Further Education and Training Bill 2013: Committee Stage
The meeting has been convened to consider Committee Stage of the Further Education and Training Bill 2013 which was referred to the select sub-committee by an order of the Dáil on 28 Feburary. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills, Deputy Ciarán Cannon, and his officials. It is my intention that the committee will conclude its consideration of Committee Stage of the Bill this afternoon, but if it is not possible to conclude by 3.45 p.m., the committee room has been booked from 10 a.m. tomorrow. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I refer members to the grouping of amendments. Amendments have been grouped as follows: amendments Nos. 1 and 2; amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 19, 22 and 25 to 28, inclusive; amendments Nos. 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21 and 24; amendments Nos. 17 and 18; amendments Nos. 23 and 29 to 37, inclusive; and amendments Nos. 38 to 45, inclusive. All other amendments will be discussed individually.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Amendment No. 1 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Jonathan O'Brien is an alternative to amendment No. 1. If amendment No. 1 is agreed to, amendment No. 2 cannot be moved. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, to delete lines 28 to 32 and in page 6, to delete lines 1 to 6.
The purpose of this amendment is to delete the definition of "further education" from the Bill. As it is currently delivered, further education covers a very broad spectrum, ranging from basic adult literacy and numeracy courses all the way up to courses certified at level 6 and even above, in certain examples, in the national framework of qualifications. It also spans the generations of learners from adult learners to early school leavers. It is delivered in a number of formats in formal classroom settings, in less formal settings in the community and also online in a blended learning method. Essentially, it is a very flexible form of education and needs to be able to meet the diverse needs of learners in the most appropriate setting. That flexibility and innovation in our delivery mechanisms needs to be encouraged and facilitated in the future.
From this very brief description of further education, one can see how difficult it is to define exactly what it is in strict legal terms. There will always be a danger that some element of this increasingly diverse form of education will be excluded from that very narrow and overly prescriptive definition. On the basis of feedback from various groups and on the advice of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, it was decided that the best approach would be not to include that legal definition of further education in the Bill. It is considered that the further education and training strategy, as proposed in section 9, would be a far more appropriate mechanism and the place in which to describe further education in all its iterations and would be less legalistic and more meaningful for those whom we wish to serve through further education.
The definition of "further education" in the Bill is too narrow. We welcome the Minister of State's proposal to define it better later in the Bill rather than having a legal definition of it. We will not, therefore, oppose the removal of the definition. We would like to give a little more thought to this issue to see if we can come up with a definition before Report Stage. We cannot accept the current definition as it is too narrow. I have tried to expand on the definition in amendment No. 2 in my name and can say I found it difficult to do so. Will the Minister of State give a commitment to engage in further discussion before Report Stage with a view to coming up with a definition that will satisfy everyone? If it is not possible to arrive at such a definition, we will need to consider how we can include it in section 9. We will not oppose amendment No. 1. I am willing to withdraw amendment No. 2 if we receive a commitment to engage in further discussion before Report Stage.
The Deputy has suggested the definition might be included somewhere else in the legislation. That is not what we are suggesting.
The Minister of State is talking about using the national strategy to expand on it.
We would like to have a discussion on the matter before Report Stage. We want to have a discussion on how the strategy will include the area of further education and a definition of further education and how it is proposed to use the national strategy to consider an holistic approach to it.
We can certainly have that discussion before Report Stage.
I welcome the Minister of State's proposal to delete the definition. I know from meeting groups interested in the passage of the Bill that this is causing concern because of what it is not, rather than what it is. The amendment is to be welcomed and I support it.
In developing the national strategy, as we are obliged to do in the legislation, there will be significant consultation with all stakeholders in the sector as part of the development process.
Is it appropriate not to have a definition of "further education" in the Bill? Is that not the normal practice? We are discussing the "Further Education and Training Bill 2013" and "further education" is mentioned in other parts of the Bill. While it may be difficult to come up with a definition of "further education", at the same time is it a good idea not to have it defined in the Bill? A strategy is different from a definition. A strategy is not the place in which to define what should be in it. I have a question mark over it. Will there be time to consider this issue again?
