respect of programme validation? She said that she is seeking to incentivise providers to make applications for validation in one submission. She also said that she is encouraging providers to think strategically about programme requirements over a longer period of time. Mr. Vaughan outlined one of the obstacles - the lack of multi-annual funding - which makes that particular goal more difficult.

The other area to which both Ms O'Brien and Ms Doyle referred in their presentations was the possibility of individual providers networking. While that sounds plausible, I am sure there are issues with it. I was wondering if Mr. Vaughan could give us some information on the difficulties caused for individual providers due to the introduction of validation fees, whereby they essentially are forced into a situation where they are now networking. I do not know what the particular problems would be for individual providers, but perhaps Mr. Vaughan could outline some of them. Can Ms O'Brien clarify whether we are talking about individual providers coming together in networks and consortia solely for validation programmes, while still maintaining their own identity as providers, or are we looking at individual providers merging into a network and being seen as one single entity?

Ms Trish O'Brien:

We have 905 providers. We also have a large number of centres which are linked to providers.

Mr. Vaughan mentioned equity and fairness, which we consider very important and one of the principles in our fees policy. We must also consider that in the wider sense of equity for private providers, some of whom are operating in the same area, and in terms of how we deal with higher education, which is all subject to fees. We have to look at this from the perspective of quality assurance in order to fulfil our statutory functions. We have to look at the whole system and all of the learners within the system. We do not believe it appropriate for a quality assurance agency to have a starting point of the financial viability for a subsector within the wider system and for us to look at subsidising a subsector of that.

In respect of the component piece and the strategic piece, I accept I was talking about a longer period of time. Many providers in the past would have come with components of awards. They would have come to validate one component, then another component and then another component at different times, instead of seeking validation of a bigger award, in which case they would be free to offer the components as part of that and potentially have learners on a piece whereby they could gather the components towards a major award. What often happens is that learners in further education are moving from one provider to another, getting enough components together to have a major award. We would contend that a provider might think further as to what it wants to offer a provider cohort, which is why we are trying to incentivise that a little. If a provider were to take that route, the costs on the fee schedule would be significantly reduced. I accept the financial viability element comes in for the long-term element, but if we take it objectively, this is our intention and our hope in trying to incentivise this.

The Deputy is quite correct to state that there will be issues in respect of the networking element. That is why we are hoping to engage with ICTU and Aontas after this to create a model of how it can be done. It is very easy to say that providers should be formed into networks and consortia, but we have to ensure that we are developing a viable model for them to be able to do that and to meet our quality assurance standards, which is our starting point. I am not suggesting that it would be easy, but I think it could be done.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could it be done as part of the FET strategy or is it a separate piece of work?

Dr. Bryan Maguire:

I was going to pick up on that. For public providers, the Oireachtas has determined that there will be fewer education and training boards. The Oireachtas is currently debating the merger of institutes of technology to create technological universities, so consolidation can be imposed as a matter of public policy. For the community and voluntary sector, it is not for the public authorities to determine how to get economies of scale, but it is a traditional part of the trade union movement to come together in solidarity and to share where possible. Becoming a provider in a statutory sense incurs very serious responsibilities of scale that are different than what an individual local centre might want to take on. As far as we can see, there is nothing incompatible in a number of individual local centres coming together to form a network or consortium that would then collectively assume the legal responsibilities that go with being a statutory provider and entering into a relationship with QQI. If they do so, one of the advantages is that QQI can deal directly with the network representative, or the consortium leadership, however that is established. It is not for us to prescribe the governance or the legal structure to underpin that, but they need to be sufficiently robust to enable the consortium to carry out its legal responsibilities and ensure that the learners get access to quality.

It is not just a matter of making life easier for QQI. It is a matter of trying to get the best scales for improving the quality and accountability of the sector. This is a sector which historically did not have access to certification. That access came in under FETAC. What are now looking to do is ensure that the quality assurance extended to other sectors is now available and that level of guarantee is given to this particularly important and vulnerable group of learners.

