JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE díospóireacht -
Thursday, 23 Oct 2003

Vol. 1 No. 25

EU Directive 99/42/EEC: Presentations.

Chairman

I welcome our guests from the Department of Education and Science; the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland; FETAC and HETAC who are here to discuss S,I, 372 of 2003 which transposes EU Directive 99/42/EEC - European Communities Recognitions of Qualifications and Experience Regulations - and developments in the area of award of qualifications and related matters.

On behalf of members, I welcome the following representatives to the meeting: Ms Margaret Kelly, principal officer from the Department of Education and Science; Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, chief executive of the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, and Mr. Eamonn Carey, its development officer; Mr. Stan McHugh, chief executive officer of the Further Education and Training Awards Council, and Ms Barbara Kelly, its director of awards and standards; and Mr. Séamus Puirséil, chief executive officer of the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, and Renée Scully, who is responsible for awards recognition.

I draw our guests' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. I remind members of the long-standing practice to the effect that they 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.

Each group will make a ten minute presentation and then we will proceed to a question and answer session. Unfortunately, the meeting clashes with the commencement of Second Stage of the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill 2003 in the Dáil and, therefore, the front bench spokespersons of four parties will be tied up for at least part of the meeting. That is the reason they are not present but they will join us as they conclude their deliberations in the Dáil.

Ms Margaret Kelly

I will touch on the key points of the document I have circulated. The National Qualifications Authority and the Higher and Further Education and Training Awards Councils are bodies which were established under the auspices of the Minister for Education and Science but their remit covers the development of a unified framework for qualifications across the education and training sector. A wide variety of other Government Departments and the private sector have an interest in that area. My presentation will focus on the EU directive while the others will take up developments in the emerging national framework of qualifications.

I will explain the principles that the treaty which established the European Union guaranteed to all EU citizens - freedom of movement, workers, goods and services and the right of establishment, which is the right to set up a business or enter employment. The various directives on the mutual recognition of qualifications are designed to give effect to those fundamental rights. There are two types of directives. Sectoral directives have been negotiated across all the member states and they cover architects, doctors, midwives, lawyers, etc. The qualifications recognised for the purpose of being a doctor are listed in an annex for all the different countries and there is virtually automatic recognition then. Once one's qualifications are listed in the annex, one must be accepted as qualified in another member state.

The general system is more complicated in that it tries to marry the principle of free movement with the right of member states to determine the requirements for their own education and training systems. It sets out the principles under which EU nationals must be treated on the same basis as nationals in their home countries. Qualifications that are recognised for a regulated profession in another member state must, in principle, be recognised in the host member state but, if there is a substantial difference, the host member state is allowed apply a compensatory measure, which could be a period of adaptation under supervision where an individual must be supervised by a qualified professional or it could be an aptitude test, for instance, to test language proficiency or knowledge of the Irish legal or education systems. The general system has the principle of recognition but the right of member states to examine in detail the education and training qualifications held by the applicant and to determine if there is a substantial difference. If there is, a compensatory measure can be applied.

The first of the EU general system directives came in under EU Directive 89/48 and it applied to post secondary diplomas of at least three years duration or equivalent. The document sets out the main measure in the directive and it was transposed into Irish law under SI 1 of 1991. There is an appendix at the back of the document, which lists the professions that are regulated in Ireland under the directives. EU Directive 92/51 applied the same principles and processes to qualifications of at least one year's duration. If it is regulated in another member state, a compensatory measure can be applied but, in principle, the qualification must be recognised. That was transposed under SI 135 of 1996.

The committee specifically asked about EU Directive 99/42, which says that a member state may not refuse to permit an applicant from another member state on grounds of being unqualified the right to take up activities that are listed in an annex without first carrying out the detailed comparison of their education and training qualifications and experience and identifying whether there are substantial differences that would warrant a compensatory measure. None of the occupations listed in the annex are regulated in Ireland but there are pages of them. However, in countries such as Austria and Germany, practically every profession is regulated. The list varies and covers a wide range of activities in the manufacturing and construction sectors and the food industry and other activities such as water, fishing and personal services, operating a laundry and catering services, including operating as a hawker at a fairground.

The directive states the qualification must be recognised if a person has carried out that activity for a specified period in another member state. It goes into great detail about the specified periods that apply to each profession in the annex. One must have been in a managerial capacity for at least six years for some professions, while it could be a combination of three years experience and three years training for others. Various combinations govern the different professions listed. The list is divided into six parts. The directive was transposed into Irish law under SI 372 on 19 August 2003. Ireland was supposed to have done that by the end of July 2001 and the Commission instigated legal proceedings as a result. Although, the transposition had been fully effected before the court hearing, there was a technical difficulty about the timescale and the Commission said it was not possible to withdraw the legal action. The court's ruling was made on 16 October 2003 and Ireland was found to be in breach of its requirements under the directive and costs will have to be paid by the State.

The reason for the delay was in the lead up to June 2001 the new qualifications structures were being established and the issue of who would be the competent authority for certifying periods of work experience was in a state of flux. It was not determined until March 2003 that FÁS would be the certifying authority. The directive has no application to workers in Ireland. If an Irish person wants to travel to Germany or Austria, for example, and work in one of the professions listed in the annex, he or she needs a certificate from FÁS to show he or she has the required period of work experience in that profession here. That should give people recognition to take up the occupation. FÁS has set up arrangements. It has application forms and certification processes that will issue certificates to people.

Directive 19 in 2001 defined regulated education and training. The committee will hear more about the developments under the qualifications structures here, which will put a national legal structure on the recognition of qualifications in Ireland. Arising from experience in case law, it is insisted that members states, in applying comparisons of qualifications and experience, must examine all the migrant's qualifications, experience and training even if it was gained in a third country and it had been recognised in the meantime in another member state.

The directive is due to be transposed by the end of the year. Many of the bits are in place but we expect to be finished by the end of 2003, except for the provision that affects the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It is bringing forward legislation that is scheduled to commence early in 2004.

There is also a list of sectoral directives on different qualifications. If one holds a qualification on the list, it is automatically recognised. A new consolidated directive, which is contentious, is under negotiation. During the Stockholm process in 2001, a political mandate was given that the process of recognition of qualifications needed to be further strengthened, made simpler and more liberal and all the existing directives would have to be consolidated into one. That exercise began in 2001 and by March 2002 the Commission produced a new draft directive. A Council working group has been examining and negotiating that since. It is contentious because while the plan was to have it agreed by the end of 2003, the main change is it consolidates the existing directives but includes a new measure where people should be able to provide a temporary service without a check on qualifications. For instances, doctors would be able to fly into another member state at the weekend, perform operations and then fly out again.

Even though the political mandate given to the negotiation of the directive was that there should be a high level of health and consumer protection, it was not included in the draft and there was an outcry subsequently followed by lobbying. The Commission has accepted the health sector should be ring-fenced and there should be a check on the qualification process. However, there are consumer risks in other areas and we have highlighted at the bottom of page 6 the areas in which there should be a check on qualification before people are allowed free movement.

The negotiations are ongoing and the Italian Presidency has taken our views on board but has expressed this in a general way to cover areas where public health or safety implications, including legal and financial security, would be at issue. That is in page 7. The Commission will allow a check in those cases but many member states say that is too wide and could be interpreted to cover almost everything. The phrase "health and safety" applies across most areas and the Commission argues there is as much safety for a hairdresser as there is for a doctor because one could cut one's throat. It is still very much in a state of flux and there is not an agreed position on the Council working group.

Approximately 400 amendments have been tabled in the European Parliament on this and the legal affairs committee will meet on 27 November to try to refine them. The first reading is likely to be in December or January at the earliest. It is likely that it will fall to the Irish Presidency to take up the cudgels in this area. The rest of the document outlines the other contentious issues relating to the directive.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú

I thank the committee for inviting us here at an exciting time in terms of qualifications developments in Ireland. I circulated a copy of a document that we published last Friday, which is an overview of the new national framework for qualifications. That was launched at a conference we hosted. I will briefly go through the thinking that led to this document. We were established under the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999 along with the two award councils. Our establishment jointly represented a rationalisation of the wide range of awarding which were in operation across further and higher education and training. The two awarding bodies along with the universities and the School Examinations Commission are the principal awarding bodies operating in the State. The other is the Dublin Institute of Technology.

The idea of a framework of qualifications has been around for many years. Its establishment was called for and given to us as a principal function in the qualifications Act. We were established in 2001 and have been working towards establishing it since then. It is all about bringing a coherent national policy approach to all the qualifications made in the State and it also relates to the development of a lifelong learning society, the need for more flexible systems of qualifications to cater for that and the need for portability of qualifications. It is also relevant to international comparability and compatibility of qualifications.

There has been a great deal of change, especially following the establishment of the councils and the work they have been doing. We have been working to set out the road map for the future in this framework. Over the past two years, we have worked with stakeholders such as awarding bodies, providers of education and training, learner representatives and social partners in an open way towards the development of this framework. It is important in the framework that we have a new concept of an award and it must be focused in the legislation on outcomes - what the person knows and can do. It is referred to in the legislation as knowledge, skill and competence. A great deal of technical work has gone into working through that but it is not of immediate importance.