The advice we are getting from the Parliamentary Counsel is that not defining the words "further education" at the very beginning of the Bill will not leave a lacuna in the legislation. The Parliamentary Counsel was also supportive of the view that defining "further education" would be overly prescriptive and provide too narrow a definition for the very exciting developments that might occur. On that basis, it was considered that we should consider other options, rather than defining "further education". We are all aware that we have had a number of approaches and representations from various groups involved to have their particular element of further education included as part of the definition. If we were to do this, the definition would become unwieldy and, second, it would negate an opportunity in the future of including other forms of further education provision that may not be apparent to us at this time. We have been advised that not having the definition in the Bill is not an issue in terms of its functioning and that to include it in would be too prescriptive and leave too narrow a window to allow the further education sector to grow and develop.
Has the Minister of State looked at trying to expand the definition initially contained in the legislation?
Yes, there were a number of options of what the definition might look like. In the end the decision was taken that the wisest approach was to completely remove the definition and develop all of the different strands to be incorporated in the development of the strategy. As the strategy is not a legal instrument, it is open to change, reform and development in the future.
I must accept the point the Minister of State is making. Will he clarify the timescale in case there is a possibility to look at this issue again? We should as a matter of policy have a definition of "further education". The Minister of State makes the point that this will be done as part of the national strategy. As a matter of policy, however, there should be such a definition. We should be able to come up with a vision of it, particularly when reports such as the one on lifelong learning and so on are available. There is further education and we know what we have. I feel uncomfortable, therefore, that we do not have in the Bill a definition of "further education".
There were a number of proposed definitions as part of the consultation forum with SOLAS. While I welcome the removal of this particular definition, I agree with the Chairman that we need to have some definition of "further education". I hope we can come up with a definition on which everybody can agree. I am, therefore, willing to withdraw my amendment. I would like to know the timescale that is envisaged for the passage of the Bill.
If we an come up with a definition that is suitable and agreeable to everyone, we should aim to achieve this. How much time will we have before Report Stage to see if we can have that discussion?
It is our ambition to have all Stages passed and the legislation enacted before the summer recess. As to when Report Stage will be taken, that comes down to scheduling. Between now and Report Stage, if a member wishes to submit what he or she considers to be an accurate definition of "further education" that encapsulates all of its forms and that does not rule out any possible development in the future, I will be more than willing to have a look at it. It is our opinion, and the advice we have received is, that to set it out in legislation would be overly prescriptive and narrow the opportunities and decision-making processes in the future. Let us see what emerges from this process and I will be willing to look at such an amendment before Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7
Amendment No. 3 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 19, 22 and 25 to 28, inclusive, are related drafting amendments. They will all be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 10, after "be" to insert "to".
Amendment No. 3 and the others amendments grouped with it are drafting amendments. They do not have any effect on the overall provisions included in the Bill.
I wish to clarify a point with the Minister of State. It is proposed in the amendment, on line 10, after the word "be", to insert the word "to".
That will mean that the word "to" will appear in paragraph (a). Does that mean there will be a doubling up in the use of the word "to" or I am missing a point?
The amendment proposes to add the word in section 7(1) and then, because it is overly cumbersome, to delete it from all subsequent subsections.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, subsection (1)(a), line 11, to delete "to" where it firstly occurs.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21 and 24 are related and they all will be discussed together.
Before I move the amendment, for the purposes of clarity, I wish to make the committee and the Chairman aware that I am considering tabling amendments on Report Stage to deal with a small number of matters. I want to briefly outline those elements as they are required to be raised on Committee Stage in the first instance. There are a small number of amendments that are technical in nature and include provisions relating to the superannuation entitlements of persons transferring from FÁS to SOLAS, the transfer of property rights and liabilities from SOLAS to the ETBs, the functions of SOLAS in regard to reporting progression and legislation impacted on by the dissolution of FÁS. They will be brought forward on Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(b) promote an appreciation of the value of further education and training,".
The purpose of this amendment is to insert a new function in section 7 that will require SOLAS to promote an appreciation of the value of further education and training. Further education and training, to a certain extent, has always been the poor relation in overall education provision. There is a perception that it is not appreciated to the extent that it should be, despite the excellent work that is ongoing in the sector. The strategic approach for promoting an appreciation of further education and training will be contained in the development of the further education and training strategy, as provided for in section 9. The amendment is to insert that new function which will require SOLAS to promote that appreciation of the value of further education and training.
