JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 3 Jun 2004

McIver Report: Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome our guests from the Irish Vocational Education Association, the Teachers' Union of Ireland and the Department of Education and Science. Our principal business today is a discussion on the McIver report. From the IVEA we have Mr. Michael Moriarty, general secretary; Mr. John Ryan, chief executive officer of Dún Laoghaire Vocational Education Committee; Mr. Larry Kavanagh, chief executive officer of Carlow Vocational Education Committee; and Mr. Tony Breen, from City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee. From the TUI we have Mr. Jim Dorney, general secretary; Ms Annette Dolan, assistant general secretary; and Mr. Don Ryan, a member of the executive. From the Department of Education and Science we have Ms Pauline Gildea, principal officer; and Mr. Peter Kelly.

I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I propose to start with the IVEA. I invite Mr. Moriarty to make the presentation.

Mr. Michael Moriarty

I thank the committee for inviting us to discuss this important issue. We welcome the opportunity to address the Joint Committee on Education and Science and to engage in a meaningful dialogue which focuses particularly on the current difficulties and challenges facing the post-leaving certificate and further education sector and assessing the future prospects of this vitally important part of the education system.

Accompanying me today are some key personnel from the management of the VEC sector who have been engaged in the development and promotion of further education and PLCs over many years. They have an immense amount of experience and knowledge on many aspects of the sector. One of my colleagues will assist in the presentation of this IVEA perspective on the current difficulties and future challenges facing the PLC sector. We will be glad to answer questions on the issues we raised or are raised by the committee. On my left is Mr. John Ryan, CEO of Dún Laoghaire VEC; Mr. Larry Kavanagh, CEO of County Carlow VEC; and Mr. Tony Breen, education officer of City of Dublin VEC.

Perhaps the greatest growth within the education sector in Ireland in the past 20 years was at post-leaving certificate and further education level. Further education embraces mainstream PLC provision, the vocational training opportunities scheme, Youthreach, adult literacy programmes, adult guidance and counselling, community education programmes and a range of formal and informal part-time programmes for adults which are supported by funding from the Department of Education and Science or are self-financing programmes. PLC provision is one aspect of this provision.

From small beginnings in 1985, the PLC sector now has over 28,000 full-time students with thousands more catered for through part-time provision. The PLC programme was introduced in 1985 to provide appropriate education and training for young people to bridge the gap between school and work. The sector has developed a wide range of courses at FE level for students wishing to obtain a specialised qualification which supports industry, commerce or community needs. Many of the courses also allow students to gain entry to higher education through the institutes of technology.

The sector has pioneered education in a range of disciplines all of which are outlined in the McIver report. It has also become an important re-entry route for adults wishing to return to learning and has opened up new pathways to a range of qualifications at further education level for adults who missed out on second level or higher education opportunities and now wish to return to learning. More than 40% of all full-time PLC students are over 21 years of age.

Today, there are 225 centres providing PLC courses. Some 44 colleges have enrolments ranging from 150 to more than 2,500 students and make over 77% of PLC provision. Of the colleges, 18 have enrolments over 500 and provide over 55% of the provision. They are quite large colleges and are spread throughout Ireland. Most of these are stand-alone PLC colleges run by the vocational education sector. In fact, over 90% of all PLC provision and further education provision outside of PLC is made by the VE sector. Over 90% of all FETAC registrations in 2002 were through the VE sector.

This phenomenal growth and delivery of PLC and FE courses has taken place in the vocational education sector's schools and colleges due to the vision, commitment and dedication of its principals, staffs, VECs and with the support and leadership of the Department of Education and Science and of the administrative and maintenance staffs of VECs.

In this period of 20 years, VEC colleges and centres responded to the economic needs of the country and the policies of the Department of Education and Science by bridging the gap between the leaving certificate and the needs of industry and commerce. During the period of economic growth associated with the Celtic tiger, the PLC sector provided a workforce at further education level with the skills and qualifications required by the many industries which decided to locate or expand in Ireland. It also provided high quality education and training for those who were unemployed, women who needed re-skilling to re-enter the workforce and those who missed out on second level education.

All this expansion took place within the sector despite the restriction of operating under second level conditions for staffing allocation, funding and resources. In other words, while the administration, management, staffing and ancillary support structures for the PLC and further education sector continue to be those allocated to second level schools, the sector endeavours to operate a further education system which meets the needs of its students, examination and assessment bodies and those of the industries it serves.

Despite all these restrictions, VEC staff have built a quality further education system which now seeks recognition as a sector in its own right in the educational system. Staff retrained and developed courses, curricula, management structures, administrative structures, student supports and teaching methods suitable for adults. They consulted industry and commerce to develop industry-led programmes and certification. They negotiated certification with professional bodies, certifying bodies, universities and colleges at home and abroad.

The certification provided by many of these bodies was that required by specific industries as an alternative or add-on to higher education. Many of these qualifications now fit neatly into the new FETAC-HETAC level six. When the Department of Education and Science develops certification systems, curricula supports, teacher training and course development, VEC teachers are to the forefront in their willingness to co-operate and participate.

I now ask my colleague Mr. John Ryan to continue with our submission and conclude our presentation.

Mr. John Ryan

The Department of Education and Science acknowledged the need for change at this level when it commissioned the McIver report for the PLC review to examine and make recommendations as necessary for changes regarding the organisational, support, development, technical and administrative structures and resources required in schools and colleges with large-scale PLC provision. The report itself lists over 90 recommendations supporting this need for change from a second level system to an independent further education system in its own right.

The McIver report is now complete and was submitted to the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Miss de Valera, in March of last year. It recognises and consolidates the need for a vibrant further education sector in education at local level which is clearly distinct from higher education provided through the universities and institutes of technology.

The report documents the work of the PLC-FE teachers and the contribution the PLC sector has made to the economic development of this country. It makes over 90 recommendations on how the colleges and centres can be further developed, modernised and supported as a distinct tier in the educational system. It acknowledges the role of the VEC in the development of mainstream further education and its position in current provision.

The report also acknowledges that the current structures are placing an undue strain on the teachers, students and ancillary staff in the sector, which do not allow it to operate to its fullest potential. It acknowledges the role the PLC sector plays in bringing further education opportunities to a section of the community already disadvantaged by the points system, alienated by an academic second level system unsuited to its needs or pushed out by economic factors beyond its control. It clearly calls for the separation of PLC-FE provision from that of second level and sets out over 90 recommendations for the overhaul and modernisation of the PLC-FE sector.

The recommendations contained in the McIver report have highlighted the disadvantaged nature of the PLC-FE sector. In particular, it has highlighted the excessive demands on and working conditions of teachers at both teaching and non-teaching levels; the inadequate environment for adult students in second level conditions; the poor middle management and administrative structures due to inadequate staffing; the unsuitability of many of the buildings for adults and further education provision; the inadequate facilities and lack of support services for students; and, above all, the insufficient funding to support the services provided.