However, it is important that over time it will be associated with what an award means and should allow people to develop programmes of education and training leading to those awards to the satisfaction of the awards councils. Many benefits of the framework are identified and they are in the document. It is very much based on the needs of learners that we were established outside the usual various bodies within education and training with specific interests such as awarding bodies or providers of education and training to try to put a system in place that will meet the needs of learners and bring about the 3 Cs - clarity, coherence and compatibility - within the qualifications system.

It all has to be based on quality and, while we do not have a direct role in the quality of education and training programmes, we have an oversight role in terms of reviewing the work of the councils. The need to have quality assurance associated with provision of education and training and awards is understood in the framework.

Other benefits for learners are set out, particularly in the workplace. A key issue, which is unique in the framework concept in Ireland, is the focus on access, transfer and progression for learners. The aim in setting out a framework is that over time it will facilitate increased progression for learners and that is important. Transfer and progression opportunities will be associated with all awards so that there are no cul de sac awards. While they may have relevance for employability, they cannot be linked to access to further programmes.

The framework also relates to provision of learning in all settings, whether they are formal settings such as schools, further education centres, training centres, institutes of technology and universities or more informal settings such as the workplace, the community, the home or on line. The authority has set out a structure that involves a ten level framework and there is an outline of the major award types in the new national framework of qualifications in the middle of the publication we distributed. The various operating bodies and award titles are set down. That is the blueprint that will come into operation over the next two or three years and it will be fully operational in five years in regard to all awards made within the State. There are also issues relating to how existing awards will be placed within the framework and we are in the process of discussing them with awarding bodies. We hope to have decisions announced on the placement of such awards by next summer.

It is also important to mention the different processes the awarding bodies will use in relating their awards to the framework. HETAC and FETAC will touch on this in more detail but it is important to remember this includes not only HETAC and FETAC awards but also the awards of the State Examinations Commission, which is the school awarding body, the universities and the Dublin Institute of Technology. We also hope to include professional and international awards in the framework. We are in discussions and hope to publish further discussion documents on that issue.

We have a significant focus on mobility of learners and that is an additional dimension to the qualifications dimensions referred to earlier. On page 12 of the publication, we set out a vision for learner mobility, which is important. It is about the framework and the associated policies to encourage learners to participate in the learning process to enable them to realise their ambitions to the full extent of their abilities. Within that, we have developed policies in a number of different areas such as entry to education and training, progression routes, credit accumulation and transfer and information for learners generally. We have set out procedures that providers of education and training are implementing. Those are important. We are talking about a cultural change within education generally and a focus on the achievement of an award rather than entry to a programme. Inputs should not be part of success management but the key issue is to be satisfied about the quality associated with awards.

We are still at a developmental stage. Implementation is commencing but it will not be immediate. It is a major change and we are setting out a development process which will come into play over the years. Further developments will take place and there is a need to work on awards other than the major awards such as degrees and the leaving certificate. We refer to these as minor, special purpose and supplemental awards and there is a need to develop those. The authority is publishing a corporate plan next month which will set out action plans for the next three years of our work. That will detail how we aim to perform all our functions.

I refer to the international recognition of awards. The aim is that the framework will link in terms of international developments to frameworks and award systems internationally and to two, in particular. The first relates to higher education and is called the Bologna process and the other refers to vocational education and training, which is the Copenhagen process. The authority is the contact point for queries on recognition of awards and we work in close harmony with awarding bodies and, in particular, the two councils, in terms of the processing of those queries speedily. We are developing that further in light of the framework and international developments.

Mr. Stan McHugh

I thank the committee for the invitation. It is particularly opportune for FETAC to be present. We published a strategic plan a few months ago, of which I hope everybody has a copy. It outlines the way we will proceed, including the work to which Mr. Ó Foghlú referred. We are based in Eastpoint in Dublin. We have a staff of 44, 32 of whom are involved in the administration of awards while the other 12 are involved in the development of policy. Since our establishment we have made approximately 170,000 awards and we make approximately 60,000 awards a year. That is the scale of the operation, which is based on the procedures we have adopted in the transition phase from whence we came to where we expect to be in a few years. In other words, we have adopted the procedures of the previous awarding bodies - the NCVA, CERT, FÁS, Teagasc and BIM - to ensure there is continuity and people get the awards they deserve. We work with approximately 1,200 different education training centres.

We welcome the announcement of the framework. It will add coherence to a system that was previously difficult to understand and we intend making a significant contribution to further developments that are needed in the framework. The values that the council has adopted will enable it to deliver on the framework and on our functions. Those values are highlighted in page 11 of the strategic plan. We value critically diverse modes of learning. The approach to date has been to value and recognise officially the learning that came through traditional education and training institutions. This is a much wider brief and we look forward to a more inclusive system as a result. We adopt a partnership approach to our work and we work closely with all the stakeholders to ensure we are delivering an efficient and effective service.

Our third value encompasses the notion of enabling people within the sector and our own organisation to deliver the required service. Quality underpins everything we do. By quality we mean continually improving our practices. The general approach to our work is that we are open to suggestions, recommendations and challenge on anything we do and we have had plenty to date.

There are five strategic objectives in the plan but they can be reduced to two. We are addressing the needs of learners, who are central to the qualifications Act and everything we do. Our function is to address the needs of learners in so far as we recognise the learning they have achieved in a formal manner. The second strategic objective relates to the quality of the further education and training system in the 1,200 centres that we operate through to the quality of our own service.

We have a broad range of functions. Making the awards is the first and most critical one and we have been actively pursuing that function since we were set up. Promoting the awards is a new dimension. A criticism of the previous awarding bodies was not only were they incoherent, people did not know where they fitted in. Promoting the awards will become easier as the framework becomes better known because it is easier to explain awards when they fit into an overall scheme. We will continue our current promotional campaign and it will be of significant benefit to learners in the process and to enable employers to understand what the certificates are when they are presented with them by learners. Providers are also a key element and we work in conjunction with them to promote the awards and there is a two way benefit to that.

Quality assurance and validation relate to improvements in the quality of the programmes. There is a wide range of programmes in the system. We will work with providers to ensure the quality of the programmes is improved on an ongoing basis through quality assurance measures, which we are currently testing, and validation of individual programmes. We are beginning a test phase of validation as well.

Another of our critical functions is to establish standards and we are examining current standards to see how they may be matched in the new framework. Through new systems we will adopt new standards because there will be new awards as a result of the new framework. We will be involved in ensuring fair assessment in these centres and we have an outline policy that needs to be refined further.

On mobility, we will have a key role through the validation of programmes and contact with providers in ensuring access, transfer and progression become realities. Significant moves have been made in recent years to improve this, but we seek to move this forward significantly in the future. My colleague, Ms Kelly, would like to bring a few points to the attention of the committee regarding private providers, workplace learning and the recognition of rewards.

Ms Barbara Kelly

To add to what Mr. McHugh said in terms of our functions in respect of determining standards, quality assurance and validation, we plan to implement those functions in the context of the framework as outlined and, in particular, with reference to the levels one to six which we have been assigned. Through our policy and procedures, we will ensure that learners will be able to obtain awards via any setting, be it school-based provision of training via work-based learning and/or access by private or public funding bodies. In other words, private providers, which do not currently have major access to national awarding systems, will, through our policies and procedures, be able to access FETAC awards. The setting of the learning is independent of the award. The awards will be built, as has been said, in respect of outcomes of knowledge, skill and competence. Thus, the setting of the learning becomes much more fluid and flexible.

On private providers and work-based learning, we will ensure that in our policies, access to learners via any form of training provision will ensure access to quality awards. On recognition of other awards, a policy we expect to make public by December 2003, we are referring to non-FETAC awards, and they could be awards of other nationalities or international awards. They could refer to awards from other EU member states or various other countries.

In terms of policy, we plan to provide for forms of credit towards a FETAC award for such awards. This credit will have various units, formations or metrics yet to be determined, and it will facilitate lifelong learning as outlined in the Act and in our action and strategic plans. We will do so by processes of comparing other awards, in whole or in part, against FETAC awards by evaluation and mapping in a systematic way. In doing so we will be facilitated or enhanced by activities in Europe, namely, through the Copenhagen declaration, which provides for member states ensuring on a voluntary basis within their systems the quality assurance of their providers and awarding systems.

The European declaration also emphasises credit, and a technical working group was subsequently set up. This is designed to facilitate mobility, not only within Ireland and local jurisdictions but within the whole European Union. The concept of transparency is built into the Copenhagen declaration and, again, a technical working group sits in Brussels in respect of, for example, the certificate supplement, which FETAC will first pilot in 2004 and then issue.

On opening access and recognising learners with various other types of awards, we hope to have a policy on recognition included in the strategic plan outlined by Mr. McHugh by December 2003 and to commence implementation of that policy by summer 2004.