A number of Deputies have tabled amendments in this grouping. Amendment No. 7 is in the joint names of Deputies Áodhán Ó Ríordáin and Charlie McConalogue. Does Deputy Áodhán Ó Ríordáin wish to speak to that amendment?
The amendment speaks for itself. It proposes to insert the words "adult learners" in subsection (1)(b) on line 15. Paragraph (b) would read "to consult with the Minister for Social Protection, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, adult learners and employers from time to time for the purpose of determining which, or which classes of, further education and training programmes should be the subject of advances...". The purpose of the amendment is to provide that if employers are to be consulted - the Minister is obviously to be consulted - service users should also be consulted to ensure there was a full circle of engagement. If employers are to be specifically included, as they should be, surely adult learners should also be included. If we are to have an approach which is generous, open-minded and inclusive, the inclusion of adult learners should be obvious in the subsection.
Does Deputy Jonathan O'Brien, who has tabled a few of the amendments in this grouping, wish to comment?
I agree with what Deputy Áodhán Ó Ríordáin has said, but as well as proposing the inclusion of adult learners, I propose the inclusion of the providers of that form of education.
The issue of community education providers was raised by persons who provide that service. They believe it is important that they are part of the definition in this respect. In many communities there is not only FÁS or the VEC but also local groups which have been established to provide education for Travellers or other groups. They believe it is important that they are included in the list of providers. Does the Minister of State have anything to say about this?
I would like to make a point on this issue and I am jumping into the deep end again on behalf of my colleague. We want to ensure community education providers are named as a provider group in the legislation. They believe it is important that they are included in it. As the Chairman said, the community education sector has been a powerful force in supporting people to engage or re-engage in education, leading to positive benefits both for them and their families, personally and economically. We want to ensure the provision of community education services is secure in the change being made to the further education and training structures. As the Chairman rightly said, the community education sector in all our constituencies has played a pivotal role in the provision of further education for those in society who are less well off and marginalised.
We have all been contacted by the various providers within our constituencies who are concerned that they are not specifically identified in the legislation. Certainly we would support the naming of community education as a provider group within the legislation.
Adult learners, independent providers and the community education sector are all very much part of the overall body of the further education and training sector. However, in the context of framing legislation for a diverse sector such as education and training, it is important to allow for that flexibility and ensure the legislation is all-encompassing. It could prove problematic to try to include a mention of all branches of the sector in the functions of SOLAS. I acknowledge the strong views being expressed on all sides. The intent and the spirit of what is being proposed is laudable. On that basis I undertake to reflect on the suggestions made ahead of Report Stage and will ask my officials to see whether we can provide that acknowledgement of that broad and diverse range of providers in the Bill but in a way that is not overly restrictive. I undertake to consult with members and work with them before Report Stage to see whether we can make that happen with the proviso that it is not overly restrictive. On that basis I ask the Deputies to withdraw their amendments. That discussion will take place before Report Stage with a view to arriving at a form of words that addresses their concerns but does not render the legislation overly prescriptive or restrictive.
I welcome that approach. If the Minister of State is talking about consulting with the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and employers I presume he will be consulting the bodies who represent employers. There is no reason he cannot consult the bodies who represent adult learners or community education. I see nothing to indicate it would be too prescriptive to include it for that section but not to legally define those whom he will contact when he mentions employers. Therefore, it is possible to do it. If he is giving a commitment to do it before Report Stage I will be happy to withdraw my amendment. We may return to the issue if we cannot get agreement on Report Stage.
I am happy to withdraw my amendment on the proviso that we return to the issue before Report Stage. As Deputy O'Brien has said, I do not see why adult learners should be passive anywhere throughout the Bill. They have to be consulted and have to be an integral part of it. If we are mentioning employers in the Bill, that would imply employer organisations, adult learners and those who speak for them and those who know what is best for them, as these are integral to what we are trying to achieve and should be included. I will withdraw the amendment and await a further discussion on the matter. I appreciate the Minister of State's sentiments.