The first of the current issues that need to be addressed is the capping of PLC enrolments. Since its inception in 1985, each VEC, on behalf of its schools and colleges sought approval to run PLC courses on a yearly basis in accordance with a set of criteria set out by the Department of Education and Science. The Department approved the courses and the number of students to be enrolled on the courses in a given year. Where schools and colleges exceeded the approved numbers, they returned the additional students on the October returns. The VECs generally informed the Department of Education and Science that the numbers had increased beyond the approved numbers.

The additional numbers attracted grants in the current year, an additional teacher allocation in the following year and became the approved numbers in the following year. This allowed the sector to grow as VECs and their schools knew their additional teacher allocation in the following year. The sector could therefore develop new courses to meet the needs of industry or the particular needs of adult students wishing to acquire skills for the workplace. As the teacher allocation and approval was to a VEC and not an individual school, VEC courses of two years' duration could also be developed. These courses were then submitted to Department of Education and Science for approval and, in general, were approved, and so the cycle continued from year to year. The PLC sector has grown to 28,000 students.

Without any consultation with the sector or the schools, enrolment numbers for the current year and the future were capped at the approved numbers for the current year, based on the enrolments for 2002 and 2003, or the lesser number if the enrolments fell in a school.

The effect of this decision, without discussion on an alternative set of criteria for approval for new courses which will guarantee the teachers for such courses, is that no further growth can take place within the sector. The second year of courses begun last September may not be provided next September and courses due to begin in September 2004 must be dropped. This will lead to a further drop in enrolments and thus there will be a continuous downward spiral in PLC-FE provision. The VECs affected by this appealed to the Department of Education and Science for additional teachers to provide the second year of courses next year. To date, three months later, no decision has been made on those appeals although principals of schools are trying to prepare timetables for next year.

Another issue of concern is the capping of numbers at individual schools rather that the capping of the VEC scheme. As the capping was applied to each individual school within a VEC scheme, an increase in PLC enrolments in one VEC school cannot be offset against a fall in another school within the scheme. This changes the system whereby teacher allocations were always to a VEC scheme. The system to date allowed growing schools to be supported by the stronger, bigger schools and guaranteed that there were no supernumerary teachers in the VEC system. Capping schools instead of schemes will lead to a waste of valuable resources and supernumerary teachers, as there will be no courses to move them to. Appeals by the IVEA to revert back to the scheme are still awaiting confirmation of agreement.

Certification levels are another issue of concern. There is concern within the Department of Education and Science that many PLC courses do not provide FETAC certification and that many seem to offer certification that is equivalent to, or similar to, those offered by the institutes of technology or universities. PLC courses developed in response to the needs of industry and after extensive consultation with key representatives from industry, both local and national. They prepared students for entry into specific industries with the certification required by those industries or business. In many cases, the certification required was that provided by professional bodies to which the industry was and is affiliated. This guaranteed the quality of the certification. In many cases, the qualifications were of a standard which now places them at level six or six-plus on the national qualifications scale. While this is so, they are not higher education qualifications but are qualifications specific to the requirements of industry and they guarantee a steady supply of qualified entrants to industry at a level below that of higher education. In many European countries these qualifications sit neatly in the further education sector. FETAC is addressing this situation and intends to place these qualifications on the national scale.

The Department of Education and Science had raised a number of issues regarding the criteria for the approval of courses. IVEA has begun meaningful discussions to review the criteria by which courses are approved but is mindful that any review of such provision must take the local nature of PLC provision into account, as well as the particular needs of the students who apply for such courses, the duration of the courses, the needs of industry, certification and progression. IVEA agrees that it is time to review the criteria as it has changed significantly since 1985. It has entered into meaningful discussions with the Department on this.

The IVEA forum of further education has examined the recommendations contained in the McIver report, which set out a series of positive actions which are needed to ensure the long-term future development of a high quality PLC sector. It is now clear that the costs are significant and that the recommendations can only be implemented on a phased basis. However, the IVEA forum of further education suggests that the costs may not be as significant as originally calculated in the report, as the costs associated with many of the management structures do not necessarily imply new funding arrangements but rather the adjustment of current arrangements in addition to some additional costs. IVEA has begun discussions with the Department of Education and Science on these proposals. The McIver report should be implemented immediately in the colleges recommended in the McIver report, particularly the implementation of the management structures and ancillary staff.

Many of the problems associated with the PLC sector stem from the fact that it is part of the second level system. It is trying to operate a further education system under second-level conditions. The establishment of an independent further education section within the Department of Education and Science, as recommended by Rochord, would address many of the issues currently affecting PLC provision on the ground.

We are hopeful that there is now a tentative start to implement elements of some of the recommendations in the McIver report. Accordingly, we have participated in the initial meetings convened by the Department to establish a council of further education colleges, one of the 90 recommendations contained in the report.

It is essential that the PLC and further education sector continues to develop, that its teachers are supported by the implementation of the recommendations of the McIver report and that its students get the adult supports which will create an educational environment suitable to their requirements.

I know this committee recognises the importance of the PLC sector, not just for the assistance and support that PLCs provide to disadvantaged adults, but also because of the regional spread and particularly because of local accessibility. Our courses are ideally suited to the ever changing and evolving demand for new skills and new training. It is a devolved, decentralised, locally accessible system which is valued by communities right across the state. It has survived and grown into a viable and valuable sector. It is time, therefore, that this sector is now nurtured and structured to develop strategically so that it can continue to play a crucial and vital role in the future industrial and commercial development of the State.

The availability of a highly skilled and local workforce has been continuously stated by foreign companies as one of the key reasons for locating in Ireland. Let us enhance and grow the PLC sector. Let us enhance and grow the skills of our adult population and think in terms of developing new strategies to constantly train and retrain people's skills and knowledge. By offering this opportunity to the key partners to address you on this issue today, we realise that it indicates the committee's concern for the future of the PLC sector, and its recognition that PLCs are a real valuable community asset worth protecting and worth enhancing.

Chairman

Thank you for the presentation. I welcome Mr. Jim Dorney of the Teachers' Union of Ireland.

Mr. Jim Dorney

I am the general secretary of the TUI. My colleague, Ms Annette Dolan, is assistant general secretary. Mr. Don Ryan is a teacher in a PLC and will give a first-hand account of what goes on in such colleges. I had the misfortune this morning to lose my notes on the way in here. Mr. John Ryan must have picked them up because what he has said incorporates much of what I would have said. I will therefore be brief.

I want to bring members of the committee back to 1985 and I am sure many will remember the dire situation in the country. There was high unemployment and young people did not have opportunities. The European Social Fund was used to create pre-employment courses for people. This was done to bridge the gap between schools and the world of work. These courses were phenomenally successful. There were 12,000 students enrolled in 1989 and that has grown to 28,000 today. That is the proof that these courses have worked. There are taught in schools throughout the country but they have been concentrated increasingly in the larger entities. This is a result of specialisation. Some 77% of the courses take place in schools above 150 students.

These courses are vocationally orientated courses. They help people bridge the gap between school and work. They also represent a second chance at education. People who missed out on the first occasion can come back and enhance their education. There are more mature students in the PLC area than in the entire conventional third level sector. That is a great tribute to those courses. They also provide access to third level. The figures are included in the submission made by the TUI and I do not intend to go in to them. The range of courses is vast, including areas such as child care, secretarial computer studies, travel and tourism and so on.