Mr. Séamus Puirséil

Gabhaim buíochas as an gcuireadh theacht anseo inniu. We are conscious that the Higher Education and Training Awards Council was established under the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999 and that we are principally accountable to the Houses that passed that legislation. Thus, it is particularly apt that we make this presentation to this committee, and we are very grateful for the opportunity.

The landscape of higher education and training is changing greatly in Europe, and we see ourselves as part of that change. A radical change is also taking place in Irish education, and we intend to keep up that momentum while, at the same time, maintaining our responsibilities for the system as it stands. We are not in a situation where we can establish something new and, if I can put it this way, close down at weekends for the next 18 months while doing it. We must keep things moving at the same time.

The main developments currently impacting on the Higher Education and Training Awards Council in general legislative terms are the qualifications Act itself, the Lisbon recognition convention of 1997 and the Bologna declaration on a European area of higher education, which was signed by 29 education ministers in 1999. About three weeks ago, ministers followed upon that with the Berlin communiqué.

We are particularly involved internationally through a proposed new European network of accreditation agencies, which will be established in November 2003 by about nine national accreditation bodies; the European Network for Quality Assurance; and, at broad international Level, the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education, of which we are the international secretariat.

Particular areas of activity relate to credit systems and the development of the European credit transfer system, which would enable people to get credits for particular modules and put them together to make awards and to get them in different institutions and different countries. Then, as has been referred to earlier, there is the European diploma supplement, a development of the transcript idea, which must be in place by 2005 under the Berlin communiqué, and we hope to have it piloted very early in 2004. Thus, any learner or any student graduating would have a diploma supplement which would be recognised as a single document by employers or by other colleges or universities. Given the uniform nature of the document, in five, six, seven or eight years' time an employer advertising a job would get a copy of this diploma supplement for every candidate and would be able to tick off relevant items and compare one with another between institutions or between European countries.

The Bologna process was signed up to in 1999 by 29 Ministers. They agreed on joint objectives for the development of a coherent and cohesive European higher education area by 2010. They increased the number of objectives two years later, and in May 2003 the Department of Education and Science published a national report on how Ireland was doing within that process. The report outlined the current standing on each of the seven processes. When Ministers met a few weeks ago they added to those and set particular targets for the next two years on the promotion of effective quality assurance systems throughout Europe; stepping up the effective use of the higher education system based on two cycles - what we might call the bachelor's degree and master's degree - and adding on the research degrees to doctoral level; and improvement in the recognition system of degrees and qualifications from now to May 2005.

The Ministers also agreed to secure closer links between the higher education area and the European research area. They reaffirmed that higher education is a public good and a public responsibility, which is easy to say but may have considerable social and financial implications. The pledged to take the necessary steps to allow national loans or grants to students to be portable between countries, and to recognise the particular role of the learners or students in all higher education governance and processes.

To fulfil our responsibilities under the qualifications Act, together with these international obligations agreed by ministers, we operate on the basis of consultation with stakeholders. I recall somebody defining "stakeholders" for me a while ago as "anyone who can get you into trouble." I do not know whether that is true but we consult with all relevant stakeholders. We have developed and published guidelines and criteria for quality assurance by the providers of higher education. These are in line with what the Ministers have set out for 2005. We have encouraged the colleges to agree these, and a number have over the last while. We do this through an international panel that looks at them and ensures they meet the highest international standards. I think we said earlier that four colleges have already agreed to this, and it has increased in the past week or so as a result of another panel.

We have commenced the work of determining standards of knowledge that must be reached within the programmes that we recognise. That will be a very large undertaking to be conducted over the next two years with the staff of providing institutions, employers and the professions. We have also developed a joint policy and criteria for making joint awards between institutions and with other countries, thus enabling people to do part of their programme in one institution and part in another institution or country. We have collaborated with the various agencies that are accrediting and validating programmes in a number of European countries.

The Lisbon Convention relates to the recognition of qualifications. That was touched on by a number of people earlier. We anticipate that this will be signed and ratified by Ireland before the beginning of the Irish Presidency. It ties in with Statutory Instrument 372 and European directives and so on, and it is, in the main, the recognition of qualifications of people coming from different countries. As we now have net immigration, many people are coming here with different qualifications and they need and have a right to have them recognised, which is part of the exercise. We are operating that recognition convention, and we anticipate that formal ratification will take place shortly. That was certainly stated by the Minister for Education and Science at the Department's Bologna process seminar in July 2003.

We have an active involvement with a number of these European agencies and are supportive of the development of policies in that regard. One of the challenges arising from the Berlin communiqué, and from the work we are doing with the qualifications authorities and other agencies on an Irish national framework of qualifications, is that, we are told, a European framework of qualifications will be at least started, if not already established, by 2005. Our intention is to be at the centre of the preparation of that so that the viewpoint, attitudes, beliefs and values that we share within our system are fully reflected in the European framework of qualifications.

As part of our own corporate plan, which we will publish shortly, we intend to implement quality assurance procedures for our own agency. We cannot impose quality assurance systems on other agencies if we are not prepared to be open to those ourselves, and we have been talking to a number of the European agencies where this idea has been developed. One cannot dole out the medicine unless one is prepared to take it one's self, and we hope to be at least as good, and hopefully better, than anyone else in this regard.

All of that is in development mode. We also have the system that we inherited from the National Council for Education Awards. The institutions that we deal with, the very large number of awards that are made every year and the learners and students who are in place or expecting to start programmes in the next year or two have to get the highest quality service and programmes, and we cannot just stop everything while we develop this great new edifice. We must keep the two going simultaneously, and that is central to what we are doing. We find it exceedingly exciting, and we thank the Houses of the Oireachtas for giving us the powers to do it.

Deputy Andrews

I welcome the groups and thank them for their presentations. I apologise for the low turnout of members; it is just one of those things this morning. I have a number of questions initially for FETAC, although, perhaps, the Department would be better positioned to answer my first question. I note that we are one of the only countries in Europe not to have signed the Lisbon Convention of 1997, and I am curious as to why that has not happened in the past six years. According to the Department's submission, 33 states have ratified it and a further 11 have signed it, but we have not done either, despite the fact that we may be implementing parts of the convention in any case. Is there something in the convention that creates a liability? Is the Department afraid of some contingency that might arise from signing it? We are entitled to know the reason for this delay. I know it has nothing to do with the European Union, so there is no concern on that side. The Department might answer that question.

Things like the Berlin communiqué of 2003 all sound very fancy and so on, but one of the apparent obligations of the communiqué is that we must take necessary steps to enable the portability of national loans and grants. That is an interesting matter, and I ask for clarification of whether I am right in thinking that this means that the higher education grants administered by our local authorities can then be taken by students to another member state and used to cover whatever third level fees or expenses they may have in other countries. Is that the case, and does it apply reciprocally?

Deputy Stanton has indicated an intention to ask questions on the Hibernia issue, which has been in the newspapers recently, so I will defer to the Deputy on that. My final question concerns the chart we have been provided with on the national framework of qualifications. I was a school teacher but I have not a clue what these first three levels of certificates are. I have never heard of these certificates before, which are pre-junior certificate and are administered by FETAC. I seek some clarification on this. There is great value in creating diagrammatic presentations of what people are doing but I seek clarification.

Deputy Stanton

I welcome the delegations and, like Deputy Andrews, apologise for the low turnout of members. There is important legislation going through the Dáil at present and many of our colleagues are involved in that. We usually have a far greater number of members present.

I am very impressed with the work that has been done to date and with the presentations that have been made. Obviously, we must be at the forefront in education and training. The levels must be high and we must be not only up with but ahead of our competitors in Europe because we have many disadvantages as an island nation and so on, and we have much work to do in broadband.

I have one question for Ms Kelly of the Department. A number of new countries will join the European Union in the next number of years. What implications will that have and how are they being addressed? What will that mean for qualifications here? Some of the other visitors might also address that issue because it will be a major one. So many new countries are already in the loop and being included in EU programmes in some way.

I was very interested in what Mr. Ó Foghlú said on the outcomes and what awards mean, and I would like to hear a little more about that. It was crucial to what he said. He talked about professional and international awards. Are there issues there causing problems at the moment, and if so, what are they? There is an issue in the health area regarding the recognition of alternative medicine qualifications, and I do not know whether any of the witnesses can address that and tell us how it is to be done.

There is also the issue of complementary practices such as chiropractic medicine. I think legislation is pending but it is causing a problem. It appears that anybody can put up a sign claiming to be a chiropractor in Ireland, yet people go to them in trust, thinking they are chiropractors. They actually have work done on their backs and so on, yet to my knowledge there is no requirement for such people to have some kind of qualification. It is the same with counselling. Anybody can become a counsellor and put a sign advertising their services. People then go to them with emotional problems and talk to somebody who may not have any qualifications at all, or Mickey Mouse qualifications.

Deputy Andrews

Like politicians.

