Mary Mitchell O'Connor (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I understand the points the Deputies have made. I have worked with Deputy Thomas Byrne, who has done a great deal of work here, and with Deputy Funchion, who has moved to another portfolio as spokesperson. I might be a bit long-winded in the following but I want to answer the Deputies' questions fully.

On amendment No. 5, I acknowledge the valuable role the not-for-profit community education sector has played in the provision of education and training opportunities to marginalised communities. This is reflected in the significant funding resources provided from my Department to the sector to undertake these important training and education activities. During the Bill's drafting process and following debates on the Bill in Seanad Éireann, my Department and QQI considered a number of proposals to provide for a blanket exemption for not-for-profit community education providers from the annual charge for the learning protection fund. However, the Department's view is that none of these proposals meets the dual requirements of, first, clearly defining a not-for-profit community education provider for the purposes of such an exemption and, second, ensuring that enrolled learners are protected. It is very important to me to ensure that, ultimately, enrolled learners are protected. The not-for-profit community education sector is not homogenous. QQI has approximately 116 providers that have self-declared as community and voluntary. This is a very diverse group of providers with an equally diverse cohort of learners. Some self-declared community and voluntary providers operate programmes on a for-profit basis and charge fees to their students. There is no suitable mechanism available for QQI to disaggregate this group completely and to categorise them appropriately and in such a way as to allow for a fee waiver or exemption system to operate. We have done our very best on that and I can provide the House with an answer in that regard later.

As a number of these providers charge fees to their students, protection for enrolled learner, PEL, measures are necessary to ensure payments made by students are safeguarded. An analysis of not-for-profit community education providers currently engaged with QQI indicates that the annual charge for the protection of enrolled learners will be mitigated in many if not most instances. The annual charge for PEL will only apply when a provider accepts moneys from or on behalf of a learner in respect of a programme with a minimum duration of three months. QQI has advised that approximately 25% of providers in this category deliver programmes up to level 3 on the national framework of qualifications, NFQ. These tend to be short-term programmes of less than three months' duration and, therefore, they are automatically exempt from the annual charge. Indeed, in reviewing all activity in the sector in 2018, 92% of all programmes offered by the sector as a whole were found to be of less than three months in duration, that is, 92% of the 116 education providers referred to above. In addition, where programmes are funded publicly by the Exchequer through, for example, back to work schemes or ETB upskilling programmes, such programmes will also be exempt from the annual charge. Similarly, any programmes where moneys are not paid by or on behalf of a learner will be exempt from the fund.

The approach that has been adopted in the Bill to the PEL annual charge is proportionate and does not place an undue burden on not-for-profit community education providers. QQI has been empowered under the Bill to vary the date of payment of the annual charge which will allow a provider to pay the annual charge in instalments where necessary and when agreed with the authority. During the Bill's passage through the Seanad, it was agreed that the operation of the learner protection fund and the associated annual charge would be subject to periodic reviews at a minimum of five-year intervals. The Bill was amended to give effect to this proposal and to include a requirement that QQI consult in the review process with those providers whose learners are protected by the fund and which are obliged to pay a charge. The review mechanism was developed to give providers, in particular in the not-for-profit community education sector, the opportunity to have their say on the operation of the fund and the charges being levied in respect of it. This input will inform QQI's future policy recommendations on the development of the fund.

On amendment No. 5, I said earlier that we had conducted an analysis of the 116 providers. I can work through that with the House if Members wish. Approximately 90% of them are not charging fees. Of those which do, for example, providers of special educational needs assistant courses, they seem to charge approximately €500 per subject up to a limit of approximately €2,000. When learners pay €2,000, I feel strongly that there should be an assurance for them that their moneys are protected. That is what we are doing here. Members can come back to me on that issue if they wish.

See this speech in context