I always think of these courses as two and a half level courses. They cater for those who leave school but before they enter conventional third level education. The irony is that whereas this is developed organically by the good work of teachers and others, there is no conventional further education sector in the country. That is part of the problem. Across the Border, in Newry, one of the first things a visitor will see is Newry college of further education. Colleges such as these are to be found right across Northern Ireland. However, there is nothing in the South. This is because these courses have been developed organically by teachers on their own. There is no further education sector and that it is a deficiency.

If these courses are run in second-level schools, a problem immediately arises. Adults can not learn side by side with students, the staffing ratios are made on the basis of second level schools, which is not ideal, and the buildings are not suited to the kind of students that take them. We got agreement there that there would be an investigation of the system, and there was. The result is the McIver report. It is the plan. We now have a way forward to address the kind of problems I have tried to outline to the committee. They are much more extensive than I outlined but I have tried to give an indication of their nature.

The difficulty is that the McIver report has been around for two years and nobody has done anything about it. It is not in the interests of students or teachers, nor is it in the national interest that there is not a defined further education system in the country with proper provision being made for it. We now have the plan, which is not our plan; it is a plan and investigation which the State commissioned and was party to. We were also party to it, as was the IVEA. The plan needs to be acted upon, which has not been the case to date.

We want the committee to help us get the plan implemented. It is vital this is done because the need is there and is not being properly addressed. The people we represent cannot continue because the strains upon them are too great. Something must be done about this.

The first recommendation of the McIver report was that there would be a further education sector. That is a fundamental point. It was also recommended that students requiring further education would be put in a separate category. I am sure members would agree, on reflection, that this is important. The report also recommends that teaching hours must be adjusted, because teaching in one of these colleges is not the same as teaching in a second level school. What McIver recommended is that the number of teaching hours would go down but that the hours so saved would be used on assessment and for tutorials and other things like that. It is vital that this is done. The report also recommends a different management structure because the management structure for managing a conventional second level school is not the same as one of these colleges. These things have to be done.

I accept they cost money. Every time we make representations to the Department we are told there is a cap on public service numbers and that no money is available. We are realistic, the McIver report stated these things have to be introduced on a phased basis and we accept that. We sat down with people and said what we think are the priorities. We are prepared to do that but we cannot continue in the way in which we are. It is not fair to the people we teach, no less than anything else.

I put it to the committee, as parliamentarians, it is in the national interest to deal with this matter. I do not know how the committee operates but we appeal for assistance in getting the report implemented. I will ask my colleague to deal with the numbers situation.

Chairman

To respond to Mr. Dorney's query, having frequently heard submissions of this nature, the committee would make strong recommendations to the Department and would correspond with or speak directly to the Minister.

Ms Annette Dolan

I want to briefly address the committee on the crisis that has arisen in PLC colleges throughout the country as a result of the capping of PLC numbers by ministerial directive.

The staffing and funding of PLCs is normally based on the previous year's enrolment numbers, that is, the number of students enrolled in September of the previous year.

In February 2004, the Department of Education and Science instructed that PLC numbers be capped at September 2002 levels. This meant that staffing and funding provided would be based on the 2002 student numbers, which caused consternation in the PLC colleges, since the numbers in the colleges were already way beyond 2002 levels. A flood of letters on the subject arrived in our office that week.

Vocational education committees appealed this directive to the Department and the matter was left to the Minister to make a decision. A further letter from the Department on the 30 April 2004 seemed to suggest the cap had been lifted. I include a copy of that letter in the documentation supplied to committee members.

When the TUI contacted the Department, the principal officer of the further education section stated the cap had not been lifted and the letter had been misinterpreted. The principal officer stated that the VEC appeals against the cap were with the Minister for Education and Science awaiting his decision. The Minister has not to our knowledge made any decision, to date, on the issue of the cap. The matter is now critical, as schools will close at the end of this month for the summer break and planning the new school year is dependent on a decision on this issue.

The college authorities need to be in a position to take on additional staff in September 2004 to cater for their current student numbers. Otherwise, hundreds of students, mainly from disadvantaged backgrounds, who have signed up for courses will be refused places and will be left with no practical alternative to further their education. If the cap is not lifted and staffing is not provided projected courses will not run; course development and innovation in responding to local needs, which is the cornerstone of the success of PLC colleges will be seriously undermined; the growth and development of the PLC sector will be curtailed; there will be an increase in the numbers on the live register, which will be of interest to parliamentarians; and there will be a reduced opportunity for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to access third level education through the successful pathways provided by PLCs.

Since 1985, the numbers of PLC students have expanded steadily on an annual basis, rising to 28,700 students this year. If the cap is not lifted it will seriously undermine this success. A freeze on PLC numbers will limit access to knowledge, skills, initiative and self advancement for socially disadvantaged students. In conclusion, the TUI urgently requests the assistance of the committee in impressing on the Minister the need to lift the cap on PLC numbers and to implement in full the recommendations in the McIver report.

Ms Pauline Gildea

There is no disagreement as to the history of the PLCs and I will not focus on this area but I have outlined it in my document. I would like to place the area of further education in a wider context and deal with it at a national level. I will then go on to deal with the PLC as part of a totality of further education and adult education provision and address the issues raised by the IVEA and the TUI on the numbers issue as well as the recommendations of the McIver report.

I will briefly deal with developments at a national and EU level in regard to further education. There are policies in the context of lifelong learning and, in this regard, the conceptual frameworks for further education, adult education and vocational education and training are becoming inextricably linked. Developments at EU and national level are facilitating greater co-operation, co-ordination and cohesion between Departments with responsibilities in these fields, together with the statutory bodies with responsibility for delivery at regional and local level. These developments include the new national framework of qualifications, the consultative process being engaged in by the higher and further education and training awards councils with providers with regard to quality assurance, and validation processes and developments within the VEC sector with regard to adult education provision, including the expansion of adult literacy provision and the appointment of community education facilitators.

In the national context, the principal providers of further education, adult education and vocational education and training are the VECs and FÁS. Other statutory providers at national level include Fáilte Ireland, Teagasc and An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. Adult education and vocational education and training is also provided in the institutes of technology and in the universities, in a range of private higher and further education colleges, by professional bodies and by employer and trade union organisations.

It is the policy of the Department of Education and Science to ensure that available educational resources are targeted at the most disadvantaged people across all levels of the system. The objective is to ensure that all young people complete first and second level with a high quality education and related qualifications to support their full participation in society and the economy.

A linked objective, clearly outlined in the White Paper on adult education published in 2000, was to provide for a broad range of provisions for adults. It reflected on the role of adult education in society and set out principles, policies and strategies which built on a wide consultation process which had followed the publication in 1998 of the Green Paper on adult education. In its definition of adult education the White Paper includes aspects of further and higher education, continuing education and training, community education and other systematic deliberate learning by adults, formal, non-formal and informal.

