Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 Jun 2006

Visit of House of Commons Delegation.

On behalf of the members of the Joint Committee on Education and Science, I welcome the delegation from the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee. It is always a great privilege and pleasure to exchange views with fellow parliamentarians, particularly those from a jurisdiction so close to ours.

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

I call on Mr. Barry Sheerman, MP, Chairman of the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, to introduce the members of the delegation and to make his presentation.

Mr. Barry Sheerman

I am the Labour Party MP for Huddersfield and I chair the committee.

Mr. Gordon Marsden

I am the Labour Party MP for Blackpool South.

Mr. Douglas Carswell

I am the Conservative Party MP for Harwich and Clacton.

Mr. David Chaytor

I am the Labour Party MP for Bury North.

Mr. Stephen Williams

I am the Liberal Democrat MP for Bristol West.

Mr. Rob Wilson

I am the Conservative Party MP for Reading East.

Mr. Sheerman

We thank the members for affording us the privilege to appear before the committee. We are in the same business, although our committee has a slightly different name, the House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee. Like the Joint Committee on Education and Science, we conduct investigations. In the past year we have commenced examining further education and skills. We have come to the end of our further education inquiry.

Some interesting things are being done in Ireland from which we could learn, so we thought that a brief visit might tone us up before we write our report. We often find that, towards the end of an inquiry, if we go to a country that is similar in terms of the problems and challenges it faces, it helps us to think more clearly about what we wish to say. Yesterday, when intense meetings were held throughout the day, that type of effect was felt by the committee. Sharing views, learning what Ireland does and how we differ in terms of the provision of further education — Ireland is very different in the way it meets these challenges — has given us a great deal to consider. It has been a most useful visit so far.

I had the opportunity to meet our guests last night at the residence of the British ambassador. There was an opportunity for some informal discussion. I discovered that the systems and their structural elements are quite different. However, I believe we can learn a great deal from each other and I hope we will do so.

I join the Chairm an in welcoming the delegation. The main difference is that under the British system, as I understand it, a person must make a decision, when he or she reaches 16 years of age, to go in a particular direction, whereas our school system continues to the leaving certificate for most students. Then we have what we describe as our further education sector, which is quite small and generally involves post-leaving certificate courses for school leavers. Many people returning to education also take further education courses. These are individuals who dropped out of school at an early age and have decided to return to education.

We have other systems. The delegation visited Tallaght Institute of Technology yesterday. We have a big institute of technology sector which is seen as part of the higher education sector in this country but which would relate to what the delegates would consider to be the further education sector. We also have FÁS, which the delegates are due to visit today. It deals with training in the Irish system. It is under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment rather than the Department of Education and Science.

We have a thriving vocational education sector that straddles second level or post-primary education and what we call adult education, which includes adult literacy, community education and skills education. In a sense we have something of a mishmash. In fact, one of the needs in our system is more co-ordination across the sector. That is something in respect of which we should do some work.

The committee, under the guidance of the Chairman, recently conducted an investigation into adult literacy in Ireland. It has heard presentations from many different interest groups and is about to produce a report. It will be interesting for our two committees to have a dialogue and, perhaps, learn from each other. Mr. Sheerman might explain a little more how the British education sector works, what aspects of it are good, and what he believes would help to further skills education.

Statistics indicate that Ireland has a very low level of unemployment. However, we have a category of people who leave school before the age of 16 and these are at high risk of unemployment a year after they have dropped out of school. Under the British system, are people in this category automatically brought into the further education sector? Is there a system in place to ensure they do not fall through the net? One of the challenges for us is to ensure that early school leavers do not drop into a black hole where it is left to their own initiative to get back into the system. Our system needs to do more in that regard. I would be interested in knowing what needs to be corrected in the English system in the context of the investigations of the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee. If the committee has any questions for us, I will be glad to respond to them.

On behalf of my party I welcome the members of House of Commons Education and Skills Committee. It will be interesting to have discussions with them. I apologise on behalf of Deputy Enright, our spokesperson on education, who cannot attend today. I would like to hear what the House of Commons committee recommends in its report and whether it recommends any changes in the British system. From what the committee has seen here in the past few days, are there any changes it would recommend us to make?

Further education has become a buzz word here in the past couple of years. I presume it is the same in the UK. Everyone wants to improve their education in one way or another. There is much interest. I would like to hear the comments of the House of Commons committee members in this regard.

Mr. Sheerman

Does the Chairman wish us to reply to those two questions? Otherwise we might lose track.

If you wish.

