Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)

Like others, I broadly welcome the amalgamation of HETAC, FETAC and the National Qualification Authority into this new body, the QQAI. It makes sense to tidy up and streamline the various bodies that deal with quality assurance and educational awards and to make them compatible with similar systems across Europe. However, following on our discussion earlier on schools like Newpark, the best quality assurance in the world is meaningless if we do not put the necessary resources into the provision of education. It is difficult to see how even the most beautifully streamlined quality assurance structure or administration will make a blind bit of difference if we have secondary school students trying to learn science, for example, in science labs that are not fit for purpose, where tiles are falling off roofs, there is no hot running water, there are serious health and safety issues and where hazardous science equipment is stored unsafely. This is just one school. The Minister of State made the point earlier that there are other schools even worse. It is an alarming prospect if that level of dilapidation exists in the amenities and facilities available at second level for students and, similarly, when significant budget cuts are imposed at third level.

This is all happening against a background where, essentially, a demographic bomb is working its way through our education system, in that approximately 10,000 extra young people are joining the education system every year. This will work its way up through second and third level. If we cut our already inadequate resources, facilities and amenities and cut budgets, we are storing up a very large problem. As Deputy Donnelly said, if there is any way out of the economic mess we are in, it is through investing in all levels of our education system and in our young people. This is critical if we are to chart a way out of the mess. In the end, skilled and educated people are the raw material that will allow us work our way out of economic crisis. Cutting budgets and resources for education in general seems a little like shifting deck chairs on the Titanic.

Other concerns have been raised with me. There is significant concern among staff of the various authorities being amalgamated and merged with regard to conditions. Whereas their remuneration will not be affected, it is unclear in the Bill whether they can transfer their conditions, entitlements and pension rights when they move to the new body. Can the Minister of State give us some assurance that there will be no interference with or downgrading of their terms and conditions or pension entitlements, given the new single pension scheme, and so on? Can he clarify what their rights and entitlements and other terms and conditions will be when they move to the new amalgamated body?

Another important issue is the composition of the board of the new body. A number of people involved in the education sector have raised a concern about the lack of stakeholder involvement. There is a lack of representation of education providers and, I might add, students, on the new board. On 27 March, I asked the Minister about the lack of involvement of stakeholders on the board and I am concerned by the response I received.

He could not justify stakeholder involvement on the board because it would make it unwieldy and he intended to confine its membership to suitably qualified individuals who had an appropriate mix of skills and experience in areas such as corporate governance and financial expertise. What the hell has corporate governance and financial expertise got to do with an authority that is responsible for educational standards? A mindset that prioritises corporate governance and financial expertise over educational expertise is a cause for concern. I ask the Minister to reconsider the decision to exclude stakeholders because, given their knowledge of education, they are the best qualified people to judge standards and awards.

Representatives of English language schools have described the economic benefits of involving them as stakeholders on the board. One individual pointed out that the failure to reserve a place on the board for language schools was a break with past practice and that it would deny the sector access to decision making at an executive level. This individual felt strongly that, as major stakeholders in the international sector, approved language schools should have a voice at that level and that their absence would have a detrimental effect on regulation of the sector in the long term. Every 100 international students from places like the Middle East and Asia produce 15 additional jobs in the economy. One teaching post is created for every 15 students. This is an expanding area for the small and medium enterprises that the Government claims it wants to support. Why are the experts in this area not represented as stakeholders on the board? Similar arguments could be made in respect of other third level areas.

I am not saying administration, financial expertise and corporate governance are completely irrelevant to quality assurance in the education system, but why is the emphasis on these skills rather than the involvement of stakeholders and education providers?

See this speech in context