Deputy Stanton

The Deputy should speak for himself. FETAC spoke about credit for formal awards, and the system seems to be quite complex in giving credits or awards for qualifications from other countries. Given that there is such a vast array of qualifications, how is FETAC going to keep track of them all? It is a huge area. Does FETAC have enough resources to do that? Does it feel that it is on top of it?

On page four of the FETAC presentation there is talk of EU Directive 201/19, which was due to be transposed by 31 December 2000, but we have just received initial notification about the issuing of legal proceedings. Where is that going? Are we in a bit of bother about that? I ask for a little more explanation as to what is happening there.

I move on to the issue that Deputy Andrews brought up earlier, the situation with regard to recognition of courses online for primary teacher training. I would like to get a history of that issue. I think the company involved is Hibernia, about which I do not know an awful lot, but I have been doing a little research. Teaching is a particular skill, science or art, and we also have a new curriculum coming on board that is highly interactive and involves training in drama, art, PE and so on. For the life of me I cannot see how somebody can train to teach PE, drama or art online. I think HETAC was involved in this, and I ask when it actually received this proposal and what process led to a decision? Where does the proposal stand now? I understand that HETAC has signed off on it. Has the Department also agreed to it?

What was wrong with the system up to now? Mr. Purséil was very anxious to talk about involving stakeholders. The stakeholders in this case would very much have been the teacher training colleges because this will impact upon them. What discussion took place with the teacher training colleges on this proposal? Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that this course is designed to train people as national or primary teachers who are already trained as second level teachers and, presumably, have a H.Dip. in education, or at least a primary degree. What procedures are included regarding child protection and safety?

One of the big advantages of teacher training, and a number of us here have been teachers in the past, is that a teacher training course is highly interactive. One deals with one's peers and with teachers and lecturers. There have been cases in the past of people being deemed unsuitable for teaching, and it was discovered through the interaction that went on in the colleges between the students. This cannot happen online. There is no one to one peer interaction.

How can an 18-month part time, primarily web-based course be equated with a full-time interactive course thought intensively? How can they be said to be about the same and about equal? Again, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that this decision was made in August, around the time of the bank holiday, and there was very little discussion or debate nationally about it. This will change fundamentally the way teachers will be trained. I also understand that Froebel sent in a modular-based proposal but it was not entertained. I understand they did not receive a reply to their proposal up to the point at which the other option was decided upon.

There have been accusations, and people are concerned that this was in some way politically initiated, if you like. It appears there is a lot of money to be made on this. The overheads would be small and there is quite an amount of money to be made. Who is on the board of Hibernia College? Who are involved? Is any body in HETAC also involved in Hibernia.

Senator Minihan

I too join previous speakers in welcoming the witnesses and, equally, in apologising for the low turnout. The point has been made, but I ask the witnesses to please not take it as a sign of disinterest in the presentations being made. I have a few general comments.

Obviously we all welcome the initiatives being brought forward, and it is very good that we will have an open and clear structure to continue the process of future learning, that people will not, in effect, be going up cul-de-sacs and that education can be a lifelong experience, with one step leading further to another.

I see that we are affiliated with various European and international bodies, but one is always concerned about standards and who is actually setting them. Are we following somebody, are they following us or what way does it work? It is somewhat disconcerting, and I say this from my own experiences, that there is such a variation in standards. I see advertisements now for jobs where employers specifically mention the institutions from which they wish to take graduates. That is of concern to me. How are we going to achieve this standard? I presume the ultimate objective would be to have a European standard. Are we going to have a degree in medicine, pharmacy or whatever awarded by a European body? Is that the way we will go in the future? Are we going to lose our own national identity and our own very high standard, particularly in third level education?

I am a little concerned as to where it is all going in that regard, and perhaps one of the witnesses could elaborate on the point. I also specifically ask the Department officials about article 40 with regard to pharmacists, and I declare an interest in this before going any further. I am astounded that Ireland has sought the retention of the derogation. I am flabbergasted because everything I have heard and that has been spoken in political circles indicates that we are actually going the other way. We are continuing to tell all the Irish children educated in pharmacy in the UK that due to a lack of space here they cannot work or open a shop in Ireland but they can work in a shop that is more than three years old. In other words, I can employ one because my business has been there for 40 years but the man who opens up next door to me cannot employ them. This concerns me because it is wrong; it is not based on one's professional qualifications or whether one is suitable to supervise a pharmacy that is more than three years old. That astounds me. Someone should elaborate on when we sought the retention of the derogation and what stage that process is at. I understand the commercial reasons and other motivations but from the education perspective I am inundated with inquiries from parents of the many children who are about to qualify or who have just qualified in the UK.

There is huge potential for Ireland when it comes to languages, particularly with the enlargement of the EU and English becoming such a necessity. There are great possibilities for Ireland becoming a centre of excellence in raising standards of English and educating foreign students. We have had a tradition over the years of educating Spanish and French students during the summer and there has been limited experience here of language schools. I encourage greater involvement in this because an industry could be created here in bringing people up to a certain level of English. Those specialising in this area and wishing to open schools to meet this demand should be encouraged.

Psychology came up for discussion at a previous meeting of the committee, as did the questions of what makes a psychologist and how one can practice as a psychologist. This issue is somewhat open to interpretation and given the ongoing discussions in the education sector about the need for clinical psychologists and educational psychologists, together with the new legislation to come before us, there will be a greater role for psychologists in the future. Attention must be focused on this area, and quickly, as God forbid that we do not have the proper standards and frameworks in place in the future. I am flagging this issue now as I would not like to preside over any mistakes that might occur in the future.

Deputy Stanton mentioned Hibernia but I have raised enough questions for now.

Deputy Enright

If ever there was a clearer indication of the need for Dáil reform, it was visible today. I welcome our guests and I regret that I for missed their presentations. It is as a result of that that I am not in a position to respond to them. I apologise if my questions overlap with those of a previous speaker.

Hibernia College has been mentioned and I should like to say that in general I support the principle of on-line education. We need to consider expanding it, but I am concerned with how that is done. We have seen what was written about this subject in recent weeks and I have met people who have concerns about the setting up and provision of this course. My questions on the matter are for the Department more than HETAC. How are accreditations given by HETAC and those given by the universities decided? Traditionally teacher training would be accredited by the universities, so who makes the decision that it can be accredited by a different group? When that is done, how can one avoid encroachment from one group's area into another?

The Minister for Education and Science, and his predecessors, capped the numbers going into teacher training colleges in recent years. What role did the Minister have in increasing the number of teachers that will be available as a result of the Hibernia course? I would welcome more teachers becoming available as there are 545 unqualified teachers in the primary sector at present, but the Minister has constantly said in reply to questions that this will be dealt with. The conversion courses, as they are called, have come on-stream and the Minister has expressed satisfaction that in a number of years this problem will be resolved. Progress has been made in that there are now only 545 unqualified teachers in classrooms, yet the first take in Hibernia will be 175 students. If that figure is matched in the next two intakes which are scheduled, we will be very close to the total number of unqualified teachers. Will we then have to look at reducing the numbers currently in the teacher training colleges?

Can HETAC tell us what the normal composition of an accreditation board is in terms of expertise? I am open to correction on this, but I am informed that there was no recognised expert in teacher education on the board which accredited this course. Can HETAC confirm or deny that? If so, it is extraordinary and unusual. I am aware that in the case some weeks ago in UCG on difficulties with the physiotherapy training course, experts who dealt with the accreditation of that course were unhappy. The same procedures should be followed for the accreditation of any course.

What level of documentation is required to have a course accredited? As far as I know, only two places are available at present to students who have applied for this course and they have been asked to pay fees in advance. I do not know if that is the case. What information is available to those who want to find out exactly what the course is about? What modules are to be studied; how long will each module last; what library facilities are available and what will the classroom interaction be like? Students in the teacher training colleges, both on conversion and ordinary training courses, visit classrooms on Wednesdays and representatives of the college and Department inspectors grade and evaluate their work. Will that be the case with the Hibernia course? Will employees of Hibernia visit the classrooms to evaluate students, in addition to Department inspectors? Will the same amount of classroom work be undertaken? How many hours will make up classroom work?

Library work and reading time make up a big part of teacher training courses but some of the core texts used in teacher education are not available on-line, and what provisions are in place to deal with that? Is HETAC satisfied that adequate provision has been made in this area? Also, much international literature on e-learning suggests that a new provider of courses should have a link with a long-established provider. Obviously, that is not the case with Hibernia. Does HETAC have any reservations in that regard? Is it satisfied that concerns about this can be addressed?

Deputy Stanton referred to the process, which seems to have been somewhat quick and secretive. For the past year I have asked for the conversion course to be offered on a modular basis but done to the same standard and over the same length of time. The primary pre-service teacher education working group recommended in 2002 that the graduate diploma should be extended to two years of full-time study, but now we are managing to squash the course into 18 months of part-time study. Many of these people will have a five-day working week while training as teachers at the same time. That is a shorter timeframe than those undertaking the full-time course over 18 months. I see no sense in that and I do not know how it can be achieved. It is very difficult to work and study, though some people manage it and I would have serious reservations about a course which seems to be reduced in time.