Mr. Frank Vaughan:

To be clear, ICTU has addressed the need in the past for a very strong quality assurance system in the vocational and further education sector, and we published a document about this called A New Skills Policy for a New Economy. We understand and strongly support the idea of quality assurance procedures being in place. Much of the conversation has been about a quality assurance, with perhaps an inference that the community and voluntary sector is not concerned about quality assurance, but I really think that is not the case. We are talking about a different problem here, namely, how those providers are resourced and have the wherewithal to continue to deliver a quality assurance system in the services they provide.

I thank the Deputy for the question on issues arising from the networking. Frankly, I am not 100% clear about what the problems would be because we dealing with disparate and different organisations which have different characteristics, although they all share the fact that they are in the community and voluntary sector. I may stand corrected, but my understanding is that there are approximately 120 organisations among the AONTAS community education network and they are all rather different.

I note the comments made by QQI. There is scope for further dialogue. Part of the way we address this may be to look for shared procedures or pooling resources and experience to the fullest extent possible. However, I do not have the answers at the moment as to what the mechanisms are for how that might be achieved. Within the structures there is provision for shared validation. One provider can validate a programme and indicate others with whom it can be shared. This is something trade unions have been using. It is far more productive and efficient. For example, we might work on one programme which the ICTU might submit to the system and we would indicate that Mandate, SIPTU, the Technical Engineering and Electrical Union, the Irish Bank Officials Association and so on will share in that validation. I am a little unclear about the matter because we have not done it ourselves. If an initial fee is paid I am unclear on whether the shared providers would have to pay a further additional fee. If they did not, then within the existing procedure we might have a mechanism to address some of these concerns.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Brien sought clarification on a question but I cannot remember what it was.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was about networking. Ms O'Brien and Ms Doyle referred to networking but it was not a particular question.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe the networking is nothing to be feared. It can be a good problem because fresh combinations brought together with an overarching legalisation or fee-paying structure or whatever could be a good thing. I have spent a good deal of time in community education structures and I know that sometimes they can feel isolated. If someone was around somewhere else doing the same thing and if a fee was involved, then I would not be afraid of that. What those combinations would be would depend on the format of what the organisations are trying to standardise.

"The Bridge on the River Kwai" is what I call the organisation, because I can never remember Quality and Qualifications Ireland. It is a fine structure and altogether needed. Any type of quality or standard will absolutely raise the tenor of people who want to get involved in the education of the young. I like the flexibility of the organisation and that it is prepared - as it should be - to open up dialogue, to be open and to guide and facilitate people who might not necessarily come with all the ammunition.

There was reference to the many waivers under the national framework of qualifications, including medical card holders, Youthreach and so on. These are all waivers, and that is important. I have worked in education all my life and I believe any form of quality or standard is a good thing. It is a good idea to create these for all in order that people feel equally involved at whatever level and wherever the education is taking place. Well done to "The Bridge on the River Kwai".

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Vaughan, do you wish to respond to what Senator O'Donnell has said? Through your community section, would you propose trying to do something or see how you could work out something to try to save individual providers' fees - to save them money, effectively?

Mr. Frank Vaughan:

It is within the competence of the ICTU community sector committee to liaise in that way. That is for bodies related to the trade union movement. We do not pretend to speak and we are not here to speak for others. I have noted our support for the AONTAS position. AONTAS could claim to have some representative capacity for the providers in that sector.

I wish to address Senator O'Donnell's comments. We are in favour of quality and we want to have a good, solid, robust quality assurance system built in. However, we are keen to ensure that providers who have a key role are not marginalised, shoved out or deprived. Ultimately, as we noted in our submission, it might be counterproductive in terms of the financial basis of the QQI model. There are issues of principle at stake. The Senator is quite right to note that there are certain waivers in existence but, as we have heard today, the policy framework adopted provides for the future introduction of fees in other areas which are not even being countenanced at the moment. We are concerned that there are issues of principle that need to be established and we have no wish to prejudice the structure of a system that is serving us well at the moment in terms of the needs of marginalised groups.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the job of ICTU to ensure that does not happen.

