Liz O'Donnell (Dublin South, Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on education outside of a legislative context. It allows Deputies on all sides of the House to reflect perspectives and criticisms they are picking up in their constituencies. I listened with interest to comments by Members of the Opposition on the further education sector and I will make a few remarks on that topic. We tend to talk about the importance of a skilled population when we speak about Ireland's progress in recent years. However, it is important to clarify what we mean by a "skilled population" in the education context.

Of the many contributors to our recent economic success, known as the Celtic tiger, the availability to both indigenous and foreign investors of an exceptionally well educated workforce has perhaps been the most important. When the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, was appointed Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, it was accepted that all our efforts and policies of fostering research, enterprise and initiative were and still remained dependent on a first rate education system. Our economy is changing. The nature of work began to change in 1997 and in the last few weeks we have seen how this change poses challenges for the traditional sectors of manufacturing, processing and assembly.

Despite creating more jobs than can be filled due to full employment, workers in some sectors experience problems. Manufacturing industry, in particular, is finding it increasingly difficult to compete globally. We are creating more high quality, high paying jobs. It is a true race to the top in terms of job creation and education. The Minister said she wants us to build our intellectual capital in order that Ireland will become a knowledge hub. These aspirations are legitimate but an imbalance appears to be slipping into the system, whereby we are ignoring some parts of the education landscape.

A key element of how Ireland copes with this economic transition is the level to which our education system not only continues to develop and turn out top class graduates but also how it facilitates training, upskilling and re-skilling of workers. It is also about how we service the educational needs of school leavers who do not opt for the university or IT route. Deputies have praised the record funding of our education system, particularly since 1997. There has been a trebling of the overall spend on education from approximately €850 million in 1997. There is now a multi-annual strategic innovation fund for higher education and a new PhD or fourth level of education is being developed and significantly funded. The Government is also committing €900 million to the third level sector in the next five years as part of the Department of Education and Science capital envelope —€630 million from Exchequer funds and the balance from PPP initiatives.

Notwithstanding this, I share the concerns expressed by Opposition Members and their dissatisfaction with the level of support for one element of the education system, namely, the further education and post-leaving certificate sector. I referred previously to the importance of upskilling and re-skilling in our changing economy. The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland has called for a serious evaluation of our training policy to ensure priority is given to upskilling those already in employment.

There has been a remarkable change in the composition of the labour market. The correctness of our low tax, pro-enterprise model has been borne out spectacularly. Employment rose from 1.1 million in 1991 to over 1.9 million in 2005 and it is predicted that 2 million will be employed in 2006. Simultaneously, real earnings have increased substantially while the tax system, through reform, has allowed the overall burden on work to be reduced. We now have the most favourable income tax system in the European Union for those on low to medium incomes. However, there are fears for those with low skills who have entered employment in this environment of labour shortages. They may find themselves vulnerable to either a downturn in the economy or changes in the nature of work. The further education and post-leaving certificate sector plays a critical and under-appreciated role in addressing this vulnerability. In 1997 there were 18,000 enrolments in PLC courses; today there are over 30,000. That is more than the number of school leavers entering third level education each year.

Courses are delivered by a network of over 210 schools and colleges in the vocational, secondary and community school sector. The bulk of provision is in vocational colleges. In all, over 1,000 courses are provided in more than 60 disciplines. The value of what these courses achieve and the benefit they provide for the individual and the community can hardly be over-stated. Why, therefore, are further education and PLC courses the Cinderella of our education system? Look at how the sector has been treated in the 20 years since 1985. PLC courses started to develop around that year, a time of high unemployment, but, incredibly, it was 15 years before a report was commissioned to recognise that huge resources were needed to support the work being done in the sector and make appropriate recommendations. This is the so-called McIver report. To put the delay in context, negotiations are under way to agree the seventh partnership agreement, a successor to Sustaining Progress. The examination of required support and resources for schools providing PLC courses was based on a commitment given in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness in 2000.

The McIver report outlined changes needed to allow schools and colleges to provide these valuable courses and comply with the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act. The deadline for implementation of new structures under the Act is June this year. After the publication of the review in 2003, the Department set up a group to examine how the McIver report might be implemented. It is now 2006. The report conceded that costs would be significant and that a phased approach was required but still nothing has happened. What is the problem in dealing with these recommendations?

Frustration levels are high among principals in the sector. They complain that further education and PLC courses operate within second level structures and second level budgets, buildings and time in schools where provision bears no relationship to the reality behind the service being delivered. That is the crux of the problem. Two weeks ago I tabled a parliamentary question about funding and recognition for the further education sector. I specifically asked what progress had been made in implementing the McIver recommendations. Regrettably, the reply confirms the suspicion that progress on helping and responding to the PLC sector is inert and lacklustre. The reply points to support for the PLC sector and the increase in the number of places by 60% since 1997. The number of PLC places approved for 2006 is up by more than 1,600 on the previous year. However, while the enrolment numbers reflect the importance of the sector, they are not an accurate measure of commitment, unless increased enrolment is matched by increased funding. There is scant reference in the 2006 Estimates to additional funding for schools and colleges providing further education or post-leaving certificate courses.

There is a perception of drift in overall policy for this important sector. Schools and colleges are struggling with an increasingly complex and demanding situation, as they have for many years, without the appropriate support structures being put in place, as was recommended in the McIver report. The introduction of maintenance grants for students with effect from September 1998, the waiving of tuition fees and the PLC maintenance grants scheme provide some help. PLC grantholders received €23 million in direct support in 2005. I also welcome the inclusion of PLC students in the calculation of non-pay budgets and the supplemental non-pay grant towards running costs specifically for PLC schools. However, the central, 20 year old issue lingers, that is, a failure to give due recognition to the sector in its own right. The Minister of State's reply to my parliamentary question mentions the 21 overarching recommendations and 91 sub-recommendations of the McIver report. It states extensive consultations have been held with management and staff interests with regard to such issues as the prioritisation of recommendations, the structural changes envisaged in the report, their implications and associated costs in the context of the overall provision of resources for further and adult education.

The Minister of State has repeated this evening that the Department is still at this stage of analysis of the recommendations and working through priorities. Given that the McIver report was published in 2003, the fact its recommendations are still being prioritised in 2006 raises questions about the commitment to this sector. I support the efforts of the Minister to accelerate the prioritisation of action in this area. We need interim action given that so many recommendations are involved. Let us take the necessary steps to support this sector properly and negotiate the new teacher arrangements, if required.

A sense of elitism is evident in all this. There has been a tendency to give preference to the traditional third level and now the fourth level university sector. We must get away from any notion that further education and post-leaving certificate courses are part of a sector for disadvantaged students. For some students, these courses are their first choice to continue their education following the leaving certificate. They deserve the attention that is demanded for them.

The work being done in these colleges is firmly focused on the labour market. The indigenous services sector in particular has a need for skilled people. I encourage the Minister to continue to support this sector and to introduce the necessary changes.

See this speech in context