Did the Department at any stage tell the existing teacher training colleges that it was interested in providing teacher education on-line? Did the Department ask those colleges to send in the equivalent of a tender offering such a course? If not, why not? Where stands the idea of the modular training course? Is that dead in the water or will it be considered?

Chairman

I am interested in the process referred to by Ms Margaret Kelly on EU Directive 2001/19. The submission states that a barrister is looking at the finalisation of drafting, so I presume that will come before the committee for consideration before it is signed. I am also interested in the replacement of the term "similar qualification" with the word, "equivalent". I presume that is an improvement from Ireland's perspective, as it is suggested that that was part of the difficulty in transposing this. Deputy Stanton asked how much we will be fined.

On the national qualifications authority, it is difficult to know to whom some of these questions should be put. In the context of the national framework and the existence of the various bodies, it is not clear why Dublin Institute of Technology, the universities and some others are outside the remit of FETAC and HETAC. It seems that this pie chart illustrates the situation clearly and one can understand where qualifications ought to be placed, yet, in the middle of this, along with some of the State institutions are some independent republics. I am not sure if I should ask the Department or the qualifications authority about this but it seems peculiar. Are we moving towards having people included or will they always remain free spirits in this process?

A question that every member will have heard relates to fees for some of these courses. Parents face a very difficult period just after the leaving certificate results are announced and when college places are offered. People try to judge where to go for additional qualifications and it is a good thing that people acknowledge the merit in additional qualifications. However, sometimes young people panic before getting a second or third offer and sign up to FETAC courses in childcare, for example. They subsequently are offered another place but they have been pressurised - more frequently by private colleges but sometimes by public sector institutions - into paying fairly substantial fees. Those fees hold places for the students but then they find another choice comes through. There does not seem to be any system to protect the consumer when it comes to fees and I feel strongly that there should be.

It should be required of bodies which effectively pressurise people into paying fees to be fair subsequently if students want to take up their first choices. I know of cases where people have paid several hundred euro and in some cases have also made down payments on accommodation and so on but have subsequently been offered another course. It is not unusual for us as public representatives to meet people who can ill afford those substantial expenses and who have no real redress. This matter could be usefully addressed.

Ms Barbara Kelly mentioned a voluntary basis for standards in other European countries or member states, though I did not quite catch what she said. I am sure that is wonderful but it is not very reassuring for the barrister who is dealing with Directive 2001/19 or for any of us who have looked at the transfer of qualifications across Europe. Nobody has mentioned the City and Guilds, but as an ancient member of the committee it seems to me to be one of the non-university qualifications which has huge recognition and value attached to it. Is that where FETAC and HETAC are going with some of their qualifications? Is that the aim?

On HETAC, some questions have been asked about Hibernia but I presume we are not trailblazers in this regard. Have other European countries trained teachers on-line successfully? I am also interested in the 30 programmes and seven providers which are currently under consideration. I do not particularly want to know who they are at this time but who can any of the witnesses comment or make submissions on them? This matter arises from Deputy Enright's contribution in particular: how does this process operate? We are asking retrospective questions about Hibernia but this is also relevant in terms of the issues currently under consideration. Who imposes the quotas on the teacher training colleges? I presume it is the Department, though it seems peculiar that another body is proceeding with this measure at the same time. There are between 1,700 and 2,100 qualified teachers unemployed in the UK - a situation which changed very quickly from when there was a shortage of teachers. Not all of them would rush over here but it is instructive to look at how that happened, as it occurred relatively quickly. It is not so long since we had qualified people here getting a week or a few days' subbing here or there. The issue of supply and demand is hugely important and it is not clear who deals with it.

Ms M. Kelly

First, members asked about the candidate countries in relation to the EU directives. As part of the accession treaty, a process of engagement has been undertaken and an exercise was carried out to look at the qualifications and education and training systems in the candidate countries. This was done to identify the qualifications which will apply for the purposes of the sectoral directives and to have a quality assurance process. The annexes to the treaty list the qualifications which will match the sectoral directive professions for the various candidate countries. We will be obliged to respect and recognise those qualifications once they have been listed in the annex.

For qualifications under the general system we will be enabled to carry out the comparison exercise and apply compensatory measures if there are substantial differences. The candidate countries will join in May 2004 and the recognition processes will kick in immediately. There is a protection clause within the candidate countries themselves in order to prevent a brain drain, where people might be attracted to higher salaries in EU member states, so the countries themselves can prevent some movement outwards for a temporary period. That situation does not apply in Ireland, however, and we will have to recognise their qualifications under the usual processes.

On the legal proceedings for Directive 2001/19, we received initial notification in the past fortnight that the Commission is instigating legal proceedings. On past experience that will take approximately 18 months to come to fruition and according to our timescale, all but the environmental aspects of the directive will be fully transposed before the end of December this year, so we should escape the cosh in that sense.

Members asked about Directive 99/42 and the costs, but at this stage we do not know what the costs are. We expect them to be very modest because it was simply an issue of fact which was not opposed by anybody, so there should be minimal costs involved.

On Article 40, the pharmacists and the new directive, this is a derogation which has been applicable since 1985 under the directive for pharmacists, Directive 85/433. It is there to be used by whatever country wants to use it, with the rationale being that in 12 of the 15 member states, there is a process whereby the geographical distribution of pharmacies can be limited. Ireland does not have that and to avoid an influx of foreign nationals who would be in managerial roles in opening and operating pharmacies, a derogation was agreed under which neither a company nor an individual from another member state can operate a pharmacy if it is new or less than three years old: one can work in a pharmacy but one cannot operate or manage a pharmacy. Germany supports our position in seeking to retain that derogation and so does either Austria or Luxembourg. The Commission has not opposed it but we expect it to do so and it has asked for details about the background to the situation. Though this is the official position of the Department we are on sticky ground here and this is likely to fall out in the negotiating process, as it is discrimination against other EU nationals. That remains to be seen, however, and the negotiations are ongoing.

We agree there is huge potential in the language sector and we see this already in the large numbers of Chinese students coming to Ireland. The Department of Education and Science chairs a council of English language schools which operate in the private sector, while there is also a committee within the Department on the internationalisation of education. We see this as having great potential as a market for the Department.

Members asked about Hibernia and inquired as to who caps the numbers for the teacher training colleges. The Department of Education and Science caps the numbers in the teacher training colleges for budgetary reasons. The Department funds the colleges in the State sector and must ensure the correct spread of disciplines to meet demand. Obviously, we got it wrong in teacher training terms in recent years, which is why all the conversion courses are being operated. We are not funding the Hibernia course and we have no role in limiting its intake, as we are not paying for it. On the provision of teacher training on an e-learning basis, all the colleges were invited to make applications for that process. The main teacher training colleges did not respond and Hibernia did. As for limiting intake numbers for the State colleges, a meeting is to take place shortly on that issue between the Department and the colleges concerned.

Inspectors will be involved in looking at the teaching practice of students from Hibernia College as part of a sampling exercise. That is separate from the work of HETAC in quality assurance as a matter of course.

Deputy Enright

Ms Margaret Kelly said the main teacher training colleges did not respond. My understanding from meeting them is that they have been seeking a meeting with the Department to discuss the conversion course, the modular course and this entire issue since April. I do not know if that is correct but that is what I have been told.

I accept what Ms Margaret Kelly said about capping but there are two issues here. One is the quality of the teachers when they come out of college and the second is the number of teachers. Nobody wants to see the same situation which applied to secondary teachers a few years ago, when those coming out of college could not get jobs. Now we have an on-line course for which the Department has no responsibility and for which there is no cap. Will we see almost this entire sector being taught on-line, because there is no capping numbers, while the teacher training colleges' intakes will be capped by the Department for budgetary reasons? It is in the Department's interest from a financial perspective only to allow these colleges to expand and to provide more courses on-line. I do not know if that is in the interests of teacher education and it is something the Department will have to look at from a policy perspective. It is not the way to go, as we do not want this sector to be entirely taught on-line. Some of it may be done that way but we do not want all teacher training to be provided like that. Perhaps HETAC can address this point also.

Deputy Stanton

The implications of Hibernia putting teachers into the marketplace, for want of a better way to put it, may lead to the Department going further in capping the numbers entering the teacher training colleges and save more money. In addition, can the delegation expand on the invitation to e-learning? Was it envisaged by the Department that there would be an entirely web-based e-learning training programme, as has happened? I know other modules are involved also, but this is primarily web-based. Is that what was envisaged by the Department? Can the committee get a copy of the invitation which was sent to the colleges as soon as possible?

Ms M. Kelly

I will report back to the Deputy on the last question. I have not been involved in that area but have been off to the side of some discussions about the issue, which is how I know what I know. I will have to come back to the Deputy on the details. My understanding is that the colleges were invited to submit proposals and I will come back to the Deputies on the meeting they have sought since April.