Mr. Frank Vaughan:

Certainly, it is part of our job.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but I was not altogether convinced by the ICTU paper. I thought it came down on both sides. ICTU sees the QQI as a good thing but I was not altogether convinced that it had an argument.

Mr. Frank Vaughan:

With all due respect, this discussion is not about whether QQI is a good thing-----

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a good thing.

Mr. Frank Vaughan:

It is, of course, and the ICTU is on record as welcoming and applauding the work. Our colleagues in QQI will acknowledge this-----

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking about the fee structure, which is specifically what we are discussing. The ICTU did not necessarily convince me, although perhaps it will do so in future. In some ways the ICTU is protected. There are many waivers and there is the facility to engage and network. Why was I not convinced? Why did I reach the conclusion that the ICTU is on the edge and did not convince me?

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator O'Donnell, the waivers do not apply-----

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that, but while, in one sense, the ICTU wants standards and quality, in another sense, we know that resources have gone from €14 million to €6 million. In another way, the ICTU has argued that if a course is done in one place and it costs money, then the same course to the same standard cannot be given free elsewhere. Was that not one of the arguments we heard?

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to ask some questions. Ms O'Brien referred to certain waivers. Are there waivers for course validation? What is the position with regard to becoming a recognised provider in the first place? This will affect different providers in different ways, but often-----

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Often, these things are set up in the community. A provider brings in a marginalised group such as the Traveller community. They might be the only people who bring in that group. For example, a particular group of Travellers may not go to an education and training board, FÁS or the body that has replaced FÁS. However, they might go to a given group of people - for example, a group of nuns - and that group might try to get them certification. They are bringing them in but they do not have money or capacity. How do we cater for people such as that? That is the fear that the ICTU is raising. Some providers will be simply unable to pay this kind of money. We may be dealing with people who have not availed of the free education system, which most of us take for granted. Are there any circumstances in which the waivers would be applied for course validation?

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Outside?

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For example, if a group had no money-----

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Surely that depends on the situation.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What if a group was getting qualifications for a marginalised group who did not go to the normal providers?

Ms Trish O'Brien:

Mr. Vaughan mentioned that Congress strongly supports lifelong learning. I agree absolutely. We would never imply that the community and voluntary sector was not interested in quality. If anything I, or we, have said gave that impression, that would be very unfortunate because we would never wish to imply that.

Ours is a quality assurance body dealing with the whole education and training system, and the resourcing of a sub-sector within that cannot influence the quality assurance standards we were legislatively set up to deal with. We are not suggesting that all of these providers should go to an ETB as an easy answer. That may be the route, and the further education and training, FET, strategy may be able to help with that. We are trying to propose the idea of networks constructively and positively. We have to work through what we mean by that with ICTU and Aontas. There is a difference between getting together to share practice, talk to one another and avoid isolation, and possibly reducing the number of primary providers who deal directly with QQI and potentially having others linked to that primary provider. It is not just a question of paying fees to QQI; running quality assurance systems internally for any provider costs a great deal of money. Diverting more of that into the provision and dealing with quality assurance through fewer units might be a way to go. We would have to work through that and see if that kind of model would ensure that the quality assurance standards are being met in the interests of learners and providers.

Mr. Frank Vaughan:

Very positive suggestions are being made about further dialogue and considering the possibility of some solutions in networking. I noted the comment that trade unions are networks. I will not argue against that. I cannot claim to know all the intricacies, difficulties and problems that might arise. Of course it is a good idea, but let us continue the dialogue and see if can we tease it out and come up with systems that assure quality but leave players in existence who can make a contribution. There are particular problems even in engaging learners because often someone will commit to one component of what might be a major award who is not ready to commit to the big leap. If we lose those people no one will go for the major awards, or it will potentially disenfranchise people-----

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a problem.