Mr. Sheerman

I will start and then hand over to my colleagues. We have a real problem in the UK. One of the most thoroughgoing looks at secondary education took place within the past 18 months. It was a full inquiry under a former chief inspector of schools, Michael Tomlinson. The Tomlinson report recommended that we should consider a system similar to the Irish one instead of having the traditional O-level route in our secondary system which emphasises students who are academic. There is a real feeling that the students with less academic ability but different abilities have got the rather poor end of the education system in the UK. The Tomlinson inquiry, with 200 experts in working parties with the then Minister with responsibility for schools, David Miliband, really involved in the deliberations, looked at the various forms of the International Baccalaureate and the Irish system.

It was disappointing that the Tomlinson report was produced just before the general election. Even more disappointing to some of us was the rejection of the recommendation to have a broader diploma, so that everyone aged 16 and 18 would have a diploma. Many of us have been watching what the Government produced, which was a whole system of more vocationally oriented diplomas open to young people. These will come in over the next two years and give more emphasis to vocational opportunities for people between the ages of 14 and 19.

Regarding what happens to young people who drop out of education early, some pilot programmes have been going on in the UK which are aimed at tackling the problem of high absenteeism and children dropping out of school at about the age of 14 and giving them an experience that is partly work-based learning with an employer, and partly in the local further education college involving retention of an anchor in a school. This was an attempt to get young people to stay on and study. We have one of the lowest stay on rates at 16 in the OECD countries. We have failed to retain enough young people in education. We have been having a thoroughgoing look at how we should approach that problem. Our inquiry on further education can be put in that context. Many things are moving in the UK educational system, in the English education system. We are the English committee. We do not cover Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales.

Mr. Marsden

I will follow up on what Mr.Sheerman said. There are two points I would like to add. Mr. Sheerman indicated that early school leaving is a big issue. It is a big issue for two reasons. One is the complexity of identifying who are early leavers. I speak from my experience of my constituency in Blackpool where there is a large degree of mobility and transience in the schools, as there is in many seaside and coastal towns in Britain. I describe it as informal exclusion or informal dropping out of the system whereby non-attendance levels are higher than the national average, but for every one person who is registered as not attending there are others who simply do not turn up and they dribble out of the system. That sometimes makes it quite difficult for us to have accurate statistics as to how many people are, in practical terms, out of the system.

What we have realised in terms of public policy in the UK is that educational support for children cannot be divorced from social supports. That is very clear in terms of the Every Child Matters initiative, the intention of which is to integrate educational and social care aspects in local authorities to work around children's service provision. We need to make structures work to serve the children and not vice versa. There are upcoming changes in youth policy in the UK following the White Paper on youth policies.

We have had a service in the UK called the connections service that was set up in the early years of the Labour Government. I was on the standing committee that debated the details of that service. That service has been quite effective in supporting young people in terms of career advice and alternative career structures. It has not been so successful in supporting many of the groups of young people who have been, for one reason or another, in a socially excluded position — perhaps they have had problems with drugs, alcohol or family, or brushes with the police. I would attribute this to over-optimism at the early stages on the part of the Government as to how far the funding for such a service could be stretched. It has not been as successful in terms of traditional career advice and traditional post-16 career advice in particular for those groups of young people who are, to put it bluntly, coasting within the system, who are not dropping out of the system but are not reaching their full potential.

We have a very real issue to address in terms of public policy debate in Britain over the next couple of years as the new structures bed down as to where the priorities are and what can be done with the funding. That links in with the broader holistic view of post-16 education and support for those excluded groups.

Mr. Chaytor

In England the further education sector is significantly bigger and has a higher profile than in Ireland. That is partly because of the Irish institutes of technology and the role they play. In addition, although our school leaving age is currently 16, it is, by default, gradually becoming 19 and the Government's policy is to maximise the numbers of young people staying in full-time education and/or training until they reach that age.

There are two issues that arise, namely, the small number of people who drop out before 16 and the larger matter that of all OECD countries, only Turkey has a lower post-16 participation rate. The absolute priority of our policy must be to increase the numbers of young people not just staying in the system until they reach 16 but also remaining beyond that age. The reforms following the Tomlinson report, which identify a distinct 14 to 19 curriculum, are crucial in that regard. Although our Government has not fully accepted all of the recommendations in the report, which would have led to a single diploma — similar to the Irish or baccalaureate models — that would embrace a wide range of qualifications and be awarded at 19, it is taking steps towards the building of a 14 to 19 curriculum, while strengthening the vocational strands of the curriculum.

Are A levels separate from that?