The policies outlined in the White Paper were complemented by the work of the task force on lifelong learning established by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in collaboration with the Department of Education and Science. The task force reported in 2002. Eight Departments with responsibilities for education, sectoral training, welfare and social and community development policies were represented on the task force as well as education training, social partner, community and voluntary interests and industrial development agencies.

A range of priorities for investment was identified in the White Paper which included a national adult literacy strategy, the need to expand the scale and flexibility of existing provision at further and higher education levels, measures to promote community education models, enhancement of quality, accreditation and assessment, staff development and supporting services, such as guidance and childcare, expansion of capital provision for adult education, implementation of an ICT programme for adults, specific equality initiatives to improve the participation of marginalised groups, and structures for national and local co-ordination. The complementary work of the task force on lifelong learning was on the labour market aspects and concentrated on the key themes of developing and implementing a national framework of qualifications, ensuring basic skills for all, providing comprehensive guidance, counselling and information, addressing delivery, access and funding measures and providing better opportunities for workplace learning and learning for workers.

Programmes within the further education sector, funded by the Department of Education and Science, are operated and managed primarily by the VECs, and national certification is provided by the further education and training awards council. Certain programmes receive certification from professional bodies and from a number of bodies outside the State.

Within the framework of the priorities identified in the While Paper on adult education, the principal objectives of the measures and programmes funded by the Department of Education and Science in the further and adult education area are to meet the needs of young early school-leavers, to provide vocational education and training opportunities for labour market entrants and re-entrants and alternative pathways to higher education and to provide second chance education for adults. These objectives are pursued through such programmes as Youthreach, senior traveller training centre programmes, the vocational training opportunities scheme, post-leaving certificate courses, the back to education initiative and the adult literacy and community education scheme. The post-leaving certificate programme was introduced in 1985 with aid from the European Social Fund to provide integrated general education, vocational training and work experience for young people who had completed upper second level education or equivalent. Its purpose was to enhance the prospects for these young people gaining employment.

Since then, PLC courses have been developed in a wide range of disciplines supporting industry and community needs and have significantly widened the scope of educational provision. Programmes are delivered in 225 centres around the country in both second level schools and stand-alone colleges, mainly in the VEC sector. The PLC programmes have a link under the higher education links scheme through which they also provide an alternative route to higher education in the institutes of technology for those who have completed the leaving certificate applied programme, or who were unable to enter third level education after leaving school.

Speakers have referred to the participant profile and indicated that the age profile of PLC students has risen rapidly in recent years. The percentage of PLC students under 20 years of age has fallen considerably while mature student numbers have increased. The number of PLC places approved in 2003-04 is approximately equal to the 2002-03 figure of 28,635. That was the total approved figure for 2003-04. This level of provision is considered by the Department to be consistent with the requirements of persons eligible to participate in these programmes. In the current academic year, enrolments on PLC courses in certain schools and colleges have exceeded the number of places approved by the Department of Education and Science. Teacher allocations for 2004-05 and capitation grants have been allocated on the basis of the approved number of places or the numbers enrolled in 2003-04. This is consistent with previous practise though one departure may be that in previous years any excess enrolments may have been subsequently approved at a later stage and consequently recognised for the allocation of teacher numbers and grants.

The Department is currently considering requests from the VECs, schools and colleges for the recognition of the excess numbers enrolled for the purposes of teacher allocations for 2004-05. These requests are under consideration and a decision on the matter will be taken shortly in the light of all demands for teaching resources across the system.

The McIver report on the review of the PLC sector was commissioned by the Department to examine the sector and make recommendations regarding the organisational, support, development, technical and administrative structures and resources required in schools and colleges with large scale PLC provision, having regard to good practice in related areas across the system and in other countries. The final report was completed in April 2003 and presented to the Minister of State.

The report contains 21 main recommendations and over 90 sub-recommendations. The recommendations encompass proposals that extend beyond PLC provision. There are issues which impact on the shaping of structures for the delivery of further and adult education into the future and which may have implications for other sectors. These require consideration at an interdepartmental level. There are also significant cost implications in the report's recommendations which must be measured against needs across the education system, as well as substantial industrial relations issues which will have to be processed through the normal industrial relations channels.

PLC provision is only one aspect of the Department's provision in the further and adult education area. Developments in recent years in adult literacy and community education, the introduction of part-time options in further education for priority target groups under the back to education initiative and programmes for young early school leavers as well as the range of self-financed courses run by VECs and schools are all part of the strategy to offer wider choices and options for further and second chance education. VEC outreach programmes in prisons and other institutions as well as co-operative ventures with other training providers such as FÁS and Fáilte Ireland are also important in the overall mix of provision.

The Department takes the view that the recent rapid expansion of activity in this area makes it imperative that the overall structures for the delivery of further and adult education are reviewed, with a view to establishing a robust, co-ordinated and coherent system in the future. These structures should encompass all opportunities for further and adult education and training, and vocational education and training within the context of national and EU policies relating to lifelong learning.

The options for greater integration and coherence in the organisation and management of this total provision need to be fully explored. The Department acknowledges that the further education colleges will have a key role in advancing this aim, and the research which informed the McIver report, together with the report's recommendations, will assist in the development of an overall framework.

Arising from the Department's discussions with the IVEA and TUI with regard to the recommendations of the McIver report, each of these organisations has indicated its priorities for implementation. As the principal representative body for the management of further and adult education the IVEA has submitted a document to the Department as stated, which outlines their view of the way forward in the prioritisation of the report's recommendations. This document places the recommendations of the McIver report in the wider context of the structures required to support the future development of further and adult education. The Department is engaged in more intensive discussions with the IVEA in regard to these proposals and will embark on further discussions with the TUI when the structural and financial details of the IVEA proposals have been clarified.

Issues which will influence the Department's approach in this regard include the wider context of further and adult education policy and provision in the light of the policies outlined in the White Paper on adult education and the report of the task force on lifelong learning. Other issues relate to developments in certification across all levels of the system, structural issues with regard to the organisation and management of the totality of further and adult education within the VEC structures and the role of the further education colleges in this wider context beyond PLC provision. The recommendations of the OECD review on higher education will also inform the long-term policy on the PLC report's recommendations.

Deputy Enright

Having listened to Ms Gildea I am not bursting with positivity about how we will proceed here. Ms Gildea referred at length to the White Paper and the taskforce on lifelong learning, which is extremely important. I am not sure, however, where that fits in with the McIver report. Both areas deal with lifelong learning in one shape or form but the question is how do they connect. Ms Gildea's conclusions consider the future provision of PLC courses but she seems to link this to the taskforce on lifelong learning, whereas the Department also initiated the McIver report, which contains 90 substantial recommendations. Where does the paper on lifelong learning fit in with this and will it complicate the implementation of the McIver report?

I accept Ms Gildea's point about the back-to-education initiative, the different programmes for priority target groups and courses run by FÁS and Fáilte Ireland but it is not relevant to what the McIver report seeks. It is rather like saying the ITs do this and the universities do that, all of which we know. We want to focus here on the McIver report and the future of the PLC.

