Ms Inez Bailey:

Not necessarily. The cultural context is that they are sitting tests all the time, so sitting this test is not something that is abnormal to them in a school environment, whereas if they have to be randomly selected from the population to sit through an hour-long test, that gives us a better indication of whether a 25 year old has a good level of literacy, as opposed to what he or she did when he or she was 15. They are not the same tests and it is not the same environment, but it is concerning that they are not holding the strong performance. There is a sense that the PIAAC data showed us as being below the EU and OECD average. I do not think that is a place we should be happy with, yet the gains over 17 years between the two surveys were very small.

In fact, it was statistically negligible, according to the CSO. There has been a sense that the PIAAC was not too bad but we would perhaps be putting forward the message that it is very concerning to be that far down by comparison with European countries that did better than us and that are taking this more seriously. That is the current situation.

The PEC system scoring in the Department of Employment and Social Protection includes people identifying whether they have a literacy or numeracy issue. There is self-identification. We are aware that the Department knows how many self-identify as having a literacy or numeracy issue when they are put through the PEC system and end up with a score. Our agency has certainly supported the Department in examining the number of people who have identified themselves as having a literacy and numeracy issue and in ensuring they are getting support to address it while there are on the Department's books.

With regard to citizen information, we have done quite a bit of work on awareness training of staff to ensure staff in the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and the citizens information service are aware of how to detect and refer an individual sensitively. They say they get many people who have difficulty understanding the forms and filling them out. I will come to that in a second.

On the proportion of 7%, we are not necessarily completely equating people with literacy and numeracy difficulties with people who have low educational attainment but we are aware there is a strong correlation. We set the target to bring the proportion down to 7% in 2007. We still have the same target in 2019 and we are not going to reach, which is concerning. That is not a PIAAC-PISA argument. It reflects people's educational attainment levels. There are many in the cohort - almost 500,000 - who do not have upper secondary qualifications and who are in the labour force. Over the period in question, why have we not closed the gap? Admittedly, we had a lot more resources in the noughties but it is now 2019 and will not have reached the target by 2020. It is not 7% to be achieved in 2025; it is 7% to be achieved in 2020, with a new target to be set after that. Where people have a difficulty, they must be made aware that there is support available. Where staff are coming across people with difficulties, we are trying to do awareness training with them so they can make referrals. There is a good relationship and understanding that the ETBs across the country are available to support people.

With regard to language struggle, we live in a very dense information age. A great volume of information is thrust upon people and they are dependent on their individual skills to analyse it and act on it, not only in terms of their own benefits but also in terms of everything else they might do in their lives. In this regard, we mentioned the issue of them supporting their children in accessing higher education. We receive many calls from people having difficulty supporting their children in second level education and accessing supports. We are very much advocating a plain English Bill. I believe it is being considered on Second Stage. Good practice is being volunteered by organisations but it is not consistent practice. It should be mandatory across public information providers. That is what we advocate.