Mr. Chaytor

This is the heart of the debate. There is no disputing that A levels will remain. The issue is whether they will be freestanding, individual qualifications within an overarching diploma or whether they will remain as they are at present, namely, a clutch of qualifications in their own right. There are those who believe that the academic and vocational strands should remain separate, whereas Tomlinson argued for a more fluid curriculum under which it would be easier for students to pursue academic and vocational subjects in combination.

In delivering the 14 to 19 curriculum and providing a more flexible curriculum to encourage more young people to remain in education, there must be greater co-operation between our secondary schools, some of which cater for children between the ages 11 to 16 and others which cater for those aged 11 to 18, and our further education colleges. The role of further education in increasing our post-16 participation rates is crucial. Every town of any size in Britain will have a further education college that will increasingly play a role in the delivery of education from 14 onwards.

Mr. Sheerman

The recent reports suggested that the further education sector is like the neglected middle child. In Ireland, up to 55% of young people enter university or pursue some form of higher education. In Britain, our ambition is to increase from the current rate of 43% to at least 50%. There is a feeling that the further education sector is under-resourced and, because those in it do not proceed to higher education, it does not have large sums to spend on lovely buildings and facilities. There is a distinct further education sector that is under-resourced and seen as not being of the same quality as higher education, but we have this difficulty in finding the skilled tradesmen and craftsmen we need in industry and housing services. I have picked up an echo of that in Ireland.

I welcome the delegation. I want to concentrate on adult education, its past, present and future. Adult education was so marginalised in Ireland that it was a sub-Cinderella sector. In recent years, successive Ministers for Education and Science have been successful in seeking to bring it to the centre of the educational experience.

The principles that underpin the journey to the centre of the educational experience relate to partnership. We have had many problems historically. One expert on partnership describes the many successes we have enjoyed through the principle as "violently opposed groups temporarily setting aside their hostilities in the interests of funding", although the word "education" or the phrase "holistic approach to life" could be inserted in place of the term "funding". The vision of successive Governments has been that we are on a journey to a holistic educational continuum that starts in pre-school and lasts to 90 and beyond. That is the core of our vision.

Since the mid to late 1990s, adult education has been transformed beyond our wildest dreams. I have studied it closely and there have been many exciting initiatives. We had many problems relating to poverty, isolation and rural location in the past. I was reared on a remote mountain at the foot of which was a village. I was fortunate that two religious orders brought education to my village many decades before I came into this world. I suppose that story symbolises and encapsulates one aspect of the history of Irish education. We in Ireland are lovers of education. People like me had to have education to get off our mountains because at that time we did not have much else. Education was the key and we passionately sought it. Although some of us did not seek it as enthusiastically or as diligently as we should have, education brought us from the mountains to Dublin and to other places around the world and many of my former neighbours now hold high profile positions around the world because they embraced education with a passion.

Adult education, among many other things, seeks to bring literacy to everyone in Ireland. For example, it seeks to bring literacy to housewives who live on the top of mountains, deep in the valleys or in the middle of bogs who have never had a chance to do anything for themselves. They reared their children, they minded their families, they inculcated values and they forgot about themselves. The new adult education experience enables people of all ages to share in this educational voyage. Structures are being put in place in small halls, rooms above shops and so on throughout the country to facilitate those who want to share in this voyage. It is happening as we speak. As Deputy O'Sullivan stated, we have not nearly arrived at our desired destination. Our vision is way ahead of us but we have come a long way in a short time because we tapped into the existing goodwill and the deep yearning of the Irish people for education.

I taught in the south inner city among the poor in the flats and I enjoyed every minute of it. I had nothing to recommend me as a politician. I worked, not for communities in my area but for the community in the south inner city. I possessed one advantage that enabled me to become a politician in 1981 — I had letters after my name. If one used that today, one would be laughed at. With nothing to recommend me except that I was a teacher, I was chosen as a candidate to represent my party in 1981 but I saw something in the Irish psyche that could appeal to the people of Dublin North-East who elected me. I saw that I had what a few other candidates did not have — the letters NT, BA, H.Dip Ed after my name. When that went up on a poster the people elected me. Perhaps if they knew who they were electing they would not have selected me. That story is funny but it is also serious. What came true in Dublin North-East and enabled me to have the misfortune to come into places like this, is the story of Ireland, the Irish people and their love for education. We are tapping into that now in terms of adult education.

We have made considerable advances. We speak of our vision of education as inclusive and embracing the marginalised and inviting them to go on the journey with us. The marginalised are included, whether they are housewives, people from the bogs, mountain men like myself or people of poverty, because some of the programmes are cost free. Deputy O'Sullivan and others have referred to the wide range of programmes that are available.