I want to add a few comments in this regard. In regard to adult learners, if the legislation just mentions the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and employers it would appear that further education is about jobs, but it is much more than that. I can understand the concerns expressed. In regard to community education providers, section 7(1)(c) refers to training bodies and other bodies. That could encompass community education providers. What might put that in question is the use of the word "bodies", which appears very official. People may think it is a State agency, whereas community education providers could be a community group. It might not have to include the specific words "community education providers" but it is important that the word "bodies" does not exclude community groups. That is the issue that needs to be examined by the Minister of State.
I will certainly explore that issue. It is not meant to exclude anybody. The word "bodies", as in groups or entities, is perhaps a legal term that is used in drafting legislation, but it is meant to be as inclusive as it can be. I will certainly take the concerns on board.
I welcome that statement from the Minister of State. While I accept it may not be the intention of the Minister of State to exclude any group, certainly there is an element of fear within the community groups that they are being excluded. That is the reason they contacted me and I have no doubt they contacted many other Deputies. That the Minister of State is taking our concerns on board and will explore the issue before Report Stage is welcome.
Are we discussing all the amendments?
I have two other amendments, Nos. 13 and 20, on the issue of community education. I do not know whether the Minister of State has given a commitment in regard to the general functions. My amendment No. 13 seeks the deletion of paragraphs (d) and (e) of section 7 and the inclusion of adult learners and community education providers. I do not know whether the Minister of State has given a commitment to examine the whole area in terms of general functions or whether the commitment was only in respect of section 7(1)(b).
No; it is in terms of all the amendments listed, including the Deputy's amendments.
The Minister of State will return to the whole area of community education provision?
It is not just in respect of section 7(1)(b)?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, subsection (1)(b), line 14, to delete "to".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, subsection (1)(c), line 20, to delete "to" where it firstly occurs.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.
Amendment No. 12 is in the name of the Minister. If this amendment is agreed, amendment No. 13 cannot be moved.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 7, subsection (1)(d), line 24, to delete "(d) to provide," and substitute "(d) provide,".
If amendment No. 12 is agreed, we were planning to withdraw amendment No. 13 on the basis of a commitment from the Minister of State that we would return to it before Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 7, subsection (1)(e), line 27, to delete "to".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are related and will be discussed together. If amendment No. 17 is agreed, amendment No. 18 cannot be moved because it is an alternative to No. 17.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 7, subsection (1), lines 32 to 37, to delete paragraph (f) and substitute the following:
“(f) promote, encourage and facilitate the placement of persons belonging to such class or classes of person as may be specified by the Minister for Social Protection after consultation with the Minister in further education and training programmes that are funded, in whole or in part, out of public moneys,”.
The purpose of this amendment is to amend section 1(f) in order to broaden the cohort of persons who many be placed in our further education and training programmes as part of the activation of the unemployed by the National Employment and Entitlement Service, Intreo. It will remove the restriction that only those on jobseeker's allowance or jobseeker's benefit can be placed in further education and training programmes, as currently provided for in the Bill as part of this activation process. The removal of this restriction will allow persons in receipt of, for example, one parent family payments, disability payments and other benefits to be part of the activation process, as they should be. It will also provide the flexibility for the Minister for Social Protection, after consultation with the Minister for Education and Skills, to determine from time to time the most relevant cohorts of the unemployed to be supported with access to further education and training to meet changing economic needs.
We welcome the amendment, which provides for a lot more flexibility. I do not like the term "placement of persons belonging to such class or classes of persons." The language is not appropriate.
I can see where the Deputy is coming from. We will consult with the parliamentary draftspersons.
We should come up with a better term. I do not like to see any legislation which refers to people based on class.
It is not used in the context of social strata. We will consider whether other words can be used.
We will not oppose it now but it should be examined before Report Stage.
There is a cohort of people who are unemployed and are not receiving jobseeker's allowance because a spouse is working and they are means-tested. In many cases such people are excluded from programmes on the basis that they are not receiving a payment. Will the amendment address that situation?