Mr. Frank Vaughan:

That is a critical point to take on board.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a critical problem getting people to engage in education-----

Mr. Frank Vaughan:

Precisely.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----who have been out of education or left school early. It is a very critical problem.

Mr. Frank Vaughan:

Most certainly, and it is a role that sector has been very good at playing.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are talking about a literacy and numeracy level, not about awards and merits and medals. We are obsessed with awards, merits and medals in this country, and with academic versus vocational education, when vocational education is the very thing on which the Government depends now for apprenticeships and to get people back to active hands-on work. I absolutely agree with Mr. Vaughan that this is a general difficulty across the country, not specific to this issue.

Ms Aileen Morrissey:

On that point, I believe that the trade union movement and our community-based colleagues are best placed to encourage early school leavers back into education through our own networks and structures, such as shop steward mechanisms. We used that through the skills for work initiative. We actively engage with the VECs to encourage people into literacy programmes. It is not all about the award, although that is a great goal to achieve. The point is transferability of skills, and it is not only for people who are unemployed, although they are many. We have to think about the people in employment who need to be up-skilled, whose literacy problems need to be addressed, and encourage them back into education. Our constituents are best placed to do that and to help get people back into education.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a very good point. In many of the centres I have visited the problem is not that young people do not want to engage; it is that the literacy and numeracy level is very low and they are starting from a very disadvantaged point, regardless of the fact that they are there every day. The literacy levels are below par and below the level that would allow them get to a course or training. That is the biggest problem in many of the centres.

Ms Aileen Morrissey:

In my experience, our members engage actively in these training programmes outside working hours. They go after work to up-skill and improve their literacy levels to further develop themselves. Achieving even a minor award is a major event for these people, who may have left school early, stayed in employment for 20 years and never sat in a room to be up-skilled or trained.

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must apologise for not being here for the presentations. There was a debate in the Seanad on the Teaching Council and education and it is not possible to be in two places at once. I apologise if I am playing catch-up here. I totally agree with what Ms Morrissey has just said. Last week I awarded FETAC Level 5 certificates to a group of mature students who had done a course in caring. Eighteen of the 20 had left school more than 20 years previously and many of them said it was the greatest day in their educational careers to have their families there supporting them and to feel they had achieved something beyond their expectations. I agree that what might seem like a small milestone to some people is a huge one for others.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I too missed the start of the meeting because of the overlap with the debate in the Seanad. We have raised this with the Whips with the aim of ensuring that an education debate will not clash with a meeting of this committee on education, because it is not fair to the spokespersons, who must be in both places at the one time. I thank the witnesses for coming in today. I did not hear all of their presentations but I have them here and will go through them in due course.

The youth guarantee is being rolled out all over the country now. We want to get people back into education, further training, apprenticeships or work. Will the fees affect that and hinder people in going back to education? It is vital that they do go back to education. Local to me there is a nursing home with over 100 staff, all of whom must train to reach a standard to deal with the residents. Who pays the fee - the person who provides the course to the staff, or the company? Will this huge cost for training staff be a big hindrance to employers?

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How would it affect people in the community participating in courses?

Ms Claudia Darley:

I will not deal with Senator Moloney's question because it is a question for QQI, I would imagine. I really look forward to networking and collaborating with QQI. However, I would like to see a review of the fees in the interim because it will take the community sector quite a bit of time to do that networking, to get people together, because the sector can be quite disjointed. It may take six months before the community sector can start to become a network centre talking to QQI. I am unsure if we will have to pay for another application as another centre, a new QQI centre. I think we should look at those fees in the interim before we build those networks.

Ms Trish O'Brien:

I refer to the youth guarantee scheme and apprenticeships and to the recent report on apprenticeships. There are exciting possibilities with regard to vocational education and alternatives to traditional higher education. The FET strategy is looking at elements such as the youth guarantee scheme and the outcome of the FET strategy which it is expected in the next period will set public policy on further education. Our QQI process is informed by public policy and we will take that into consideration.

