Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for the clarification regarding amendment No. 5. She is saying providers will only have to pay into the fund if they accept money from learners and that the requirement to pay into the fund will not apply if the course is of less than three months' duration. In addition, providers will not have to pay into the fund if an education and training board is the certifier of the course. I would like clarity on all of those points. The Minister of State must communicate with the community education sector about all of these matters because, as she noted, it is a highly diverse sector. Based on my knowledge of the sector, it does not charge fees so in that sense, community providers should be okay. Courses leading to a State certificate such as the junior certificate and leaving certificate and other post-primary programmes are exempted in any case under section 32. I want absolute clarity that a voluntary or community body that teaches English to people for whom English is not their first language, or anything else for that matter, and does not charge students will not have to pay anything into the fund.

9 o’clock

In the case of a voluntary community body teaching English to people for whom it is not a first language, if it is not charging the students, is it the case then that it will not have to pay into the fund? Will the Minister of State clarify if the fee is in accordance with the charge? In other words, if one school charges €2,000 a term while another charges €200 a term, presumably the latter does not have to pay as much as the former.

Groups, which are looking to maintain their existing arrangement with an insurer, are the ones which have been responsible. The ones which closed were the ones which were not conducting their business properly. In many cases, they are bringing students in from distant countries but not providing them with proper educational facilities. In many cases, those students were primarily coming because they wanted to work here rather than study here. Those are the ones which closed as soon as they started being inspected. That is why our reputation in the international education market for people coming from outside the European Union to learn English here is important. It still does not get away from the fact that the ones which do not abide by the rules will be bailed out by the fund, while those abiding by the rules and protecting their students and teachers have to pay for it. Essentially, a school which may not do things well and whose business goes will be bailed out. There is still an issue there.

My amendment proposes that the Minister, in consultation with QQI, decides these schools have better cover. My amendment is well drafted. It would have to be verified that it was greater protection.

I was not aware of the issues that Deputy Lahart raised about the funds having to be bailed out by insurance. There is an issue of fairness. The ones who break the rules are being protected through the contributions of the ones doing things by the book. Amendment No. 6 proposes to address this matter.

Will the Minister of State clarify that the not-for-profit sector realises that, if it is not charging fees, then it will not have to pay? That sector has had to re-engage with QQI and it has cost it in some cases. Many in the sector have grouped together to ensure they can continue with the good work they do.

See this speech in context