Returning to the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999, part of the rationale was to bring the education and training systems together and to provide a national qualifications framework that would apply in both the public and private sectors. It is also recognition that the public sector does not have a monopoly on education and training provision; part of the process was to provide recognition based on the achievement of learning outcomes so that it would not matter where one achieved those outcomes. One would achieve a required standard and there would be an approved quality assurance process which would govern that standard whether one was in a public or private college. That is the thrust of the qualifications legislation. Private bodies, such as the Open University or professional training sector institutions in the private sector, once they have an approved quality assurance process and are capable of producing graduates with the required learning outcomes, will be entitled, when the system is fully in place, to get nationally recognised awards which hopefully will have international portability. That is the thrust of the policy.

It will also be in keeping with the EU where, even when the current round of Structural Funds was being negotiated, trenchant efforts were made by the EU to try to get more services in the education field contracted out. I will come back to the Deputies on the other issues raised.

Mr. Ó Foghlú

I will build on Ms Kelly's point to explain the different relationships of bodies within the framework. There are three important Acts, passed one year after the other, concerning qualifications and awards in the State: the Universities Act 1997, the Education Act 1998 and the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999. Thus there are quality assurance and awarding arrangements set out for the universities in the Universities Act, in relation to school awards and now the State Examinations Commission through a statutory instrument under the Education Act, as well as quality assurance through the inspectorate, and in relation to Dublin Institute of Technology, HETAC and FETAC in the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act.

We have a situation wherein the number of awarding bodies in the State is far less than the hundreds which operate in the UK, for example. When we talk to colleagues in the UK about their national framework they are amazed at our ability to reach coherence, mostly because we have a reduced, limited number of awarding bodies. Separate quality assurance arrangements then link together: the Higher Education Authority reviews the quality assurance arrangements in the universities and has to consult with the qualifications authority in so doing. The qualifications authority reviews the quality assurance arrangements in the Dublin Institute of Technology, can publish outcomes and can eventually tell the Dublin Institute of Technology what to do. We aim to have such a review next year. HETAC and FETAC have to agree quality assurance arrangements with providers of programmes, leading to their being awarded by a delegated authority; they can review the implementation of those procedures and can tell the providers what to do. We review HETAC and FETAC and are planning to do so in 2006 or 2007 and after any such outcome we can tell FETAC and HETAC what to do.

That is simple but is quite coherent, balancing the three Acts passed by the Oireachtas in 1997, 1998 and 1999. Building on that there are other issues relating to other awards made in the State. A wide range of other awards are made in the State outside the awarding bodies referred to. International awarding bodies such as City and Guilds has been referred to, Open University or professional bodies who have the power to make awards. I make a distinction between a professional body making an award and a professional body recognising an award made by another body. What we are talking about in the qualifications framework is a professional body which has a legal entitlement to make an award.

There are a wide range of bodies which call themselves professional bodies but who are not statutory legal bodies and have no legal power to make awards. It is not the authority's business to go about giving them the power to make awards. We do not have the power to do so. The only power to delegate authority to make awards is the authority FETAC and HETAC have through a limited number of institutions.

If, for example, one takes a number of new health care areas, where there are currently professional bodies which are not that well recognised for awarding purposes within the State, the policy approach of the State is that the two awarding bodies, FETAC and HETAC, must open up their awarding services to all fields of learning, and there is no limit on the fields of learning within which FETAC and HETAC operates. They must be open to a public provider or someone in a community. Two or three learners could say to FETAC that they have a programme which they want validated to lead to an award. If FETAC is happy about the standards and quality assurance, it is obliged to do it whether it is publicly or privately funded.

If FÁS, for example, wanted to run a doctorate programme, HETAC must validate the programme to lead to the doctorate, provided it meets the quality assurance arrangements. It is a completely different relationship with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment who decides whether it will fund the doctorate programme run by FÁS. It is unlikely it would do so.

It is not a matter for the qualifications bodies to determine the remits of providers. Institutes of technology will in all likelihood in the future have programmes leading to awards by both FETAC and HETAC. It is a matter for the Department which agrees the programmes and budgets to determine this. Vocational education committees, and further education providers, will most likely have programmes leading to awards of FETAC. They may well seek to have programmes leading to awards of HETAC but that is a matter for them to agree with their funding agency, the Department. There is an important point here about the remits of the awarding bodies, the remits of the funding agencies and the overall quality assurance remit within which we are operating. That is the range of stakeholders with which we have been operating in developing this framework.

To answer some questions relating directly to ourselves, there was discussion about the ten levels in the framework, particularly the lower levels, the understanding of the titles and so on. We have had discussions with stakeholders. The view of the authority building on these discussions, especially views emerging from further education providers and the community and voluntary sector, was that the State awarding system had to get to more basic levels of literacy and numeracy, to a slightly lower level than at present in the existing systems that FETAC run, formerly of the National Council for Vocational Awards and FÁS. The framework allows for that. It is a very developmental area which is very important, and it will need to be built upon. There are no school awards below level three in the framework. However, there is potential for awards for FETAC as we move forward.

It is important to note that most of the new accession countries to the European Union will have been involved in the two processes that were discussed today, the Copenhagen and the Bologne processes, and that there is a difference between the professional directives approach and the approach taken in Bologne and Copenhagen. If we were to wait to have a professional directive for every area of learning we would be here for hundreds of years. The policy approach has changed. The aim is to have general equivalence, not harmonisation, but comparability and compatibility between award systems in different countries, so one has a very good idea about equivalence and a guarantee around quality assurance. Mr. Puirséil spoke in detail about the engagement of HETAC, and FETAC are likewise engaged.

The overall policy approach is to have some sort of general equivalence. For example, in higher education, HETAC and ourselves are working with other international bodies with a view to developing some ideas around an overarching European framework of higher education qualifications, which would relate to national frameworks, but not control them, because the autonomy relates to the house of parliament in each State and whatever arrangements they wish to put in place. I have outlined what they are in the context of the operation of the framework. That is a very important dimension. We must continue with the directives particularly where states feel there is a need to regulate professions. For a wide range of reasons it is important that qualifications operate much more broadly than in the regulated professions. Another approach - there is some consideration of it here - is to regulate the use of titles. It is quite possible for a parliament to regulate the use of a title such as councillor or any other such title. The Universities Act, for example, limits the use of the word "university", and the use of the title "institute of technology" is limited. Its use needs the permission of the Minister for Education and Science.

I was asked to go into more detail on outcomes. The best approach might be to share some of our detailed work. We have a further publication where we have gone into great detail on knowledge, skill, competence and what that means. We have broken it down into sub-strands and discussed it with stakeholders. We recognise that outcomes traditionally have had a relatively negative meaning outside the training sector. What we have tried to do is build on that in discussions with awarding bodies, providers of education and social partners to a more developmental understanding of outcomes which captures some of the issues that people felt could not be captured within outcomes previously. It is also important to note that working on an outcomes basis puts a lot of pressure on the assessment techniques that providers under FETAC and HETAC, and also the universities and Dublin Institute of Technology will move towards putting in place. There are many opportunities for development here.

There was reference to fees for courses. It is important to distinguish between the fees a provider of education and training may charge and a fee HETAC and FETAC may charge. HETAC and FETAC are required to charge fees for the provision of their services. Currently the qualifications authority is reviewing the level of fees to be charged by the councils and we are about to make recommendations to the Minister in that regard. We have a discussion document on our website on the level of fees to be charged by the councils. There are submissions from stakeholders and a write-up on an interactive workshop we held. This may be of relevance to members.

Mr. McHugh

Ms Margaret Kelly and Mr.Ó Foghlú have covered many of the broader areas. Perhaps I can add to what Mr. Ó Foghlú said in relation to levels one, two and three. The distinctions between the levels are essentially around volume and the level of knowledge, skill and competence at which one operates. There is the question of whether one needs supervision or do they operate totally independent. These three concepts permeate all the levels. There would be small volume at level one, medium volume at level two and a large volume at level three. We have not decided on a strict definition of what these mean. Comparing one with the other, that is where they are. This relates to what is called major awards at the three levels. The second point I would make on the three levels is that level one relates to more elementary knowledge. One is talking about recognition, recall and so on. Level two relates to more concrete knowledge, basic understanding and routine skills. At level three there is a broader range of concrete knowledge, an understanding of concepts and a limited range of practical skills as compared with level two where the practical skills would be around routine skills, and at level one they would be very repetitive skills. A person who has a level one award would require a lot of direction and supervision, less so at level two, and one would be more independent at level three.

This gives an idea of how award levels are determined. We are very much at the developmental stage, especially in relation to levels one and two. The junior certificate is at level three. FETAC is going through the process of looking at the existing awards to see where they might be placed on the framework. Some of these may be placed at level three or two, as the case may be. It is unlikely that anything that exists at present will be placed at level one. A question on credits was raised which I will ask Ms Kelly to comment on.

Ms B. Kelly

On the complexity of credits, FETAC is required to recognise two things. First, it must recognise other awards and, second, it must recognise prior learning. In the process of doing so, both will have elements of complexity in the implementation phase. It is simplistic in the sense that recognition of other awards implies that the learner has another award, and it can be compared in some formal way with the FETAC standard. To answer the question, it may be simpler in that sense.

