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

On Committee Stage, the House voted in favour of the Labour Party amendment to section 25, amending the provisions of the international education mark, IEM.

This amendment requires QQI, in establishing the codes of practice for the IEM, to specify requirements relating to compliance with quality standards for the recruitment, employment and cessation of employment of employees, and with employment law generally by relevant providers. In addition, QQI would be required to consult with trade unions or staff associations when preparing such requirements.

While this and related amendments were debated in detail, the core principle was never in dispute. We all want to have confidence in the English language education sector, one that will provide a quality education to international students coming to Ireland to learn English. We also want to ensure the staff working in the sector are central to the quality of the provision. No one wants to see English language teachers not being paid or denied access to the full suite of employment rights supported by the State.

The central concerns expressed in the last debate on this amendment related to the role and the regulatory remit of QQI, along with its capacity and viresto enforce employment standards, and the potential for duplication of conflicts with existing employment law. When I last spoke on this issue, I accepted the merits and principles of the Labour Party’s amendment. I gave an undertaking to work with the text of this amendment and to return with a proposal that would deliver on its ambition while, at the same time, being legally proofed and aligned with the functions and activities of QQI. These proposed amendments deliver on this undertaking. They have been informed by legal advice received by my Department from the Attorney General's office and have been drafted in close consultation with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

The Attorney General's office has strongly advised that specific amendments which are, in substance, employment law amendments and currently replicated in the employment legislative Statute Book, should not be included within this Bill which is essentially dealing with educational matters, as well as setting quality assurance and standards in respect of education and training. The advice concluded that such amendments should be avoided due to the risks of undermining existing employment legislation, along with creating unnecessary confusion, conflict and potential unnecessary litigation.

Based on this advice, these proposals seek to align the Bill with existing employment law legislation and to use it as a tool both to incentivise compliance with employment law and to penalise poor employment practices.Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 in section 8 of the Bill will expand the powers of QQI when assessing a provider's corporate fitness to include checks of compliance with existing employment law. This will include the provisions of the recently enacted Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018, which addresses many of the issues highlighted as part of this debate such as a lack of employment contracts and uncertain hours. This assessment is the first step a provider must undertake in seeking the IEM.

Section 25 deals with the requirements that will be set out by QQI in the codes of practice for the IEM. Consistent with the themes identified in the Labour Party amendment, amendment No. 19 will require that the codes of practice specify the requirements relating to the "the establishment of policies and procedures in writing by a provider for the purposes of the management of human resources, including policies and procedures for the recruitment, training, continuing professional development, employment and cessation of employment of education and teaching staff." In specifying these requirements, the revised amendments ensure that QQI will consult the representatives of education and training staff and providers. The establishment of such policies by providers will bring greater transparency and clarity for education and training staff with respect to their rights and what they can expect from their employment.

Section 27 deals with the operation of the IEM. Amendments Nos. 20 to 22, inclusive, in the section will give QQI the power to withdraw the IEM where it has been shown or proved that a provider has failed to comply with its obligations under employment law. The withdrawal of the IEM is a serious sanction that QQI could impose on providers. This approach utilises the IEM as a further incentive for providers to comply with their obligations under employment law.

Senators will be aware that in January 2019 I appointed Mr. Patrick King as a mediator to work with the stakeholders in the English language education sector. Since his appointment, Mr. King has engaged with employer and employee representative bodies to seek to secure agreement on a set of minimum employment standards that would be agreed with the sector. The work has been ongoing, with extensive engagement on all sides. These discussions have included the potential for a set of minimum employment standards to take the form of an agreement or order such as the employment regulation order under the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 to 2015. Should this process result in such an agreement or order, it would become part of employment law. Consequently, compliance with such an agreement or order would also become an automatic requirement of the IEM via the amendments proposed today, without the need for any further legislative action. I thank Mr. King for the work he has done to date and I encourage all sides to reach a comprehensive agreement that will benefit the sector in the short and long term. I also thank Senators, especially Senators Ó Ríordáin and Ruane, for their strong contributions on this issue, which have made the Bill and the IEM a stronger and more robust instrument. I believe the proposed amendments will address the concerns raised during our debates and lead to a stronger and better regulated English language education sector.

Senators will note that, as part of these amendments, subsection (7) of section 60 of the Act of 2012 has been deleted and replaced. This deletion is a technical amendment, which was signalled on Committee Stage, and removes the cross-reference that will no longer be correct following the enactment of the Bill.