Katherine Zappone (Independent)

I am pleased to welcome the Bill which is a significant development in the landscape of further, higher and university education throughout Ireland. With the Bill's full implementation it holds the potential, as the Minister and others have said, to provide more efficiency and coherence across the landscape. Equally significant, the establishment of a single body provides opportunities for strategic development of a few key dimensions within further, higher and university education that are still significantly underdeveloped throughout Ireland. I will come to those after I raise some of my concerns.

In light of my own background in education and a number of years in community and further education in geographic regions of severe disadvantage I welcome the Bill as learner centred, as Senator Power said. With the establishment of the authority, its governance, executive and staff responsibilities will be consistently challenged to create strategic opportunities of an equivalent nature for all learners, regardless of whether they are learning in the further, higher or university sector. There is more potential for an equality of outcome for all learners with the establishment of a single body than there has been in the past. I hope this will be a key principle in guiding the development of its first strategic plan which, as the Bill notes, will happen within the first six months of its establishment.

I have some questions and concerns and I will identify a couple of opportunities. With the new body there will be an opportunity to ensure a consistency across the whole sector whereas in the past, for example, with regard to the operations of HETAC, there has been oversight of the process of quality assurance. The new quality authority could implement ways to ensure quality in the actual product of the course or programme, while respecting the freedom and the autonomy of the providers. It is important, therefore, to devolve responsibility of quality to providers but could the new authority also hold the power to, perhaps, spot check the quality of the product? Is this what is meant by giving the authority the power to review programmes that it has already validated?

An issue raised by the recent Hyland report may have some bearing on the potential opportunity of the new quality authority. As Professor Hyland has pointed out there exists currently a replication of courses across the third level system, approximately 880 separate level 8 courses, 1,300 level 6 and 7 courses. The question is whether the new authority, in light of its streamlined nature, will provide an opportunity to encourage a reduction in the number of specialised courses towards more generic courses.

One of the functions of the new authority is to determine policies and criteria, as the Minister has outlined, for access, transfer and progression for learners and to monitor the implementation of those policies and procedures. Senator Averil Power referred to the importance of this. The arena of access is critical for those adults who lost out first time around in their education. In light of the current economic crisis and high numbers unemployed, higher education needs to put a spotlight on policies and procedures and supports for access of the adult learner.

The accreditation of prior experience in learning, APEL, needs to be a priority in the authority's work in this arena. This has already been called for. This requires an understanding of flexible learning and structures need to be put in place quickly to provide greater access by greater numbers of adults.

Progression issues need to be thoroughly re-examined as a priority. It is a strategic opportunity. It should not be more difficult for all adult learners to receive a third level degree than it is for the traditional learner, namely, a young person just out of second level education. Strategic work by the new authority in the arena of progression must recognise the needs of adults in terms of learning and the fact that their learning does not always progress in a linear way up the accreditation ladder. A system of progression needs to be developed and easy to use. Previously, too much red tape meant a significantly longer period of time for non-traditional learners to move from unemployment to employment.

According to other educators, access and progression issues highlight an opportunity to have a parity of esteem between the further and higher education sectors. Given the high number of learners involved, the level of development and the professionalisation of the further education sector, it should be viewed on an equal footing. In 2010, it is estimated that approximately 40,000 learners availed of full-time further education opportunities, while 125,000 learners availed of part-time further education programmes such as adult literacy, the back to education initiative, BTEI, and community education.

In addition, there is a concern about how the Bill recognises the role of the community and voluntary education sector, that is, community education organisations operating alongside the VEC and statutory sectors. For example, Part 4, section 39(7) formally names the providers in the context of the validation process. Community education providers are not included in the list unless they are intended to be included within subsection (7)(g). Approximately 22% of FETAC providers are from the community and voluntary sector, which is a significant proportion compared with the VECs, FÁS and private providers, 35%, 25% and 18%, respectively. Will the Minister clarify whether in the implementation of the Bill the process of validating programmes will continue as it was for these community education organisations, namely, that they will have their programmes validated directly by the new qualifications authority? Could community education providers be named in the list?

The Minister clarified some of the issues around my sixth concern. The Bill proposes an eight-member board for the new authority. I accept the Minister's decision that a stakeholder model is not appropriate, but how will he proceed with the appointment process? For example, will he seek some form of equivalence of representation from the further and higher education sectors?

My final issue relates to the Bill's commitment to protecting learners in the case of a provider ceasing to operate. As outlined in Part 6, section 60, there is an obligation on the proposed new authority to make all reasonable efforts to assist enrolled learners affected by the cessation of a programme of training or education. Will this obligation place a strain on the resources of the new authority? Would a system of risk assessment for commercial providers prior to rather than following validation provide better protection? For example, if a provider must fulfil more stringent requirements at the initial stage, it may provide a more cost-effective protection for learners in the long term. Could a bonding system similar to the travel agency system be more effective in saving costs and protecting learners?