The opportunity which further education colleges offer to people who are excluded from further education through the points system and economic factors cannot be underestimated. In my previous occupation most of the secretarial staff with whom I worked came from PLC courses and in my area there was a time when there were too few graduates and it was difficult to get staff in that field. We have not yet reached the point where we can say that there are enough people with these qualifications available.

Can the other groups please explain why there has been such a steep rise in numbers, particularly since 2002? Ms Gildea confirmed that the number of people over 20 or 30 years of age is increasing, whereas the number of younger people is falling. Can the groups also deal with that? Ms Dolan said that capping has not been resolved. Two weeks ago I was under the impression that it was resolved for this year and I drew my own conclusions on the reason for that. It appears, however, that is not even the case. Perhaps Ms Dolan and the Department could deal with it in more detail because it was not fully covered.

We must accept that no sector can run indefinitely but Mr. Dorney's comment about the further education sector being organic was very important, as is the reactive nature of it. Universities and ITs have very complicated structures and cannot necessarily adapt to the needs of industry as quickly as the further education sector. On a county basis, where the VECs exist, if a new industry arrives the further education colleges can quickly adapt to provide the type of training it requires. I am concerned because the shortage of third level colleges, ITs and universities, in certain areas, enhances the importance of the further education sector.

Discussions have begun on the McIver report and while there are financial implications, is there any kind of time-frame or target on what this will achieve? Approximately 18 months ago when the McIver report had just come out, I was in the Cavan College of Further Education whose staff gave me a copy of the report. I saw the conditions in which they work, their plans and what they have already achieved for the town. I have seen many other examples of this since, yet they are all in the same state they were in then. I accept change cannot happen overnight and not all the recommendations can be implemented but at this point if we had a guide to the most urgent needs, perhaps grouped according to those which cost and those which do not, decisions might be made on how to progress. The committee should make recommendations to the Minister along those lines.

Deputy O’Sullivan

I welcome all the delegations here today and welcome the opportunity for the committee to address this issue. Further to Mr. Dorney's comments, I was on a VEC in 1985 and saw how the sector and the adult education sector were able to develop because of the flexibility within the vocational system and how it could respond to the needs in an area. It is a great success story and we should underline that. This is chiefly because it has not been constrained by some of the straitjackets operating in other sectors of the Department where it is more difficult to respond. It would be a shame to ditch that flexibility, something I have gleaned the Department plans to do following the reference in its presentation to establishing "a co-ordinated and coherent system". That worries me because it seems to say that the VECs have had a long leash for a while but now they must be pulled back in and told exactly what they can and cannot do. Flexibility has been a key to the success of this sector. I would like a response from the Department on that and some reassurance that it will not tie the hands of the VECs.

The flexibiity resulting from the capping being based on individual schools rather than making an overall allocation for VECs has been hugely important. The CEO in the VEC on which I sat, a man who has since died, was an expert at juggling the money he had available to provide the best possible services for the region. As a result we have in the Limerick area one of the best adult education sectors of all the VECs. We also have a PLC college, a university and an IT. Limerick is a very good example of a location where all those sectors work well to cater for students who need the different sectors for different reasons.

I caution strongly against reining in the PLC sector. I support Deputy Enright in her assertion that we should make strong recommendations to the Minister to maintain some flexibility in the sector. We need to be clear on what is happening this year. The committee should ask the Department and the Minister to maintain the kind of flexibility that is there. Some control may be needed over it but the idea of it being capped is destroying the possibility of development in the future. It means that numbers will not be able to grow even where there is a need.

Given that over 40% of all full-time PLC students are over 21 years of age, one is clearly catering for a different sector than, for example, the ITs. There is an issue in the background which we have not properly considered, the idea that somehow, if one allows the PLCs to grow, the numbers in the ITs will be affected. That is not true. I would like the TUI and IVEA representatives to respond. Many students move from PLC either to ITs or to universities. I am thinking, for example, of art and design students in Limerick Senior College who go on to the very good art and design school in the Limerick Institute of Technology. Such moves happen in other areas. I am most familiar with the Limerick area. For example, tourism courses were introduced when there was no training anywhere else for people working in tourism. Those courses were a response to a need. The child care sector is another one where the response has been very positive. There is surely a growing demand in that sector for people to be adequately trained.

I fully support what has been said about the McIver report. The TUI and IVEA representatives might elaborate a little on how they see it being phased in, because they accept that it cannot all happen at once.

Approximately a month ago, the committee passed a EU proposal regarding common accreditation across the EU. I assume that FETAC would slot into that at its level. If people here have views on that, they might express them. The PLC structure is a vital cog if we are to have the same kind of systems as in other European countries. I am thinking in particular of Scandinavian countries, which have very strong further education sectors and as a result can be flexible regarding the needs of industry. The same is true in Britain.

Those are the main issues I wished to raise. This has been a positive meeting but at the end of it we need to make specific recommendations to the Minister and the Department.

Deputy Hoctor

I welcome the various delegations. We have had very interesting discussions on the impact of the PLC courses, which we must agree is revolutionary. The wide variety of courses and qualifications offered to people throughout the system since 1985 has been remarkable. This is a success story.

There are some questions we must address. There are no ASTI members here today, nor any representatives from the many voluntary secondary schools which also conduct PLC courses. This may be an oversight. Some of their concerns have been well articulated today by the TUI representatives. Over the past seven years the Department of Education and Science and the Government have put very substantial funding into the areas of special needs resource teaching hours at first and second level, but the accommodation comes later. I am well aware of the phenomenal success of the PLC courses but the building unit and accommodation end of the invaluable service has not been clearly addressed. St. Sheelin's College in Templemore faces the very practical difficulty of toilet facilities for people attending the PLC courses. The building unit has not matched the aspirations of the further education sector of the Department. We should highlight that in the committee recommendations.

As a committee, should we be recommending to the Department and the Minister that more be offered to second level students in order to equip them with the skills and expertise required later in further education? Could that be addressed somewhat more at second level? People should be equipped with those skills at an earlier age, before leaving school. Are we still too narrow in our approach and focus at second level in terms of what we desire for people leaving school at the end of second level?

There is a weakness in the system. I am open to contradiction, but there must be more accountability in terms of what happens at PLC level. I am aware of a number of people who sign on for PLC courses, attend for most of the year but do not attend for certification. The following year they face great difficulties when seeking to enrol on another course, and often fail. It is unfortunate that they do not see out their courses to the end and get the credits and certification available up to a high level. The Department must be more accountable in that matter.

How many students from the leaving certificate applied course attend and take on PLC courses with a view to going on to college? If there are any figures available I would like to know them.

We must call on the Minister to apply flexibility in this case. The PLC story is a success story. We need to look at it more closely in terms of picking up on the weaknesses, but the strengths far outweigh them. The school year is drawing to a close and teachers, VEC administrators and particularly students need to see exactly what is available to them and what opportunities are available. They have been wonderful up to now and we must ensure that they continue to be present for those who need them.

