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

No, but I have the list here and can go through it in general terms for the House. QQI engages with 116 self-declared not-for-profit providers. Of this cohort, 85 have QQI validation for programmes which exceed three months' duration. However, this validation has been obtained in many cases via links with providers and their local education and training boards. Such programmes represent a small fraction of the activity undertaken by the community and voluntary sector. Interestingly, in many cases, they are not currently offering any courses to learners at all. They have moved away from that and are doing something else. In 2018, 7,322 awards at NFQ levels 1 to 6 were made by community and voluntary providers.

Some 92% of those related to minor awards arising from programmes of that short duration of less than three months. From a preliminary analysis, none of this activity would meet the duration threshold for PEL purposes and would therefore not come within the scope of the PEL scheme. The remaining 539 awards, or 8%, were major awards, most of which were level 5 and level 6 awards in areas like healthcare, early childhood care and education, and special needs assistant training. A number of the programmes leading to these awards would also be exempt from PEL because not all of them would have had a duration of more than three months. While PEL will not apply in many cases in the community and voluntary sector, it is essential that learners are protected when they undertake longer programmes and have paid fees to the programme provider. This is a reasonable and proportionate measure to take to protect vulnerable learners. It will not place an undue burden on the providers in this sector.

A range of fees is charged by providers in this sector. The most common fee level is between €250 and €300 per component of a level 5 or level 6 major award. This would result in an overall cost to a learner of between €2,000 and €3,000 for the completion of a major award. QQI's analysis has highlighted that the number of self-declared providers in the community and voluntary sector is decreasing for a number of reasons. In many cases, the local ETBs have absorbed responsibility for the quality assurance procedures of providers. This happens in circumstances in which the ETB has resourced the provider by providing tutor hours and designing the programmes and the curriculum. QQI has been encouraging and supporting this type of rationalisation because it strengthens quality assurance standards. In these circumstances, the provider no longer receives funding for its training activities. Consequently, many providers have changed their strategic direction. That is what is behind our approach to community and voluntary sector.

I will deal with some of the other questions that have been asked with regard to these amendments. The review mechanism that we have put in place will strengthen what is being delivered in our English language schools and further and higher education colleges. The operation of the fund and the charges being levied on it will inform QQI's future policy recommendations. The proposal to allow PEL arrangements that appear to be stronger than those contained in this Bill to stand separate from the learner protection fund would undermine the rationale for and operation of the fund. The Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012 imposes an obligation on QQI to assist learners who are affected by the cessation of a programme of education and training or the non-commencement of a programme in respect of which a learner has paid programme fees. The 2012 Act allows providers to satisfy PEL requirements through academic bonding or financial bonding arrangements. However, the practical implementation and operation of these arrangements have proven problematic.

The most significant challenge is that none of the existing arrangements provides QQI with the necessary resources to enable it to fulfil its statutory PEL responsibilities, as set out in the 2012 Act. This will be addressed by the establishment of a learner protection fund, which will apply to all providers engaging with the NFQ, with the exception of named public education bodies. Each provider that offers a programme leading to an award included in the NFQ of three months' duration or longer, and accepts money from or on behalf of a learner in respect of that programme, will pay an annual charge to the learner protection fund. The fund is designed in this manner to ensure QQI will have the necessary funds available to it to enable it to pay for the services required in the event of the closure of a provider or the cessation of a programme. The fund will need to be universally applicable to all providers to give QQI sufficient resources to fund successfully the teaching out of a programme or the transfer of learners to a similar programme. The operation of other PEL schemes alongside the learner protection fund would ultimately obstruct QQI's efforts to fulfil its statutory PEL responsibilities and would weaken the operation of the fund, which is intended to provide a comprehensive, cost-effective, equitable and transparent approach to the protection of enrolled learners in the State. It is on this basis that I cannot accept these amendments.

Deputy Lahart asked a specific question about what would happen in the event of the closure of a large provider. As a response to that question, I will add to what I have already said. The 2012 Act imposes an obligation on QQI to assist learners who are affected by PEL events. However, there is no provision in that legislation to fund any QQI activity in this sphere. As a result, the cost of QQI's involvement in PEL events in the past has been borne mainly by the Exchequer. It is now intended that all providers that offer programmes on the NFQ that are of three months' duration or longer and accept moneys on behalf of learners, with the exception of certain named publicly funded providers, will pay an annual charge to the learner protection fund. It is important for us to provide for this. My understanding is that the teachers' fund, to which the Deputy has referred, was introduced by the providers recently. It is great that this fund has been provided since Christmas. I encourage the providers to continue to do this for their teachers. However, we are talking about learners. Following the enactment of the legislation before the House, all providers that engage with QQI will be subject to corporate fitness checks to ensure they have sufficient financial robustness to deliver programmes and awards to the standards required by QQI. As part of those checks, QQI will conduct fit and proper persons tests in respect of those who own and manage these providers to review their track record.

This is not happening at the moment. These assessments will ensure that these providers whose learners will be covered by the learner protection fund are strong, well managed and sufficiently resourced. Such assessments will also support QQI in developing its risk profile for potential PEL events. These considerations will enable the agency to determine the level to which the learner protection fund needs to be resourced and to cater for any such events and the level of the annual charge providers will be required to pay to ensure the fund is fully resourced.

It should also be noted that where international students have paid fees in advance to a provider for a place on a programme, these funds must be held in an escrow account and will be secure in the event of a sudden closure. In the event of a closure, QQI may use the learner protection fund to fund the teaching out of the original programmes, where possible, to fund the payment of fees for the transfer of the enrolled learner to a similar programme of another provider or in circumstances where the learner considers, with the agreement, of QQI that it is not practical to complete the programme with another provider, QQI will refund the learner or the person who paid the moneys on his or her behalf the moneys most recently paid in respect of the programme for that current academic year.

They will cover the costs incurred by QQI in operating the fund and managing PEL events. In the event of a closure of a large provider, QQI's priority will be to ensure that the students are catered for in the first instance. It will call on the wider education sector to support its efforts. QQI will be responsible for deciding how best to manage any PEL event and how to most effectively utilise the resources available in the learner protection fund. While the Bill does not provide an option for the Exchequer to pay into the fund, it is the strong policy intention that the fund will be completely resourced from provider contributions and that any Exchequer exposure to PEL events is minimised. The learner protection fund is based on a tried and tested international model that has operated successfully in jurisdictions such as Australia and New Zealand in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

See this speech in context