Yes. It allows the Ministers for Social Protection and Education and Skills to consult and arrive at a conclusion that a particular group of people need support through further education and training provisions. It allows them the flexibility to expand that to any group of people in the future without having the restriction formerly contained in legislation that they must be in receipt of jobseeker's allowance. By removing that restriction both Ministers are empowered to develop a structure to allow those outside the normal groups of people to be supported. It provides flexibility and that is why we are including it.
Is there any way to look at the issue more proactively? There are a group of people who deserve further training in order to get back into the workforce. They are excluded because means-tested payments are not available to them. They need to be supported.
The Bill does not exclude such people; in fact, it is very inclusive. I understand there is ongoing consultation between my Department and the Department of Social Protection on how all classes of people who are challenged by unemployment but are not within the narrow confines of the social welfare protection system can be facilitated.
That is important. There are certain groups of people whose spouses may be working and who may wish to avail of further education or training but are not in receipt of social welfare payments. Such groups need to be catered for.
The reason we tabled the amendment was to provide for that in the future. In principle, it will not be restrictive.
That is a very good point. In my constituency I am aware of many men who worked in construction and were in receipt of social welfare benefits for nine months, but cannot get other allowances because their wives are working. The rule disqualifies them from participating in any scheme. There are initiatives such as Men's Sheds which help to deal with mental health issues affecting men who have worked for decades but in their latter years are unable to find employment or avail of any schemes. I would commend anything that could be done by the Minister of State to ensure such people are eligible for community employment schemes, Tús, SOLAS or retraining. Something should be done to give such people a purpose. Many men who come to my clinic do not complain about money, because their wives are working; rather, they say they have no reason to get up in the morning because they have nothing to do. If the Minister of State could change the system to ensure women and men who want to retrain and be part of worthwhile schemes can be facilitated, that would be commendable.
The Deputy may be aware that a review of how the community employment system operates and facilitates and supports people is currently under way in the Department of Social Protection. If he wants to share his concerns with the Minister, Deputy Burton, I am sure she would be very receptive. The narrow confines of this Bill allow for decisions such as that to be made in the future. It allows more freedom in determining who we support in the future. It was overly restrictive in its first iteration.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
If amendment No. 19 is agreed to, amendment No. 20 cannot be moved. It was discussed with amendment No. 3.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 7, subsection (1)(g), line 38, to delete “(g) to promote” and substitute “(g) promote”.
.
Amendment No. 19 is a technical amendment. It does not deal with the content of the Bill. I cannot understand why agreeing to amendment No. 19 means amendment No. 20 is excluded.
There is no reason for that.
It is a technical matter. Paragraph (g) is being replaced by a new paragraph.
It is going from "to promote" to "promote". Amendment No. 20 also tries to amend a pre-existing paragraph (g). I think that is the reasoning behind it, so it is a very technical reason but it is a good point.
No, it is not. It is actually a bit stupid, to be honest. I am being dead serious.
I know, but if this were on Report Stage and we were deleting a two-letter word, and that prevented any other amendment from being taken-----
It is because of the way it is being done. It is not just the two-letter word. It is the way the amendment was worded; it actually replaced subsection (g) with a new subsection (g).
I know, but in effect we are taking out "to promote" and replacing it with "promote" and because we are doing that we cannot take any other amendment on that section.
Maybe it is just as well it is being done on Committee Stage and not on Report Stage because it allows us to resubmit our amendments on Report Stage.
That is true. Point taken.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 7, subsection (1)(h), line 41, to delete “to”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 29 to 37, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 7, subsection (1)(h), lines 43 to 46, to delete all words from and including “including” in line 43 down to and including “purpose” in line 46 and substitute the following:
“designed to respond to the broad range of needs of learners whether they are on the Live Register or not, including social, cultural and civic development as well as vocational skills”.