Deputy Andrews

I welcome the delegations. I was formerly a teacher in a City of Dublin VEC and was a member of the Dún Laoghaire VEC for four years, up to recently. I attended a meeting organised by the TUI in Dún Laoghaire which focused on the capping issue and the McIver report in general. There was some division there. There was a view that the TUI had missed the point. The TUI represents teachers at all levels and perhaps the representatives arrived at the meeting a little late, possibly after the battle was won or lost. The issue is still very much alive. There was general agreement with the view expressed by public representatives that it was not in the national interests to cap the enrolment levels in the PLCs.

Conflicting reports have been referred to. For example, the submission made on behalf of the IVEA stated in the third paragraph on page 5 that, without any consultation with the sector or the schools, future enrolment numbers would be capped at the approved numbers for the current year — based on the enrolments of 2002-03 — or the lesser year if enrolments fell in a school. The last part is what concerns me. I want to get to the bottom of this. I appreciate that some negotiation has taken place and that we have now shifted to 2003-04 numbers. What is the meaning of that subclause about the lesser number if enrolments fall in a school? I do not want Ms Gildea to be a punchbag for everyone today, but I would like her to address that issue. Is what the IVEA contends true: that the lesser number, if the enrolments fall in a school, becomes the approved level for the following year? In other words, do those proposals envisage a general decline in numbers in individual schools? I would like Ms Gildea to address that issue, which was the main concern expressed at the meeting of the TUI in Dún Laoghaire in March.

Perhaps Ms Gildea might also discuss the issue of certification. Many of the further education colleges are allowing their students to graduate on the basis of external qualifications specific to an industry, and they may not be governed by FETAC. There is a view that if they come under FETAC's supervision, they will take a step backwards rather than forwards. Naturally, no one has an interest in that. I would like Ms Gildea to address that question of the certification levels that may not have arisen in her report today.

Regarding the age profile, both parties mentioned that a large cohort of students in post-leaving certificate courses is over 21 years of age. Ms Gildea referred to in paragraph 16. What is the Department's view and can conclusions be drawn from that? Is it good or bad? Nothing seems to follow from her paragraph on that issue.

I share Deputy Enright's impression that several other issues were brought up without our knowing what the link was. Not being able to do everything is not an excuse to do nothing. I concede that there are all kinds of other issues, but the McIver report stands on its own. I also appreciate that a great deal of progress has been made in prioritising. Where are we now exactly? Where is the IVEA in setting out priorities? Is it engaging in that process of filleting the McIver report, or does it want it delivered en bloc? I would like to know from both parties where those negotiations stand so that the committee can ultimately make recommendations to the Department.

Chairman

There are a few points arising from the presentations and the questioning. Everyone acknowledges that the area has been an enormous success. As Mr. Dorney said, the way in which it has grown has been extraordinary. To some extent, people will be surprised that the numbers participating are so high at a time when the rate of unemployment is so much lower than it was in 1985, for example, as well as at many times in the interim. I cannot remember where I saw the McIver report or when I read it for the first time, but I remember that the Department of Finance had the strongest of reservations regarding cost. That would not surprise any of the representatives or committee members. It usually annoys committee members, but they are not always wrong either.

When the report came out, I felt that it could have provided a better economic benefit analysis of the sector. In many cases, that benefit is enormous. I know that there are other considerations and all kinds of wonderful things, but sometimes one must take account of economic matters too. The reservations from the Department of Finance were so great that they may have been a large obstacle to the delivery of this course. The committee may face that difficulty in trying to make recommendations that move us forward slightly.

Access to various courses in the PLC area seems historically to have developed, to some extent at least, on the basis of individual teacher interest. Many teachers have had a specific interest themselves or, alternatively, seen a need for a particular kind of course. They have done a great amount of work. The level of work put into the PLC area by individual teachers is not really recognised, even in the report. I remember thinking that at the time. It is not recognised in individual schools, and especially where there are fewer than 150 students, an area not within the remit of the McIver report. A few teachers have driven this very successfully both in terms of participation and economic benefit. For that reason, it has developed in an unplanned way, and there is no access to specialities within a reasonable distance for many people who might be interested. I know that the McIver report had a recommendation regarding e-learning and distance learning and incorporating that into the PLC sector. However, I have not seen any great evidence that it has been pushed to any extent. This is a question to which all the representatives have the answer, and I am sure that I could have found out elsewhere.

I am interested in access to PLC courses for mature people. Is it an absolute requirement that they be holders of the leaving certificate? At one time it was much more difficult to gain one. Although one might have had a great deal of success in some subjects, if one had failed in others, that would debar one from gaining the certificate.

I was also struck in the McIver report at the time, and when listening to the presentations today, that 80% of the centres — comprising 27% of the students — have fewer than 150 students, which includes, for example, all of County Clare. I know that the McIver report says that one should follow the recommendations for the larger centres on a pro rata basis. However, I am not sure whether that is practical or even desirable. I would like to have the representatives’ views on that. I know that there was a suggestion that it might be possible to tie in delivery of the PLCs with VTOS and adult literacy. There might be places where that would be possible, but it would require a level of organisation that is simply impossible unless the new structures proposed by McIver are in place.

I am not very clear on how voluntary secondary schools provide a service. Do they deal directly with the Department or with the local VEC? That would be of interest to me. Where does the PLC fit into the FETAC qualifications and certification? Much progress has been made on that. However, as Deputy Andrews said, there are still some areas where people have concerns.

Many of the questions were directed at the Department. Perhaps we might start with it.

Ms Gildea

I will try to take the issues in the round. The point that I was trying to make regarding setting a background for this is that we engaged in a serious consultation process on the future of adult education in 1998 for the Green Paper. That was followed by a White Paper, which set out priorities, which included a national adult literacy strategy. We now have 30,000 people engaged in literacy programmes run by the VECs. Flexibility in provision is provided for, which is being achieved through the back to education initiative, both by VECs and by community groups. Some 10% of the places are made available to local community groups. It was within that overall context that we are trying to place the PLC. The purpose and objective of the PLCs is to be a labour market programme for those leaving school who may not aspire to third level education or may not have the points to get there. There are also adults seeking to re-skill to enter the labour market. For those two categories, the principal objective is to provide labour market skills.

Regarding flexibility, it is not the Department's intention to seek to control what is happening or to reduce the flexibility already there. Because of the massive expansion of further and adult education provision over the past few years, certain programmes have developed with a vertical organisational arrangement, and there is much potential within VECs and at Department level to look at the totality of the management of these programmes at VEC level. For example, there are adult education organisers, literacy organisers, community education facilitators, principals of FE colleges and Youthreach and other co-ordinators. Regarding coherence and integration, the idea is to have a structure which facilitates what is being done by all these people in order to better harness their skills and expertise regarding the client groups. The primary focus is a whole range of people who require either labour market skills or second chance education. The purpose of all further and adult education provision is to meet the needs of those people. In an ideal world there would be a system to facilitate entry and re-entry at different levels from basic adult education level, through to PLC and to third level.

Deputy Andrews asked how teachers are allocated, based on PLC numbers. The traditional method of allocating teachers to schools is based on enrolments in the previous year. In the current year teachers have been allocated on the basis of approved numbers. If the numbers enrolled are above the approved number, the teachers are allocated on the approved numbers or the numbers actually enrolled. I am not sure if that answers the Deputy's question.