This is one of the most exciting initiatives we have brought into the world of adult education. A person may grow up illiterate for various reasons. For example, I brought a group of children, including two dyslexic children, from second class to sixth class. Those two boys were intelligent but I did not know they were dyslexic and neither did the inspectors in the then Department of Education whom I invited in to help me educate them. Unfortunately, one of those boys is now dead but the other is in occasional contact with me. We can embrace such people now, as well as the housewives from the middle of the bogs, from the tops of mountains and from areas of urban poverty and deprivation. Until now, they were the invisible in our society. We have invited them to become visible primarily to empower them to empower themselves.

We set up a structure of adult education guidance counsellors, although that is not the correct technical title for them. The guidance counsellors acknowledge that people are nervous about putting themselves forward for courses and the counsellors will encourage and guide people in respect of the most appropriate courses for them. The counsellors will encourage such people to join in this wonderful exciting educational experience which is only starting.

Many refer to further education and the role education plays in the development of the economy. We have many models of what I call local development, but one cannot talk about local development without talking about national development. Local development is a microcosm of the bigger picture and one cannot talk about national development without talking about education. The key to our success is partnership and, as a teacher, I firmly believe that part of the secret to our success is education. Of course I am biased. Without that love of education we would not have achieved the current degree of economic success. Although there are social down sides, I will not go into them today because that is not why the delegation is here. As well as the principle of partnership, at the core of our journey, from the brink of bankruptcy to the dizzy economic heights of today where we are the second or third wealthiest country per capita in the world — on which I defy challenge — is primarily our love of education.

One of the most beautiful aspects in terms of the marginalised is the manner in which we have approached those with a disability. In the past, one of the most invisible cohorts of people in our society, apart from the housewives and the rural mountain men like myself, were those with a disability. The manner in which we are reaching out to people with disabilities is reassuring. We have come to acknowledge that access to education must be curricular as well as physical. It is not good enough to state that one can educate those with a disability by widening doors and providing wheelchairs. As I am technologically illiterate, I cannot describe the fancy technological advances we are providing for those with disabilities. We have come to a realisation, an acceptance and acknowledgement that as well as providing physical accessibility we must also provide curricular accessibility for people with disabilities.

As part of our future vision as we go forward on this journey we should invite those who up to now have been invisible in the system to share the lifelong journey of education. The formal structures of pre-school, primary and secondary school and third level are only constituent parts of the entire picture. From pre-school at the age of four to the age of 90 and beyond, this educational voyage must continue.

Key to enabling and empowering people to participate in our journey is our child care programmes which, as everybody including myself would admit, have a long way to go.

However, in the absence of such programmes, much of what we achieved would not have been realised. I am heartened and reassured by the significant strides made by the Government. I am delighted to have shared that experience with the delegation because I am passionate about it. I believe strongly in it and our vision is only commencing. I regret I am unable to compare and contrast because I did not have time to read the report.

I welcome the delegation. The nature of families has changed a great deal in Ireland in the past decade. There are many single parent families, while educational disadvantage is experienced by generations as the State strives to break the cycle. However, there is a limit to what the Government can do to get beyond the front door of a person's house and a limit to what it can fund, resource and suggest to parents. Perhaps there are ways other than setting up agencies and providing adult literacy courses. I read an article about lifelong learning accounts. A financial incentive is provided for a young single parent with a ten year old child who is facing the same problems endemic in an area. Bad parenting leads to problems such as anti-social behaviour, non-attendance at school and obesity. If parents are being given a financial incentive, when their children reach 18 years, the State can match the accounts they set up.

Special savings incentive accounts were introduced by the Government and have been very successful. A total of 1.1 million people opened accounts and the Government is giving them €1 for every €4 saved, provided the money remains in the account for five years. The first accounts have matured and a debate has begun about targeting them at certain areas. The Government introduced the accounts to counter inflationary pressure. Money was taken out of the economy which was overheating and it was a successful measure. Government policy is to keep children in school. Why not apply a similar account or other financial incentive to encourage children aged between 16 and 18 years to stay in education and incentivise parents to set up accounts when their children are ten years old? It is a cold analysis but money talks.

I am education spokesperson for the Green Party. I was reminded by Deputy Andrews's contribution of a recent debate on adult education during which a number of Members stated incentivisation would be a good idea. I do not know whether British parliamentarians read Irish newspapers in the past week which carried reports about back bench Deputies trying to gain greater access to discussions on policy but I am glad Deputy Andrews has mentioned this initiative and I hope the meeting of his parliamentary party will ensure it is implemented in advance of the next general election.