The Bill makes no reference to adult literacy and numeracy development. This is a unique opportunity within the current reform of the further education and training to legislate for raising adult literacy and numeracy levels and to reduce or eliminate the huge social, economic and personal costs associated with low literacy levels. Adult literacy was first enshrined in Government policy with the publication of a White Paper on adult education in 2000. The participation in and targets of the new approach to adult literacy outlined in that paper were largely successful. We want to see the creation of an adult literacy and numeracy strategy which would link with the national literacy and numeracy strategy for children and young people to create for the first time a comprehensive and joined-up national approach to literacy and numeracy development for all ages. Based on the submissions we all received, literacy and numeracy development is a key component of the education structure. It is an appropriate time, as part of the reform of further education and training, to legislate for it and set ourselves a strategy and clear targets we have to achieve. Any strategy is only measurable if one has targets which one can measure against. It is an ideal opportunity and it is in that light that we made a number of amendments in this regard.
We are also looking to expand on the functions of the body by including four new subsections. I am sure the Minister has gone over them and will tell me why they are not acceptable. I would be interested in hearing that because, like Deputy Troy, we are looking to expand on the functions, which are too narrow and could be expanded in terms of developing any new strategy further down the line. Could the Minister give us some indication of why the four subsections we are proposing are not being considered? Then I can make a call on whether I want to push them to a vote.
Amendments No. 34 and 37 are similar to the ones we moved in the previous section about bodies representative of adult learners and community and voluntary bodies, so hopefully their spirit will be accepted and we will return to it on Report Stage as needs be.
On amendment No. 30, which I have jointly submitted with Deputy McConalogue, the service would have to "prepare and submit to the Minister a strategy to raise adult literacy and numeracy levels in accordance with section 9". The issue here with adult literacy is that 23% of the adult population of Ireland are functionally illiterate. As a Government and as a society we have to realise that fact in everything we do and every strategy we come up with, and knit into every piece of legislation that goes thorough our hands a strategy to tackle that. We cannot address this problem until we admit there is a problem.
I vividly remember that when I was in opposition and there was controversy over FÁS, the current Minister - then the Labour spokesperson on education - proposed this very thing and it was not accepted by the Government. Now is the time for us to be generous again with our legislation and accept the fact that we do not have an adult literacy strategy in this country. We have an adult literacy crisis. It is not refuted by anybody that 23% of our adult population are functionally illiterate and cannot read this legislation, site notices or instructions on medicine bottles. These are very basic functions that they cannot engage with in their lives. We have consistently, over decades, failed them. Previously FÁS had no adult literacy policy, which was absolutely flabbergasting. We now have the potential to knit into this legislation the construction and submission of an adult literacy policy and this is the time for us to take up that challenge and run with it. I feel very strongly about this and I hope the Minister takes the spirit of the amendment on board and that together, across parties, we can come to terms with the challenges ahead of us and put into this legislation, finally, a strategy to combat this crisis in Irish society.
There is no question that there is a challenge with regard to adult literacy. I have engaged extensively with a number of groups operating in that sphere and they tell me about the challenges that exist. My Department is determined that those challenges will be addressed. This legislation will hopefully underpin and shape the development of a world-class further education and training sector over the next number of years. I want to stress that in its drafting it needs to be as flexible and open-ended as possible. Nobody disagrees for a moment that adult learners, independent providers, the community education sector and those involved in the direct provision of adult literacy programmes are a very important part of the overall further education and training sector.
The advice we are getting is that to make specific reference to that in the legislation would be overly restrictive and prescriptive. The development of that charter, the literacy strategy and the learners' charter, as referred to by Deputy O'Brien, would be best served within the development of the overall strategy when SOLAS comes into being. I have heard the very serious concerns the Deputies have. Both the Minister, Deputy Quinn, and I very much want to see a very strong parliamentary collaborative process under way here in adopting this legislation and the legislation applying to the ETBs. In the spirit of that we will undertake again, between now and Report Stage, to see if the Deputies' concerns can be facilitated within the legislation in some form of words that does not render it overly prescriptive.
We are more than willing to have that conversation with the Deputy between now and Report Stage. I understand his point and I agree we are facing a serious challenge with adult literacy. The issue is how we can best serve and respond to that challenge. We need to be sure that by addressing it, perhaps, in this legislation we do not undermine our ability to deal with it in the future.
We are all agreed on this issue but have different ways of tackling it.
We all want to be at the same place but the challenge is how we get there.
