Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for her time. I wish to start by welcoming the legislation before the House. It is a good Bill overall, with the principal aim of strengthening and clarifying the legal and regulatory standing of Quality and Qualifications Ireland and ensuring that it is able to achieve its aim as a regulator of quality assurance in further and higher education in the State. I wish to point out, however, that the Oireachtas education committee, of which I am a member, is currently engaged in a stakeholder consultation process with the industry, NGOs, unions and representative groups involved in this area. Why is the Bill being progressed through the Oireachtas when this process is still ongoing? We are now in a position where I have had a chance to read all the submissions made on the Bill to our committee but most others in the House have not. How can the Bill be evaluated comprehensively when Members present are not aware of what the actors in the sector have to say about it? I ask the Minister and the Leader not to bring the Bill back for Committee Stage and potential amendment until the education committee has completed our work on it.

In addition to the clarification of the role of the QQI, the Bill seeks to bring forward a number of welcome reforms. I welcome the proposed creation of the offence for the provision or advertising of cheating services or so-called "essay mills". I welcome the proposed creation of the protection of enrolled learners fund to provide for both academic and financial bonding for students in the case of a programme or school closure. These are unfortunate circumstances for any student, and it is to be welcomed that the State is willing to take responsibility for the administration of a financial instrument that will serve students well in a crisis. I also lend my support to what Senator Mac Lochlainn said about protections for staff who would be affected.

I welcome the proposed creation of the international education mark and the focus on high-quality service provision for students of the English language. It is a great development that Ireland is becoming a global destination for excellence in this area. I also welcome the expansion of award-making powers to institutes of technology. This is welcome at a time of change and reform in the institute of technology sector.

However, I do have a couple of concerns about the Bill that have arisen through the public consultation process on the education committee and on which I hope we can work together between now and Committee Stage. These concerns really underline the importance of delaying the Bill's progression until the consultation is complete.

First, I am concerned about the impact of the new learner protection fund on smaller community education projects and organisations. They do not appear to have been communicated with and they are unsure where they will stand in terms of their quality assurance obligations and financial liabilities on contributions to the fund. While for-profit providers are able to charge fees to cover the cost of QQI re-engagement and programme validation costs, independent providers do not have the same financial flexibility. Section 28 sets out the providers who shall be exempt from contributing to the learner protection fund. I ask the Minister to consider including not-for-profit community education organisations in that same list in light of their not-for-profit role and the financial burden such a liability would represent.

Another area where the Bill is in need of further work, consultation and amendment is the regulation of the English language teacher sector. I welcome the growth of this sector in recent years and the role played by the Government in its growth. I also welcome the targets set out in An International Education Strategy for Ireland 2016-2020, which aims to increase the number of English-language students by 25% from 106,000 in 2014 to 132,500 in 2020. It is, however, deeply unfair and just wrong to talk about growing this industry by a quarter and increasing standards for students without acknowledging the often terrible conditions under which English language teachers in the sector are working. This is a sector which our own Oireachtas Library and Research Service estimates to be worth €1.58 billion to the Irish economy, an astronomical figure which is only set to grow and further increase the profits of providers while teachers work in extraordinarily precarious conditions. The money is there in this sector. However, providers are deliberately excluding their teachers from benefitting and the State needs to intervene. We can all agree that it will be impossible to improve the learner experience if we do not improve conditions for the teachers providing the service to them. In submissions to the education committee, we heard about a range of employment law violations which are happening every day in English-language schools across the country. We have received accounts of teachers receiving no contract for their work despite working for the same provider for years, and abuse of single and short-term contracts whereby teachers are effectively fired over the holidays in order that providers are not liable for basic holiday entitlements.

Zero and low-hour contracts are the norm in the industry, as is widespread bogus self-employment, whereby providers demand teachers send them invoices rather than pay teachers a wage and to avoid the associated employer obligations. There are vast disparities in pay and remuneration in the sector and even within the same school, with very few teachers even making the living wage in Dublin price terms. Teachers receive no remuneration or accommodation for non-contact hours, that is, work outside the classroom, despite the many hours that go into preparation for a single class. There is no entitlement to sick pay, holiday pay or maternity or paternity leave for teachers, and shocking accounts exist of teachers' contracts not being renewed following requests for parental leave. There is also the extraordinary practice of non-native teachers often being automatically paid less than native speakers. This is apparently a widespread phenomenon. What could possibly be the justification for this? It is simply not acceptable that we would seek to legislate for high and stringent standards for the provision of education to English-language students but do nothing to improve the situation for the teachers instructing them.This Bill has high regulatory standards at its core. It recognises that programmes and providers need oversight by the State to ensure students are getting a fair deal. We need to apply the exact same principle to the employment conditions of staff in these schools. This sector is growing well and is highly profitable. It is not unreasonable to provide for stronger protections for teachers in this Bill.

I am aware that this is education legislation and not employment law, but we do not have to write new statutory labour protections into this Bill. All we need to say is that if a provider wishes to be accredited with the International Education Mark, IEM, they must be able to demonstrate that they are in full compliance with existing employment law and some smaller additional, industry-specific provisions. I would be happy to work with the Minister of State on this before Committee Stage, where I plan to table amendments on this issue. I look forward to hearing her views.