I agree with Deputy Andrews's remarks about encouraging parents to take an active interest in the education of their children but there is a significant level of disadvantage in urban and rural areas in both the United Kingdom and Ireland. The third and fourth generations of families still experience social exclusion and education is not a factor for them. At least 1,000 children miss more than 40 days of schooling per year. I know one girl who missed 83 days for no reason. Her education is damaged, possibly for life. In many instances, there are social reasons but access to further education and keeping children in school beyond 16 years require investment. Investment earlier in the education cycle pays for itself. The High-Scope Perry Project estimates that for every €1 invested in quality pre-school education a return of €17 is generated through the benefit to the children and the cost the State does not incur in social welfare payments or incarceration in the worst case scenario.

One in seven pupils leaves primary education for secondary education without proper numeracy and literacy skills. They usually leave school having completed the junior certificate which is equivalent to O levels. Ireland has a good education system and performs consistently well in comparison with our EU counterparts but that is in spite of the level of funding made available. The ship has gloriously sailed out with Ireland a key player in education but when one goes below deck, there are leaks everywhere, which is a problem. A sum of €18 million is spent on adult literacy provision which equates to approximately two hours per week per person. The people concerned might achieve self-learning within three or four years but a significant deficit remains which needs to be addressed through the provision of funding. If investment is made in education now, it will result in Exchequer savings down the line. However, electoral interests always come into play because every four or five years a general election is held. Ten-year education plans that might cost a little more now are not popular and it is hard to argue against this. I am not taking sides in the UK political debate but I was impressed by Tony Blair's earliest manifesto in which education featured prominently. Investment in education is the way forward.

The further education sector comprises a number of strands involving FÁS, the VECs and the Departments of Education and Science, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Arts, Sport and Tourism. The system works well. The qualifications framework also overlaps well but the funding for post-leaving certificate courses, for example, is provided from the second level budget which means further education is not taken as seriously as it could be.

A report known as the McIver report was issued a number of years ago. It made a number of key recommendations, one of which was a call for a separate further education sector. I hope that, in due course, this might be considered by the current Minister for Education and Science.

As for making other recommendations, without being facetious, I was a member of a parliamentary delegation that travelled to New South Wales, Australia. If our guests are seeking an example of integration or a separate channel, it should consider the New South Wales model. Under its technical and further education, TAFE, system pupils who reach the O level to A level age group go straight into vocational education, which is available in schools. As TAFE is so practical and job-oriented, some people from outside come in to do it. Perhaps Ireland could use such a system. Our closest equivalent is FÁS, which performs a good job in providing people with the requisite skills to acquire highly paid jobs. However, I also recommend examining certain aspects of the Australian model.

As regards what has been done well in Ireland, it should be noted that this is still below the EU average in terms of educational investment. Ireland has done very well with such limited funding because of the dedication of individuals and, in many cases, as a result of volunteerism. Moreover, it was noted earlier that a culture of education exists. No matter where one lives, one is encouraged to pursue one's education.

As visiting committees tend to listen to many people and it is hard to take in all the points, I will conclude by suggesting that this seems to fall down in respect of second or third generation residents of inner cities. Hence, I wholeheartedly agree that one needs some form of financial incentive to encourage people to invest in the education of their children. Moreover, one must front-load the investment at the earliest possible stage in order that children do not fall behind at the ages of five, six or seven and so that they will have the requisite literacy and numeracy skills when proceeding to second level.

I have one final query. I previously called for increased investment in the National Education Welfare Board, which is charged with ensuring that children stay in school. Although the board is supposed to have a complement of 300 educational welfare officers, it does not yet have 100. The issue I raised previously is that although the United Kingdom's ratio of officers to children is three or four times better, the levels of truancy, for want of a better term, are rather similar. I would appreciate some feedback as to why there still appears to be a problem keeping children at school, even with a better force on the ground to so do. Do our guests agree that this boils down to funding issues? What do they envisage as being the political challenges in respect of such funding not being made available?

Which of our guests wishes to respond?

Mr. Sheerman

I will start and my colleagues can come in as the need arises. It was fascinating to hear Senator Fitzgerald discussing adult education because what he said touched on a most sensitive matter for us in the United Kingdom. At present, there is great discussion in respect of a Government policy that is concentrating resources, admittedly increased resources, on adults who will receive qualifications. There has been a great deal of fuss in the media and elsewhere in this regard because, traditionally, courses which do not lead to qualifications and which people pursue out of interest, such as social education, community education and a whole range of subjects, were highly subsidised. However, that subsidy will be reduced.

