John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I wish to comment on some of those points. My colleagues who would usually address this Bill cannot be here for various very good reasons. As a Dublin Deputy I spoke on Second Stage and outlined my interest in the area. As most of the international language schools are based in Dublin, this is important to the Dublin economy. I am told that putting students up during their period learning English in Dublin can be worth a significant amount of money per month to the families who do so. It is really important for local economies.

I also noted that the reason the State never got involved in establishing its own language schools is beyond me. We seem to keep every part of education at arm's length. It would have solved an awful lot of problems. However, private enterprise established the first English language schools in this country 45 years ago. According to the figures in some of the ministerial briefings, more than 140,000 international students come to learn English in Ireland. That is a phenomenal number. We know about the things that happened with students going missing, visas and rogue colleges. It is right that these issues are addressed.

I share Deputy Jan O'Sullivan's concerns. One might ask why the charitable groups should be exempted while others are not. Equally there is a question of why they should be included when there is a charge. The Minister of State may have a response to that.

Regarding amendment No. 6, I would like to ask the Minister of State some questions arising from the submissions that were made. My question concerns private cover that may be equal to or greater than what the Government is offering through this learner protection fund, which I believe is modelled on what has been done in Australia. Learner protection funds in the private sector have expanded to cover teachers who lose their jobs. That has not been done before. I read in some of the submissions I have received that the Government's proposed bond for the protection of enrolled learners does not cover teachers. The Minister of State might respond to that. The Government is hoping that this bond will cost €5 for each student in the various colleges and would accumulate a total fund of about €5 million. It will be a kind of sinking fund in case something goes wrong. It is meant to cover the cost of continuing students' education in their college. There are a lot of small providers. Can the Minister of State talk us through what will happen in the event that a large college with 3,000 or 4,000 students is in danger? How will this scheme work? Second, what happens if such an endangered college exhausts the sinking fund the established by the Government?

The Minister of State can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand private insurance cover ensures that if a college collapses for any reason, students will complete their course and teachers will be provided in the same or another location. Students will enjoy tuition until the absolute completion of their courses, not just the completion of their current year. In Australia there is an initiative called the Tuition Protection Service. That name is probably familiar to the Minister of State's officials, who raised this point in one of their reports. The Australian Government ended up taking out insurance on its own Tuition Protection Service because the fund it had established to bail out colleges was almost exhausted. My point is that there is a cost to the taxpayer and the State. With private insurers, there is no cost to the State as the person involved pays his or her premium. I absolutely understand the sinking fund proposed by the Minister of State. That is fine if there is no call on it but what if there are multiple calls on it in a single year? There have been multiple closures before. If there are multiple calls on that fund, who pays?

I suspect the taxpayer will pay, because if the fund is exhausted, who else can? I may have misinterpreted this completely, but that is the difference between something being covered privately and something being covered by the State. The Minister of State might be able to offer some clarification.

See this speech in context