Deputy Andrews

I was referring specifically to the reference to a lesser number if enrolments fell in a school.

Mr. John Ryan

The relevant paragraph could be linked to the second issue which I raised namely, the capping at school level rather than VEC level. For example, one VEC school might increase PLC enrolments by 100 above the approved number while another's numbers may fall below the approved number. From a VEC's point of view there is no change in the approved number. However, the VEC gets no recognition for the increased enrolment of 100 and experiences a decrease for the loss of 100. In the past, the actual number would come to the VEC, whose CEO could decide the approach. There will be a downward spiral within the system if this continues to be maintained.

Deputy O’Sullivan

What effect will recen-tralisation have?

Ms Gildea

That is currently under consideration by the Minister and I am not in a position to comment.

Mr. Moriarty

Flexibility is very important. We cannot forget that the VECs are statutory local authorities. We are responsible for the courses and we have developed them.

What we have is a great success story. There is a fear of success and a fear regarding the McIver report. We all recognise that needs are being met locally. I will address the issue of capping and the letter which was sent from the Department of Education and Science. Before it opened discussions on McIver with the Department, the IVEA sought the lifting of the cap. When the letter was issued directly to schools from the Department, I took the view that it was a response to our request. Things have moved on a little since then and apparently the letter is not a response.

While we are looking at engaging with the Department in assessing a strategic development plan for the PLC sector, we should not have to do so with a guillotine hanging over us. We have asked that the cap be lifted for this year. We have indicated in our submission that damage will otherwise be inflicted on the sector. We must have some confidence in both the VECs and what has become a very successful, important, evolved, local and accessible system of further education. It is in every provincial town and is accessible to disadvantaged people in particular. We must keep that in mind. We cannot be afraid of advancing this success.

I do not know the timeframe. The Department will use the term "as resources become available". We have indicated that there are elements of the McIver report that can be implemented without too much cost. Our fear at management level is that the report in general may gather dust and that the cost of everything and the value of nothing will be considered. One must think strategically about matching cost with value and the returns to the sector.

Mr. Don Ryan

If the Minister has his way, the PLC numbers in Ennistymon, Kilrush and Ennis will remain under 150.

It is gratifying to realise Deputies and the Chairman are so knowledgeable regarding the PLC area and the McIver report. Regarding Deputy O'Sullivan's comment about the competition that might exist between ITs and the colleges of further education, they complement each other. The linkages that have grown between them over the years are testimony to that. None of the reports has mentioned that this linkage has been further broadened to incorporate the NUI. We are also expecting a very positive result from the University of Limerick in the near future. In terms of the NUI, UCC has links to four or five programmes at level 2, including nursing, law and business. That is very likely to develop. What they are getting is a far better prepared learner that might otherwise come from the Leaving Certificate programmes. These people have chosen areas of particular interest to them and the preparation is more appropriate than it might be as a result of academic preparations for the Leaving Certificate. The hands-on aspect of PLC courses prepares people better.

Deputy Andrews mentioned certification. The TUI and the colleges of further education welcome the developments in FETAC, but FETAC is still in its infancy and is not in a position to validate or certify courses in many areas to which we aspire. Regretfully we have to go abroad at enormous cost to acquire certification from the City and Guilds, SIPTAC, ITEC and so on. I hope this will change as FETAC develops further. Regarding developments in FETAC, a point I must make which cannot be ignored is that under the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999, centres are required to have in place quality assurance and validation mechanisms by 2006. Quality assurance will be introduced from next September. In order to be validated, all existing and new programmes will require quality assurance policies and procedures to be implemented and internally and externally verified. They also have to be verified by learners. There is no possibility of hiding. The quality assurance requirements closely mirror the recommendations of the McIver report; they complement one another. If one looks at the legislation and FETAC's demands, they are a mirror of what McIver recommended.

We must remember that the TUI and IVEA would have requested a review of the PLC area. The Department of Education and Science deemed it necessary and, as was documented in the White Paper on adult education and the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, these groups have been told what to do. We ask for the support of the committee in progressing it.

Mr. Tony Breen

A number of questions have been raised. I echo the comments of the previous speaker. As one who has worked in this sector and seen the development of PLCs over the past 23 years, it is most gratifying to hear other people who appreciate the work that has been done for learners, which marks a tremendous step forward.

The rise in numbers is a good news story as far as people are concerned but, perhaps, for those who resource it it is not so good. There is a context now in regard to further education. We must remember that further education goes right down to foundation level 1. I am talking about the old NCVA awards. I suppose they are now referred to as the legacy awards. The NCVA level 1 used to be the VPTP 1, which was like a transition year, similar to the first year of the applied leaving certificate. One could have a second year, VPTP 2, which was introduced in the first year of the introduction of VPT education. The following year, 1985, it was possible for students who had completed the leaving certificate to complete the old NCVA level 2.

All of these things made a huge difference. They were made possible by the European Social Fund, which had a competence to fund vocational education. Vocational schools had moved away from what had been their traditional role and taken on the idea of being suppliers and providers in regard to free second level education for all. The context has now moved back in regard to certification from the bottom up for learners, which is a real sea change in direction. Once people start getting certification at level 1, they think about level 2 and now they are thinking about FETAC qualifications leading them further up the ladder.

It is also a good news story in regard to the change in the make-up of students coming out of second level schools and colleges. Retention has increased. There has never been retention across the total educational spectrum. Many people who were at the bottom level are now finding their way into the education system and are receiving certification.

I am involved in quality assurance matters for FETAC. Support officers around the country have told me of the demand for quality assurance and support for providers. It is a major issue on the ground and reflects what I say about the need for people to come into the area of certification.

Regarding the point about this sector taking away from ITs, a very good report was done by McDonagh which compares and contrasts enrolment to ITs and how they are handled within the PLC sector. McDonagh said in a presentation to the IVEA sector that there is a great difference in the way in which admission takes place for students going to a new environment in a bigger college compared to students who are continuing on in the school or college where they completed second level education. When one goes on the CAO website to make an application, if one has done a PLC course one automatically makes the application through the links programme if there is a discipline that matches the discipline which has been studied.

I admit I am spending a great deal of time on one question, but the relevance of the rise in numbers is also important. Over 23 years, the City of Dublin VEC has run 700 different PLC courses. During that time, but particularly in the past 15 years, we have offered about 300 PLC courses. Prior to 15 years ago it would have been in the region of 250. That illustrates the flexibility which is there that allows us to constantly move from one need in the economy to another.

In regard to full awards, I am always at great pains to point out to people in regard to national certification that two years ago the full award would have been at NCVA level 2. That was generally given to the first year of PLC courses. At least the same number of students were in the system for that year whose certification came from something other than a national body. While we were waiting for the rolling out of NQAI, FETAC and HETAC, we could not get any movement in terms of the level. What should have been an NCVA level 3 would have allowed a natural second year for PLC courses the same as for FE colleges in the North. If one considers any 100 students at random, only approximately 45% of them would receive the full award. A large number of students would have taken the award at the bachelor of technology level in the UK or with other professional bodies or institutions.