The Government has a greater expectation that people should pay a larger share of the cost of such courses. In a sense, one can see why that is the case. It is a result of our significant demographic downturn, which has reached the age of ten. We are experiencing a steep decline in the birth rate and all predictions are that we will be in terrible trouble, in terms of the kinds of skills that are coming on stream, unless we ensure that more people stay on and become highly skilled. Moreover, even if this is done effectively, we must still train, upskill and reskill many people who are already in the work force. One can see, therefore, why the Government is focussing on qualifications because we will be in great need of skilled people unless this nettle is grasped. Consequently, a controversy exists, which our committee will address in our report.

Deputy Andrews made a most interesting point. Our committee enjoys being able to take a theme to run through an inquiry. The current British Government has made what I term the "triple E" commitment. I have stopped using that term in the House or in my committee because the Hansard reporters were putting it down as "Tripoli", the city, rather than as the triple E commitment to education.

Apart from that commitment, the British Government is keen on evidence-based policy. It is very interesting for a committee such as the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee to examine a policy and to ask the relevant department, the Department for Education and Skills, what is the evidence for it. As Deputy Gogarty noted, the policy for which we found the most clear relationship is that all the research shows that the earlier one puts money into the educational system, the better the payback. Both Deputies made that point.

In recent years, certainly since 1999, overall education spending in the United Kingdom rose quickly as a percentage of GDP. A great deal of the expenditure has gone into the provision of free nursery education for four year olds and, more recently, for three year olds. Much of it has been devoted to the Sure Start programme, which targets the poorest 20% of wards in the United Kingdom with schemes to really tackle issues as early as the onset of pregnancy. Such schemes seek to encourage parents to become much more involved in more proactive ways of stimulating their children and so on. Hence, the report prepared by our committee on early years development focused on whether such schemes were evidence based.

Although politics should consist of evidence-based measures, sometimes Governments and Departments can be seen to do things simply because something must be done. As for some of the other areas under consideration by our committee — particularly this area — one encounters programmes which seem to arise because, as we say in England, someone has dreamt up a scheme in the bath on a Saturday night. In such cases, one wonders where the scheme has come from, on what basis was it introduced and how much research was done internationally or anywhere else. Interestingly, as far as the 50% target for higher education is concerned, most people believe that it was not based on international comparisons with Ireland or anywhere else, or on anything else. Instead, it was based on the notion that 50% is a good, round and sexy number.

I refer to Deputy Andrew's other point regarding individual saving accounts. Although I do not know whether the Joint Committee on Education and Science has such a role, our committee examines what Harold Macmillan called "Events, dear boy, events", that is, when things go wrong. In that context, our committee examined the individual learning account programme. It was a fantastic and innovative scheme that was introduced early in the Labour Government's lifetime and which went wrong. Due to misunderstandings on the part of the private and public sectors in respect of private sector provider contracts, the Government was obliged to withdraw that programme at a loss of £50 million in taxpayers' money.

At the time, my committee, the composition of which was different, examined this issue closely. Its recommendation was to restore the scheme because it was a good idea and the problems encountered were caused by mismanagement of the scheme. The actual thrust of the scheme, which was to give people an individual learning account which they could spend on the development of their skills was sound. After a lapse of four or five years, the Government is about to reintroduce it in a different form. Hence, we are in agreement in this regard.

Next week, our committee intends to publish the results of a major inquiry that it has just completed on special educational needs. In this context, we drew on much international evidence. Although the joint committee may not have examined this area recently, we found it to be most interesting, absorbing and challenging. We tackled the debate as to whether special educational needs children should be included in the mainstream or whether separate provision should be made, and on how to achieve the best of both worlds. We could not touch on certain problems such as the increasing number of children with particular conditions. Five and a half times as many boys are affected by these conditions than girls. From speaking to people in Ireland, the same problems are presented here.