We will have to build format templates and procedures to enable it to be consistently applied from one award type to another award type and so on, whether national or international. In that sense, we will reduce the complexity into some simplistic template and format, because we must ensure there is consistency.

The other complexity may be in the volume. We will have to prioritise a selection of where we start, in which order we take things and so on. That can be based around the traffic received to date, because there are requests currently for recognition from various people potentially coming to Ireland. We will determine a list of priorities and apply it on a phased basis. The list will probably be endless in the long-term. In other words, we will always receive requests in relation to new awards from new countries, new learners; new awards in the broad sense and new awarding bodies. We will put in place procedures to deal with this issue.

Once we recognise an award for a specified credit on a metric or a number, we will keep a register of same. That register will be publicised and, therefore, if it continues to happen it will be listed and formulated from then on. Learners and providers will need to be able to identify a particular award in order to decide the metric or credit to which it is entitled in respect of a FETAC award. Each of these matters will have to be addressed publicly. The learners need to know what they are entitled to in respect of credits we have already evaluated. If this has not happened, we will commence a process.

Another question related to quality and the voluntary elements within Europe. As Mr.Ó Foghlú already mentioned, the approach to this area in Europe is not currently based on a directive. We are not dealing with a directive in this instance in respect of quality in vocational education and training. In a sense, it is at the stage of consensus building within Europe. Perhaps it will later go to a further stage, but at this stage, we are talking about Europe having a technical working group, with some member states represented on it. Following the reports from that group it will move on to the Commission and so on. After a time, there may be directives or more specifics in this area. If there are, I presume they will come back for consideration. However, we are not at that stage, so in that sense it is a voluntary arrangement. FETAC is not just complying with it but actually helping to determine it.

Ms M. Kelly

Under the treaty, the European Commission has no jurisdiction in matters of education. Each member state must control and be responsible for the operation of its education and training systems. This is why it is voluntary rather than compulsory. Peer pressure will build up and marketing strategies will require that people move towards convergence.

Mr. Puirséil

I will endeavour not to repeat what others have said. There are a number of questions I might leave aside because I detected more interest in the case of one course from one institution.

Not only can any institution come to HETAC with a course validation, any learner can do so. This is what the legislation permits. Any person with a portfolio of learning can come up to our hall door and say, "This is the evidence of what I have learned; I want an award from you." We are obliged under the legislation to assess this and decide whether the person is entitled to an award. Thankfully, members have been helpful in suggesting that we might use one of the established institutions in this regard.

In terms of the validation of a programme, if I can go back to the previous National Council for Education Awards and the 1979 legislation, the NCEA dealt with institutions designated by the Minister as institutions which could receive NCEA awards. In doing so, the Minister had to ask the NCEA for a review and there was then an institutional review of that institution. That advice was given to the Minister, following which he might or might not accept the recommendation. When the institution was designated, then it could submit awards. That is not how HETAC must operate under current legislation. Any institution or body in education and training, either private or public, can come to HETAC. We have a standard criteria and procedures for carrying out this assessment. We require a number of things if they make a submission to us on a particular programme.

I was expecting more from Statutory Instrument 372 than from this one. People may come to us with a submission of approximately 100 pages and, as we also expect to be sent ten copies, one can imagine the volume of paper involved. In the submission they would name the institution, state what it is, where it comes from, what it is doing, why it was set up, the programme they are proposing, whether they carried out market research on the need for the programme, the curriculum, the type of assessment processes to be undertaken, how will it be delivered, the facilities they have for that delivery, the staff they have and the qualifications of the staff who will deliver the programme.

An established institution, offering a new programme in an established area - let us say, the Leinster House Institute of Technology offering another national certificate in business studies - with a staff of 30 or 40 people in business studies, can designate certain people who will be offered these programmes, because they are already recruited and established in that institution. Often if it is a new programme people with the necessary qualifications in a particular area will be employed but they will not be employed if the programme is not going to be validated - otherwise they will have to be paid and there will be no programme for them to teach.

When we receive such a submission an analysis is carried out in our office. A panel is appointed which consists of experts in that particular area who are suitable to assess the submission. They would frequently cover the university area, the institutes of technology, professions and employers. However, it would vary according to a particular programme. They have a site visit and meet the senior staff and the staff who would deliver the programme. They make a report to us, recommending that the report be validated or not. That goes to a programme accreditation committee which the council has established and which is representative of academic institutions of a wide geographical and disciplined spread. We validate the programme on the basis of their discussion and determination. What we are doing by validating the programme is saying that a person who successfully completes it and is assessed in the manner set out in the submission will be entitled to an award of the council at national certificate, national diploma or bachelor degree level or whatever.

We do not provide a licence to practice. We do not say that the applicant is a suitable person to operate in a particular profession. We do not say that the applicant has no criminal record and so on. If it is a public institution, we do not say that one is entitled to the resources to provide the programme. A public institution will normally go to the Department of Education and Science, and in the course of their programmes and budget meetings they will say that they wish to offer a particular programme and they have the academic validation of the Higher Education and Training Awards Council to do so. The Department of Education and Science will form its own judgment as to whether in terms of public policy, budgets and so on this is something it wishes to fund or agree in terms of programmes for that institution. In the case of a private institution such a privately funded programme or one that does not involve public funding, it is a matter for the institution itself to offer that programme. As a courtesy, we provide the reports on these validations to the Department of Education and Science. We agreed to do so a number of years ago.

On the instant case, I cannot give details on dates. We had an approach some years ago from this institution to discuss whether we would be prepared to consider their programmes. From memory, that was prior to the summer of 2001 when the HETAC council commenced. My recollection is of explaining that we could not do it now, but when the final sections of the Act were in operation we would be in a position to deal with them. We have had quite a bit of engagement in recent years.

Two earlier programmes came to us, one in public administration and the other in criminology. In the case of the initial programme, a considerable amount of time was spent on the delivery mechanisms, such as on-line IT. This was agreed, passed and validated - I do not know whether it was the public administration programme or criminology. The actual delivery mechanism for the on-line aspect would not have caused much concern at a later stage for other programmes.

The post-graduate diploma in primary teacher education was dealt with in the same way as any other programme. We received a submission setting out the institution, curriculum, staffing, assessment methods and so on. There is some misunderstanding as to the actual delivery method because it involves a number of issues. There is the on-line aspect, a face to face aspect such as week-end seminars where groups get together and teaching practice. Apart from whatever function the Department of Education and Science might have, it is the staff of Hibernia College who would supervise the teaching practice. My understanding is that a number of the staff in question would have been the staff of the public institution in Marlborough Street or people with experience in the supervision of teaching practice.

My recollection from viewing that submission was that there was a considerable amount of discussion with people in the teacher education area, some of whom were involved in colleges of education and in the Department. The one aspect on which that particular institution does not fail is widespread consultation. In respect of panels, they sometimes cause us difficulty by having consulted so many people that finding people who have not been consulted as experts for panels can be difficult.

Deputy Stanton asked a question which I want to get quickly off the agenda. Anyone who operates as a staff member, council member, panel member or committee member cannot have a connection with the institution being dealt with. In the case of public institutions in particular, a person could be on the programme accreditation committee who was a member of a college submitting a programme. These people declare an interest and leave the room when the matter is being discussed. We operate in the public sector and we are not short of governance guidelines, procedures, ethics, public policy Acts and so on to which we adhere as strictly as anyone else. They are a major part of the way we do our business.

I am satisfied that all the necessary processes were followed in the case of this particular programme. What the council is not concerned about is the recognition of people who have this award for the purposes of teaching in primary schools. That is a separate exercise which is the function of the Minister for Education and Science. We say that one has achieved the standard to get an award of graduate diploma in education. The Department of Education and Science is the accrediting body to say one is a suitable person to teach in a particular school, or that people who have successfully completed the programme are suitable people to teach in its primary schools. When the programme included in the Education Act is in operation this exercise will be carried out.

Deputy Enright

I have a question for MsMargaret Kelly. The Minister for Education and Science can decide whether someone is suitable to teach. He admitted he is the designated authority for the recognition of qualifications for the purpose of employment and for the regulation of the profession of primary teachers and he went on to say that Hibernia College is a private college and does not need the Department's approval to run their course. That is correct and Mr. Puirséil stated something similar. Has the Minister been approached to state that anyone graduating from the Hibernia course can teach in a classroom? Will he be approached to do so, or must he meet legal or statutory obligations first before he can do it? How would his role come into force?

Chairman

If the Minister says they cannot teach in schools all members will be pestered by them asking for him to change his mind.

Ms M. Kelly

If members refer to my notes they will see at the back that teaching is one of the regulated professions and the Minister is the designated authority for approving qualifications that are suitable for national teaching. The Hibernia College has approached the Minister. Our inspectors examined its programme and approved this award for the purpose of recognition as a primary school teacher.

Deputy Stanton

It is our function and role to raise issues here and I thank Mr. Puirséil for clarifying a number of them.