Chairman

Are such students entitled to reply retrospectively to receive recognition at the appropriate level?

Mr. Breen

Yes. To answer a query from one of the committee members, the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, NQAI, is affiliated at European level. If a qualification is recognised in a member state, whatever that qualification may be, then it is automatically recognised at the same level in this State. This is a huge development with regard to teaching qualifications, for example.

Ms Dolan

I wish to respond to the question raised by Deputy Enright regarding the cap on post leaving certificate courses, PLCs. We thought this issue had been resolved at the beginning of May when we received a letter from the Department of Education and Science, indicating that our allocation for the coming year would be based on the attendance figure for the previous September. Confusion ensued because this letter about the staffing allocation had issued from Tullamore rather than from the Department's office in Athlone or the further education, FE, section in Dublin. We welcomed it, however, as confirmation that the cap had been lifted until we received confirmation from the Department to the contrary.

Last February, vocational education committees, VECs, throughout the country appealed the capping of PLC numbers. It is now June and there is no decision from the Minister for Education and Science. It will cause huge problems in terms of planning for the forthcoming year if that decision is not made this week.

With regard to mature students, I wish to respond with my own anecdotal view rather than empirical evidence, though the former is backed up to some extent by the data in the McIver report. Before I did my leaving certificate, I was distressed by the process of completing the Central Applications Office, CAO, form for third level application. At that time, the decisions one made when applying to college or university dictated the career path one would follow for life. My parents, uncles etc., did the same job all their lives. The thinking has now changed, however. There is a flexibility available to people, which means that they do not feel trapped in the job they chose at the start of their careers until they are 65 years of age. That is the facility the FE sectors provide.

I live in a growing village outside Dublin, which has experienced a significant expansion in the last few years in areas such as beauty salons, alternative health, security services and the leisure industry. These services were largely non-existent 10 or 15 years ago but are now being provided, to a large extent, by older people who have changed direction in their careers and pursued FE courses. Mature students are attracted to FE courses and PLCs because most of the courses are of one year's duration. A leaving certificate or equivalent prior academic qualification is not required, the classes are small and there is a high level of personal attention from the teachers. This one-to-one contact is vital and is in contrast to the situation in the university sector where students attend vast lecture theatres. Students in the FE sector receive the individual attention they require to progress satisfactorily at their own pace. The courses are vocational in nature; students can clearly see what they are going to achieve and the finite time frame required. Another attraction is the easy physical access afforded because the courses are local.

Mr. Larry Kavanagh

I would like to offer an example of the capping situation in my own VEC scheme. We received approval for 671 students last year and, as in other years, that number grew to 755. However, as the attendance figure for one school had dropped by 10 students, our allocation is only 661.

Chairman

Is that the allocation for the coming year?

Mr. Larry Kavanagh

Yes. That constitutes a shortfall of 94 students in the allocation for the coming year. If one divides that figure by 16, which is the pupil-teacher ratio we use, we are looking at a shortfall of almost six teachers. That is a huge drop in a scheme the size of which is operated by Carlow VEC.

Regarding the complementary nature of the institutes of technology, ITs, as an example, in Carlow we have two third level colleges as well as the PLC sector. We operate in tandem with Carlow IT; ours is not a stand-alone PLC school and we operate committees that complement each course. For example, we run a two-year child care course, approximately one third of the students of which progress to the related degree course in Carlow IT. The same approximate figure pertains to the number of students progressing from our sport and recreation course to third level college. That we have such a good mix of people undertaking PLCs is because of, rather than in spite of, the third level sector. Approximately two thirds of students enter the workforce on completion of their PLC but one third progress to third level. The cap represents a problem in terms of the 5.8 teachers that we will lose.

Mr. Dorney

The question we must consider is how we should now proceed. I was impressed by Deputy Enright's contribution in which she questioned what our practical plan should be. The best is the enemy of the good. There is no point trying to construct a perfect system on the basis of White Papers and task forces. The McIver report is available and should be implemented. To answer Deputy Enright's second query; there is no time frame for the implementation of the McIver report and I should be most grateful to the joint committee if it could take action on that point.

Deputy O'Sullivan queried our flexibility and in what areas we might be willing to compromise. The McIver report is concerned with FE colleges with an attendance of over 150 students, although I am aware that the Chairman is, rightly, concerned with colleges in County Clare, as an example, where the attendance is below this level. The reality, however, is that if action is not taken in those places where it can actually be taken, then nothing will happen. It is impossible to construct systems in a diverse environment, which is not to say that they cannot be implemented at a later time. I strongly advise the joint committee that the McIver report must be implemented, in the first place, in the stand-alone PLC colleges, the colleges with an attendance over 150 being the easiest in which to implement it. If this system is not established in those colleges, it will never be implemented in the areas to which the Chairman has referred. In this context, a huge expense is not entailed, as only 37 institutions are involved. The template for the FE sector can be established within reasonable cost parameters.

I am sorry he has left the meeting, but I was very taken by what Deputy Andrews said.

Chairman

I think he is coming back.

Mr. Dorney

It is a pity I have to say this when he is out of the room. He said he went to a TUI meeting in Dún Laoghaire where those attending said they had missed the boat. He is mixing with the wrong people, however.

In respect of Deputy Hoctor's comments about the ASTI, it is not a big payer in this game. It deals with small entities but that does not mean, lest the Deputy thinks so, that we do not maintain contact with it.

To cut a long story short, I would be grateful to you, Chairman, if the joint committee could recommend to the Minister that the McIver report be implemented over a reasonable timescale, including the kind of priorities that I have suggested. The second issue is capping, which has been explained adequately.

Chairman

Do any members of the committee want to come back in at this stage?

Deputy Hoctor

The Department now has a multi-annual budget, which it did not have in the past. The time is right to bring forward that proposal, as Mr. Dorney has suggested. It is ultimately a matter of funding, so we must strike while the iron is hot.

Chairman

If members are prepared to reach agreement on something for the Minister, and if our guests are happy that they have made their case sufficiently, we can adjourn the meeting. They have certainly impressed me.

Mr. Moriarty

The IVEA has put proposals for future development to the Department of Education and Science. It is engaged with the Department on that matter. We are very much at one with the TUI. We both feel we are guarantors of the system, having grown it. Our combined concern is that we have a strategic development of the system. I have already said publicly that there is a danger with all of us engaging in this. I am engaging with the Department on the understanding that we will grow this system strategically in a transparent manner so that the criteria are visible and apparent. It would be sad if the whole thing wound down or was wrenched down, as Mr. Dorney explained. All three parties here have an interest, as do the members of the committee, in the future development of the sector.

We are now at a defining moment. We must not be afraid of issues that may arise down the road. We must be brave because it is so vital at a devolved level in the community. As members of the committee have said, the accessibility provided by these courses is right in their local towns. We should cherish and grow it as a totally separate entity within the system.

Chairman

I thank our guests for their presentations. I hope they will give us a chance to see if we can address this matter. We will now have a short private session.

The joint committee went into private session at 1.40 p.m. and adjourned at 1.45 p.m., sine die.