Mr. Chaytor

I want to say a word about adult education, in particular. For half a century England has been extremely fortunate in the richness of the adult programmes available. These are provided at the highest level by universities, including the Open University, colleges of further education and local education authorities in community settings. On two occasions during the past 50 years the Government questioned whether the high level of investment in adult education was mainly to the advantage of those adults already motivated to learn. The first occasion was in the 1970s when we suddenly identified a major problem with adult literacy. For a period resources were directed to deal with this issue. That programme came to an end with the change of Government in 1979. More recently, within the past five years, we again identified an urgent need to ensure all adults reached a certain basic literacy level and once more resources have been shifted towards adult literacy. This has meant increasingly the higher conceptual levels of adult education are self-funding as areas of adult education bordering on recreation. A bigger slice of the budget is spent on adult literacy and adult schools training. At the same time we redirected the budget away from funding adult education to providing funding for 16 to 19 year olds because the biggest priority in our system is to increase participation post-16 years and the level and quality of schools training for young people. A political issue reflected in all our constituencies is that in much of the adult education programme adult students are expected to pay a higher share of the fees. This will continue for the next three years as fees will progressively increase as part of the redirection of investment into the provision of education and training for 16 to 19 year olds.

The Chairman mentioned the individual learning account experiment. An attempt may be made to revive it in a slightly different form with better controls. One of the main financial incentives we introduced to deal with the cycle of disadvantage is the programme of educational maintenance allowances, EMAs. This is a grant for young people to remain in education beyond the age of 16 years. As it is means-tested, one is not eligible to receive it if household income is above a certain level. It was piloted five or six years ago and was successful in so far as it led directly to an increase in the post-16 year participation rate. The scheme now operates nationwide. It is not a magic formula but contributes to a steady increase in the participation rate.

The significant amount of money invested in providing grants for young people who have not traditionally remained in education beyond 16 years was only made possible because of the introduction of tuition fees in the university sector and the increase in the original university fee from £1,000 to £3,000. Since 1997 our education system has seen a dramatic increase in the level of investment in primary and secondary schools. The per captia investment per pupil has approximately doubled. At the same time, a significant shift in resources means the share of the budget in the higher education sector has reduced proportionately and been invested particularly through educational maintenance allowances to increase participation among 16 to 19 year olds.

The largest growth in spending is in respect of under-fives and preschool education, through Sure Start and other programmes, because the Government recognises that the earlier the investment is made, the greater the benefits down the line and the cheaper it is for the taxpayer in the long term.

I have a few questions, the first of which relates to the EMA.

Mr. Chaytor

Educational maintenance allowance.

I have made a note on it as it is interesting. The allowance encourages young people to remain in education post-16 years. What is the quality of that attendance? Do students receive the allowance for turning up? A debate took place here a couple of years ago on the reintroduction of third level fees during which we argued the merits and demerits. At the time there was a great deal of student opposition. Was there and is there still student opposition in England? Is it worth it?

Mr. Chaytor

On the EMA, the attendance requirements are rigorous. As the allowance is means-tested, some students within a class will be in receipt of it. The policies of colleges and individual course tutors are also rigorous towards those in receipt of the allowance because they must make returns. Students lose the allowance if their level of attendance falls off. The checks and controls are rigorous.

There was student opposition, as well as intense political opposition, to the introduction of tuition fees. There still is student opposition and a little political opposition, although the main Opposition party has abandoned its opposition, which is another story in itself. Fees of approximately £1,000 per year were introduced five or six years ago. This September they will be increased to £3,000 per year. As there is significant means-testing, not all students will pay this sum. From September, the fee will no longer be paid up-front. It will not be paid back from the student's income once he or she graduates.

Mr. Sheerman

There were three major inquiries into higher education at the time. The committee broadly supported variable fees on the basis that investment would be made in order to have world-class universities. It was our view that investment would not be made by the Government alone. Lord Dearing chaired an inquiry and recommended that payment for higher education should be balanced between society through the taxpayer, the employer and the individual. Looking back on that great debate, we were correct. If one wants to be on the front line of higher education research and have top level universities globally competitive with those in the United States, a great deal of investment is required. Not many societies will achieve this through the taxpayer only. The trend in any country serious about this issue is that individuals must make a contribution. That is the position in the United Kingdom, where the system to be introduced in October will mean no parent or individual will pay anything up front. Once a graduate earns £15,000 per year, he or she will start to pay it back. Full grants of up to £3,000 have been reintroduced for poorer students. Our committee inquiry did not anticipate that universities would compete for good students with bursaries of up to £5,000 per year. It would be interesting for Ireland to examine the UK experience in the coming years.

I want to ask a related question on the semi-loan system being introduced. The HECS scheme in Australia seems to have an extremely high default rate as people move abroad to work rather than pay it back. Has the United Kingdom anticipated this? What default rate will be acceptable?