Are the programmes of study or qualifications of staff who deliver programmes, such as the one outlined by Mr. Puirséil, available to the public? If not, can they be made available?

In a press release from the governing body of St. Patrick's College and others it was stated that: "It was regrettable that this development had taken place without consultation or discussion". Will the qualification that your organisation has agreed to certify be on a par with the qualifications granted by the current teacher training colleges? Will it be recognised in the same way even though the courses are delivered in a different way? The Hibernia course is part-time and conducted primarily on-line whereas the formal courses are intensive, full-time and college based. Will both qualifications be deemed to be the same?

Mr. Puirséil

No.

Deputy Stanton

What is the difference?

Mr. Puirséil

The programme we will offer will be, at the least, the same or a higher qualification. Just because it is from the Hibernia College does not mean it will be worth any less. It will be of the same high standard as those offered in other institutions.

Deputy Stanton

I assume that the other institutions are linked to universities.

Mr. Puirséil

Yes. I welcome any discussion on the methods by which programmes are accredited and the transparency required for that. I look forward to the day when all programmes accredited in higher education, in whatever institution, are accredited in a public and transparent way.

I do not know what documentation is in the public arena regarding teacher training programmes offered by other institutions. My only reluctance regarding the detail of submissions is that they are offered by an institution and are their property. I am in the same position as the two heads of Government that I have watched on television for the past few days: I would love to tell members what I know but other people might not like it. I can assure members that if they knew what I know they would be very happy.

Chairman

On the 30 programmes and the seven providers, who knows them and could comment on them? My question is like the one asking who was consulted about this matter.

Mr. Puirséil

Is the Chairman asking about the current programmes?

Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Puirséil

We deal with about 100 programmes per year. At present we are compiling a report on the past two years and it will be laid before the Houses. It will list about 150 validated programmes.

Chairman

Would it have been possible for the colleges of education, if they so wished, to comment on the programme during the validation process?

Mr. Puirséil

No. All institutions of higher education compete with one another, including the public one. The consumer benefits from this competition.

There is a difficulty in putting together an expert panel. If we had gone to the colleges of education to provide experts in teacher education for a panel I am sure that they would have been so straightforward about it. They would have put all of their institution loyalties and prejudices aside. We must be conscious of this. Very often we go outside this jurisdiction seeking experts for these panels. This one includes a substantial amount of gaeilge and that did not seem to be an option.

On duration, a number of other programmes are recognised. For example, St. Mary's, Belfast and the Open University offer significantly shorter programmes. The general thrust of programmes now, as I explained earlier, is outcome rather than duration. It is whether a person reaches a certain standard not how long is spent achieving it.

Deputy Stanton

How was the HETAC panel of assessors appointed? What was the selection process? What qualifications or experience did they require? They make a submission to the board and it makes the final decision. Has the board ever rejected the findings of the panel of assessors?

Mr. Puirséil

Is the Deputy referring to a particular case?

Deputy Stanton

Has it ever happened? I presume it has. Perhaps Mr. Puirséil could let me know who the assessors were and outline their reason for reaching such a conclusion?

Mr. Puirséil

If a panel recommended a title for a programme but the committee decided it was too long then they might modify the decision. In general submissions are not rejected. A panel might ask for a further submission and there might be some modifications.

On this panel, the person who deals with it in my office is a former school head on secondment from an institute of technology. The panel also consists of a former primary school principal, a head of an education centre and the head of distance learning in one of the major multinationals. I welcomed the fact that we had someone on the panel who had extensive experience in a large national school. They would have a good idea of whether a person finishing this programme was the sort of person a school principal would want in his or her school.

Deputy Enright

Obviously, the practical application can often be more worthwhile than the theoretical side. Was there an expert on teacher education on the panel?

Mr. Puirséil

The people on the panel were experts.

Deputy Enright

There is a recognised college training course that results in someone being expert in the theory of teacher education. Was there anyone with that background on the panel?

Mr. Puirséil

There was a head of an education centre that dealt with in-service courses for teachers on the panel. However, there was no head of an education department on the panel.

Deputy Enright

Is it normal to have experts from abroad on the panel?

Mr. Puirséil

It would not be the case in most instances. If we were dealing with a law degree we would seek international experts. If we were dealing with a confined area of interest or a small number of institutions within the State we would use foreign experts. Sometimes it might take too long to find or we would be unable to get the appropriate expertise within the State. In other instances there would be a small pool of experts to draw from and everyone would know each other so we would have to look outside of the State.

Deputy Enright

There are more institutions offering courses in law than in teacher training.

Mr. Puirséil

Perhaps we could discuss it another day. Some of the same issues would arise.

Deputy Stanton

Is Mr. Puirséil saying that there was no one on the panel with experience in postgraduate teacher training in any third level institution here or abroad?

Mr. Puirséil

I am not disagreeing with the Deputy but I do not have that information with me. I can supply him with it later.

Deputy Stanton

Who selected the panel of assessors?

Mr. Puirséil

Every year we deal with a large number of programmes. In every case the panel is selected by an executive operating on behalf of the council. Quality assurance procedures in an institution are dealt with separately by an international panel.

Deputy Stanton

Mr. Puirséil said that anyone can go to his organisation with a proposal and if certain standards are met his organisation will grant them the power to award qualifications.

Mr. Puirséil

We must do it.

Deputy Stanton

Obviously, there would be various levels of awards. Has his organisation ever refused an application?

Mr. Puirséil

I am always reluctant to say that an individual can go to my organisation because of the risk of encouraging a large number of people to do so. We have not received individual applications.

Deputy Stanton

I am referring to an application for a programme?

Mr. Puirséil

Yes, we have refused programmes.

Deputy Stanton

What is the failure rate?

Mr. Puirséil

Where an application is not going to succeed the providing institution would tend to withdraw it rather than receive a negative decision. The panel would ask for a resubmission setting out what it required and the institution may decide not to resubmit. The number of refusals is very low and we want to keep it that way.

Deputy Stanton

Are the statistics on applications and what happened to them available?

Mr. Puirséil

I will send that information to the Deputy.

Deputy Enright

My questions do not relate to the Hibernia College. What happens after a course is validated and commenced? Does HETAC monitor it and, where necessary, withdraw accreditation?

Mr. Puirséil

We issue a certificate of course approval for a single cohort or five years. Sometimes we issue one for a shorter period if certain things have to be put in place. An institute would carry out a programme review in a particular area at the end of the five year period. The course would then be modified, updated and revalidated for a further period of five years.

Chairman

Are quality assurance conditions attached to a certificate of approval?

Mr. Puirséil

It might have although we have worked hard not to do that. It is easier to ask for all of the conditions to be met before a certificate is granted. If we request, for example, a new laboratory or staff then we have to check if these conditions are met. The council lays down general conditions that must be followed but they apply to all programmes.

Mr. McHugh

The quality assurance processes that FETAC has put in place reflect, in a broad sense, those of HETAC. They are not identical and FETAC is still in the process of establishing them. Earlier I said that we were at the test phase. My organisation is governed by the same legislation but we are a different sector. Many of the issues raised will affect us at different stages.

First, the legislation says it can be any type of learning. Therefore, we must recognise a much broader range of learning than before. Second, we cannot criticise the methodology used in terms of time or delivery. If people reach the standard they deserve the award. Many questions relate to the duration of a course. Many people ask us if they can complete a course in a shorter time. If they can then they deserve their award if they reach the standard required. Whether a course is part-time, full-time or takes two years is a separate question. If the programme has been validated on a certain basis then it has been proven that people can do it. There is a different profile of learners coming through the system now. If a person is experienced and has worked in an area for 15 years then they will complete a programme a lot quicker than an 18-year old. We must work within the new qualifications framework and it has serious implications on how we do things.

Chairman

FETAC grants course approval but does it approve the level of fees?

Mr. McHugh

That is none of our business. Private course providers charge fees. If courses are set up for commercial purposes then they must meet certain provisions so that participants are guaranteed the completion of the programme. The course provider determines the fee and if people avail of the programme then that is their business.

Chairman

What about bonding?

Mr. McHugh

That is what I am talking about.

Deputy Stanton

On outside assessors who monitor examinations, what role has HETAC in this particular case?

Mr. Puirséil

Under previous legislation the external examiners were all appointed by the NCA. Under current legislation recognised institutions or institutes of technology appoint external examiners. We are moving to a situation where external examiners would be appointed by an institute within certain guidelines monitored by us. We would verify an institute's quality assurance procedures and external examiners would come under their remit. We are trying to pull back from a hands-on approach or intrusion by a crowd in Dublin. In order to do this the institutes must deliver on procedures and satisfy us, on behalf of the legislators, that it is being done.

Deputy Stanton

Will the Hibernia College be responsible for appointing its assessors?

Mr. Puirséil

We might still make appointments in the first cohort but we shall move in the other direction. If Hibernia appoints them they would do so just like other institutions operating in the same area.

Chairman

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. It has been very interesting. I am sure we shall revisit this subject in the future.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.42 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 6 November 2003.