Rónán Mullen (Independent)

Lifelong learning relates to everybody — everybody matters. It has to do with the learning of each person from cradle to grave. This motion could have considered how the Government is performing in a range of sectors but it clearly refers to the adult learning experience. There may be a need to widen the context of the debate at some other time but the focus in this debate should be on the adult learner. I wish to speak in particular from my experience as a lecturer at third level in the Institute of Technology Blanchardstown and to examine some of the trends as they affect those who teach and learn as part-timers and lifelong learners returning to student life.

The central role of lifelong learning was outlined in the European Commission's 1994 White Paper on competitiveness, which stated:

Preparation for life in tomorrow's world cannot be satisfied by a once-and-for-all acquisition of knowledge and know-how ... All measures must therefore necessarily be based on the concept of developing, generalising and systematising lifelong learning and continuing training.

There has been a plethora of reports and documents, from the 1995 White Paper, Charting our Education Future, to the report of the task force on lifelong learning in 2002. More recently, in 2004, the OECD reaffirmed the importance of lifelong learning to the economy and its future success, a link which is ever present. In a speech in 2005, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Mary Hanafin, stated: "The education system as a whole must serve the needs and aspirations of each individual and must also promote the well-being and cohesion of the communities and societies."

Lifelong learning is universally endorsed in Ireland. However, when we turn to policy development and implementation, the picture is much less clear. Any real developments that have taken place in Ireland have been in the area of vocational training where the Government can choose relatively familiar and uncontroversial measures. This is because this area has particular legitimacy. It is safe in political terms. In respect of training for the unemployed in particular, there is an established area of direct intervention. Much responsibility for implementation and delivery rests with relatively local actors such as vocational education colleges, employment offices and FÁS because there is the prospect for hard, short-term targets such as jobs found, qualifications gained or people trained.

What we have had is increased funding at VEC and post-leaving certificate, PLC, level, that interim level between early or normal school leaving and the third level experience. Whole structures have been created for the engagement of lifelong learning in each county, with career guidance counsellors and so on being available. The VEC has funding to provide free education in some cases and courses in everything from hairdressing to information and communications technology and literacy. While applause may be deserved for this, the experience is different with regard to third level.

The Government has invested funding in skills training because it can show that X number of people have been put through IT courses such as ECDL and so on. The problem is that it has invested nothing in the third level sector. All part-time third level education is delivered on a cost recovery basis. For example, if the institute where I teach wants to deliver a part-time course to students, it must recoup 100% of the cost of that course. Therefore, the course is priced accordingly. A market fee is charged as distinct from the normal capitation fee of €600 to €800 payable by a student, so a part-time learner might have to pay €1,600 or €1,700 per year. Also, if institutions want to promote such courses, they must engage in the normal business practice of identifying courses in which people would be interested and then marketing them. All of this ends up in the cost paid by the student. Moreover, there is also the problem that while some of these courses are tax deductible, there is an inequity between the person earning at the higher tax rate and the person earning at the lower rate. If we are serious about making part-time third level education part of the lifelong learning strategy, students should not have to pay more than the normal capitation fee.

A further problem arises in this regard. The absence of financial support for part-time third level education means that full-time lecturers are not appointed and has resulted in colleges training part-time lecturers on the hoof. This creates a danger that courses may not be of the highest standard.

When adults take time off work to engage in part-time learning, the process must work for them as they could otherwise be lost forever. Where the system works, many of those involved in part-time learning thrive and complete PhDs. However, those lost to the system due to a failure to invest properly in the courses available to them will be lost forever. This is bad for the economy.

A report on inclusion in the United Kingdom was entitled Every Child Matters. Our philosophy should be that every person matters, which would mean providing education at all levels, including third level, in an effort to get people to upskill and develop for the future economy.