Mr. Sheerman

There is now global demographic movement, as we all know, but one does what one can and the markets will adjust in any event. There are already companies in the United Kingdom that pay the student debts of those who join them. The market will adjust, as is evident from the "golden hellos" for those teaching subjects in respect of which there is a shortage of teachers. We tried to help in the dispute between the employers and the university unions some weeks ago. Both sides attended a meeting of our committee and I said to the leader of the university teachers' representatives that she was adamantly against top-up fees and that she now wants all the top-up fees but better pay for university teachers. I asked whether this embarrassed her and she said it did not. Our university teachers got the biggest rise so we can retain high-quality staff. This has been the case since 2002 and is backed up by the latest settlement. At last, we are starting to pay university teachers the right rate to retain them and to encourage others to join the profession.

If a person does not graduate, must fees still be paid back?

Mr. Sheerman

I do not know the answer to that question. If one does not graduate, I suppose one must still pay off one's debts.

Mr. Chaytor

Of those who complete the full three years of their degree programmes, a tiny number fail their final exams. By and large, students in this category would be filtered out before then.

Mr. Sheerman

We have the highest retention rate in the world apart from that which obtains in Japan.

Mr. Chaytor

That was my second point. Britain is fortunate in that it has a very high student retention rate. Between 10% and 15% of students do not complete their first year. I believe, but I am not absolutely sure, that they are still eligible to pay back the fees for the first year.

Mr. Sheerman

We will be nice and admit that we do not know the answer.

The delegates would not admit that at home. A dropout rate of 10% to 15% across the board is probably fairly normal in that people change their minds during the first year of college.

In Ireland there is a transition year at second level. Would it be possible to have such a transition year after the A levels, whereby people could pursue a course, earn credits therefor and further their education without fully committing to a career path?

Mr. Sheerman

Education is becoming more diverse in the United Kingdom. There are approximately 180 degree-awarding institutions, some of which are opening up to a new generation of inner city children who would never go to university. Students are chopping and changing, trying certain disciplines and moving on.

The difficulty in England is that if one does not complete a course, people believe one has failed. In the United States, however, people take the attitude that the student has done a year in college. Why should we not have more portable experiences such that one could do a year in one institution, earn credits, work for a year or two and then complete the course? This kind of transformation is occurring in the United Kingdom.

I apologise for arriving late. I welcome our colleagues from across the water. It is interesting that the UK college retention rate is so high. Is this linked directly to the fact that students sitting their A level examinations, which are the equivalent of our leaving certificate examinations, take only four subjects rather than a greater number and that they are, therefore, geared from an early age to the subjects and disciplines they wish to pursue at third level?

Mr. Marsden

There may be an element of truth in that. However, although our retention rate is second only to that of the Japanese, we should not be complacent. Historically, the rate of participation in higher education has been much lower than it is at present. In 1992, some polytechnical colleges were converted to universities and if one considers the post-1992 universities, one will note that many of them have more problems with completion than some of their pre-1992 counterparts. This is not surprising. The post-1992 colleges should be monitored very carefully but should not be criticised unduly because they are pushing the boundaries to admit a broader social group. This must be considered.

There are upsides and downsides to the UK experience. It is true that there are students who are much more highly motivated and focused because of the A level system. However, it should be recognised that there is now a trend, not only in the United Kingdom but also worldwide and certainly in Europe, towards going in and out of higher education because of the necessity to strike a balance between work and family life. This is why continuing and higher education will converge much more and it will certainly be the case in the next ten or 15 years. The issue of retention will become much more complex because there will be a much larger cohort of adult students over the ages of 21 and 25 in higher education. We must, therefore, have suitable financial structures.

One problem we have in the United Kingdom, which the Government has started to address, is that we have been very poor in providing financial support to part-time students, as opposed to their full-time counterparts, in the 18-22 year old cohort. Addressing this is one of the main challenges and it is linked to the point the Chairman and other colleagues made about the demographic gap that exists in terms of skills. This is regarded primarily as a further education issue in the United Kingdom and it will have implications in terms of higher education, certainly from 2010 onwards.

Mr. Carswell

Owing to a conversation I had yesterday, I am very interested in the question of university autonomy. I understand that the Universities Act 1997 established or underwrote that autonomy. Is there a briefing note or information available on this Act?

We can obtain a copy of that for Mr. Carswell.

I thank our visitors, with whom we have had a very informative chat. I know the ushers are waiting to take them to see the Dáil Chamber. I thank them for their time, their assistance in these deliberations and the information they gave us. All members found our discussion quite useful.

Mr. Sheerman

I thank the Chairman for inviting us to attend. If the committee members ever want to come to the United Kingdom to meet us, they will be very welcome.

I thank Mr. Sheerman.

The joint committee went into private session at 11.29 a.m. and adjourned at 11.42 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 6 July 2006.

Barr
Roinn