Now could we ask Senator Robinson if she is ready to deal with her draft report.
Home Study Courses.
I presume that you want to deal first with the draft report on the proposed directive on the Protection of Participants in Home Study Courses?
Yes. That is the way it is on the agenda.
I think it is appropriate that it be here on the agenda because it is also to some extent a proposal in the consumer protection area. The subject matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy and of the Department of Education. The Sub-Committee examined the Commission's proposal, which is for a Council Directive on the protection of participants in home sudy courses. It is one of the harmonisation proposals under Article 100 of the EEC Treaty. The scope of the proposal is summarised in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5.
The member states will be required to ensure that organisers of such courses are either obliged to be, or have an option of being, accredited for such purposes by a designated body. The activities of non-accredited bodies could be restricted or forbidden and accreditation could be withdrawn if the conditions laid down by member states are not observed. Accreditation by a designated body would be one type of control. In paragraph 4, canvassing, advertising and promotion of courses would be subject to specific rules. There would have to be a written contract containing specific provisions and certain clauses would be prohibited. In particular, advance payments for such courses could not exceed the fees appropriate to three months of the course and 25 per cent of the total cost.
In paragraph 5 we summarise another important provision that the proposed Directive would allow. A student would be permitted to terminate the contract within seven days of the receipt of the first teaching materials and to receive a refund of all payments made. It is proposed that the student should also be able to terminate the contract at any time for good cause, for example, illness or unemployment or after six months without cause provided he gives notice which is not to exceed three months. In the latter circumstances, the student would be liable only for payments which had already fallen due.
There is legislation on this area in five of the member states. There is no legislation on the subject in Ireland and the sub-committee on Social, Environmental and Miscellaneous Matters is so because there are relatively few organisers of home study courses operating in this country and we understood that there is no evidence to suggest that there is abuse at the moment in the area that the draft Directive seeks to cover. However, we welcome the proposal because we feel that it would give students some guaranteed protection by law and it would operate to the benefit of reputable organisers of home study courses. We suggest in paragraph 7 that if the Directive is adopted then it would require implementing provisions here either by an Act of the Oireachtas or by statutory instrument. We understand that accreditation would be the responsibility of the Department of Education. Otherwise, the provisions of the draft Directive would come within the jurisdiction of the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy.
The draft Directive gives an option of either mandatory or voluntary accreditation. It seems to us that in view of the small number of home study courses provided in this country voluntary accreditation would probably suffice at this stage.
We now turn to other key proposals. The first is for the provision for the termination of the contract. After seven days a student could terminate the contract and return the initial teaching material without any commitment. We felt that because of the case of photocopying abuses could arise if students were allowed to receive the first course. This might lead to a certain unfairness to those offering home study courses. We thought it would suffice if, before the commencement of the seven-day period, students were given an opportunity of inspecting some of the teaching material, perhaps a later lesson, or material indicating the approach of the course in order to have time to consider whether to participate.
The Sub-Committee was also concerned that the facility to be afforded the student of terminating the contract after six months without giving any reason could again result in increasing the cost of home study courses as the body offering the courses could try to protect itself against a number of students terminating without cause after six months. We felt that this was a particular type of protection which is not open for other types of contracts and we thought it might be rather arbitrary to confine it only to home study contracts when it does not apply to other contracts for the protection of the consumer; that there could be a broader step later but it seemed inappropriate to provide it here and it could have the disadvantage of making these courses more expensive.
This is not a very significant draft Directive and its adoption would not make very much impact on the small number of bodies offering home study courses here. I do not think any controversial point arose in the deliberation by the Sub-Committee. We were assisted in our work by a submission from Aontas and also by representatives of Kilroy's College and the Home Study Institute. They gave us a very good insight into the practical implemenation of home study courses.
Thank you, Senator Robinson. I was not present when the discussion took place in Sub-Committee on this but I feel that there is need for some protection for the students who participate in this type of course and for the people providing courses. I remember being involved in a case a few years ago where, obviously, money was received under false pretences from students who could ill-afford the loss. I was asked to raise the matter in the Dáil and I did so. The whole thing was very unsatisfactory at the time. The outcome was that the wrong was righted, but it took some time to achieve it. We should welcome the fact that Community legislation is proposed.
Paragraphs 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
PARAGRAPH 5.
In relation to paragraph 5 of the draft report is the description of first-teaching materials in the draft Directive?
The present form of the draft Directive suggests that the first lesson would be offered to the student who would have seven days in which to decide whether to take it or not, and the report suggests that it would be more desirable that it be some other material forming a later part of the course which would be furnished to the student, so that there would be no advantage to him in photo-copying it and then returning it.
Would it be better to say examples of teaching materials?
Samples, yes.
If the description " first-teaching materials " were in the draft Directive it would seem to confine it.
That is what the proposal is directed at. Paragraph 9 say that we would welcome in principle a cooling-off period, but it should suffice if before the commencement of the seven day period the student was given an opportunity of inspecting sample teaching material which may relate to a more advanced stage of course.
That is fine.
Does that meet your point, Senator? Any other comments on it?
Paragraph 5 agreed to.
Paragraphs 6 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Draft report agreed to.
Ordered: To report accordingly.