The nursing home comment-----

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the provider of the course train the people in the nursing home or does the employer have to pay the cost of training?

Ms Trish O'Brien:

In that specific circumstance I am not sure.

Ms Mary Sheridan:

There is a certification fee and a validation fee; the certification attaches to the learner but in many cases the waivers apply. There are waivers for VTOS, for Youthreach and for anyone in receipt of social welfare and with a medical card. There are no plans for that to change.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously these people are working because they are in a job that requires training.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It depends on who is providing the training.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I may be off the wall, so to speak, but the course has to be paid for. Is the cost falling on the employer? Will this be a significant expense for employers?

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It depends. Sometimes staff have to cover their own costs. It is very difficult to know without more information. In this case, only the providers have to pay.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will be a domino effect.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For instance, if a private company was set up to provide courses, it would have to go to the QQI and pay the fees.

Dr. Bryan Maguire:

Quality assurance is only a small part of the cost of any provision of education and training; the cost of the tutors, the accommodation, the learning materials, is the bigger portion of the cost. As the Chairman observed we are only looking at certification and quality assurance. The overall costing and who bears that cost will be rolled into who is paying for it, whether paid for through SOLAS, through the HSE, by employers or the individual. This has been the drift of our discussion all along, that the cost of external quality assurance and certification provided by QQI has to be factored into the overall cost of any provision. The way the provision is structured can make that either more or less burdensome. We will be flexible in discussing with the community and voluntary sector and other sectors how best to restructure to deliver the quality at the lowest cost.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ultimately, the people who are buying the course, the staff, could end up paying the cost but it is a case of how that cost can be minimised.

Mr. Frank Vaughan:

I think Senator Moloney's question has been covered. The core issue in this discussion has been the validation costs in particular being sustained by the provider and that being an obstacle to the provision of training. On that particular question I do not have any further comment.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would not like Mr. Vaughan to think for one minute that even though I might agree with QQI and its fee structure, I would not lean towards helping those who are furthest away from possibilities and furthest away from getting an opportunity in the main game. My argument was about people who may be pre-school, that we are back to that level and the efforts by the Government to raise that bar so that they can get to the next level of quality assurance. I would not like Mr. Vaughan to have thought that for a moment because that was not my argument.

Mr. Frank Vaughan:

I noted the Senator's comments earlier that she was not convinced. We are trying to be fair and reasoned in what is not a black and white issue. There are real issues of resources that come into play.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The issue is very young.

Mr. Frank Vaughan:

Yes, the issue is young. I am not here to bang the desk with my shoe because I realise that some issues are not amenable to saying, "This is right and that is wrong." It is not like that. We are concerned that in the application of these policies, capacity and engagement of learners may be damaged. We need to look at solutions that can try to avert that.

Ms Trish O'Brien:

I refer to Claudia Darley's comment. There are complexities in the implementation of our current fees schedule. For instance, my colleague, Mary Sheridan, is engaging with the ETBs on ways to implement a fees schedule in that environment. We need to discuss the community and voluntary sector in that equation to see how we can apply this fees schedule in that context. We need to do that by engagement with ICTU and with Aontas. I do not doubt the committee will work with us to see how best to minimise the impact on the community and voluntary sector.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We shall hold Ms O'Brien to that.

Ms Trish O'Brien:

I am holding us all to that.

Ms Mary Doyle:

I thank the committee for this discussion. I have some points in conclusion. There is a clear policy to maintain and enhance educational opportunities for all, including those who are hard to reach. At the same time, major changes are being implemented in the education sector - some are structural and others are in the area of policy development - and the landscape is very dynamic. The challenge is to find a way of continuing to reduce the overheads while supporting a wide range of provision. The Department welcomes the dialogue which has happened today and will continue to happen, particularly between QQI and stakeholders.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The chief inspector will be coming to the meeting now and I invite members to remain if possible. I thank the witnesses.