The strategy will be key. That is why we are all being vocal on the inclusion of community education and those representing adult learners. If we do not specify it in the functions for the board, then the strategy will be devalued. I am anxious that this be as inclusive as possible and this can be done by prescribing it in the legislation. If we cannot get it into the legislation, then we need to have the conversation before Report Stage on ensuring the strategy is as holistic as possible and will address as many needs as possible.
For the life of me I cannot see how defining one of the functions of an tSeirbhís Oideachais Leanúnaigh agus Scileanna, SOLAS, could get in the way of its operations.
I understand the Minister's concerns. If the only way for me to advance this is to withdraw the amendment, I will do so and discuss it before Report Stage. If we do not prescribe functions in legislation, however, then they just do not happen. There was much good work done by FÁS and decent people doing a good job on the ground, but there were other services and undertakings that the agency should have been charged with that just did not happen. The very idea that the fundamental further training agency of the State did not have an adult literacy policy was just bizarre, as has been pointed out by the National Adult Literacy Agency, NALA.
Now that we are radically reforming the delivery of further training programmes, not to knit a provision on adult literacy into this legislation is a lost opportunity. We have to state boldly in the legislation that we have an adult literacy problem and that SOLAS will be charged with developing, preparing and submitting to the Minister a strategy to raise adult literacy and numeracy levels. That is not too much to ask. This should be a box-ticking exercise in any sort of legislation of this nature. I understand the argument that such an inclusion may be over-prescriptive, and one wants legislation to be as fluid as possible. However, this is a wonderful opportunity for us to acknowledge and tackle the crisis in adult literacy, a crisis about which no one really wants to talk. Who wants to admit that 23% of our adult population are functionally illiterate? We have to admit to this and find a solution for it. This Bill provides the opportunity to do so.
The spirit of the debate around this Bill has been generous and inclusive. If the Minister can commit to us that we will return to this matter before Report Stage, I will accept the request to withdraw the amendment. However, I do not want him to underestimate how passionate I and other members feel about this issue.
I note when NALA raised the issue with Deputies, it made the point that there is an OECD report due on adult literacy later in the year. Hopefully, the problem will have improved, but it will still be a stark picture. It would be good if the Government were seen to be tackling it through this Bill, a point also made by NALA.
There is no question that the Minister, Deputy Quinn, and I recognise the difficult challenges in adult literacy. When the OECD results come out in October, I hope they will show an improvement in our situation. No one can deny, however, that we have a long road to travel in this.
According to those drafting the legislation, the problem, in a narrow legalistic sense, of singling out adult literacy as one element of the overall development of SOLAS’s strategy means that one would have to list every other element. One would have to forensically go through current further education provision and all the different strands provided in it and then seek to include them in the strategy. That is nigh-on possible to do, as this is a fluid sector in which there is innovation all the time.
The Minister has made several statements in the past about the challenges that exist in both child and adult literacy. He has the powers to direct the board of SOLAS if his concerns about adult literacy and other areas of further education are not addressed. In doing so, he can oblige the board to redraft its strategy and consult with NALA, AONTAS and others involved in adult literacy provision.
I accept there is a symbolism in attaching this function in the legislation. However, at the same time we need to ensure we are not narrowing our options for the future. The spirit and the intent of the Deputies’ points are taken on board and we will see if we can address them within the narrow confines of the legislation before Report Stage.
With all due respect, I do not agree with the Minister of State. It is not about symbolism but about addressing the issue. It is not a question of putting in a provision so we can all sleep well tonight, saying we ticked a box.
If it is not a statement of intent, why does it need to be in the legislation?
Unfortunately, unless one prescribes a function in legislation, more often than not it will not happen. I understand the Minister is extending the hand and we will discuss this matter before Report Stage. However, I do not want him to be under any illusion that because we are withdrawing these amendments we feel any less passionate about the issue.
I am not under that illusion.
My amendment and the others state that literacy and numeracy should be central to training and retraining programmes implemented and co-ordinated by SOLAS, which should be directly linked to and carried out in conjunction with the Government’s national literacy strategy for children and young people. I cannot see any issue with prescribing this in the legislation. The trouble is that if it is not prescribed, someone may not proceed to address this issue. If I am not satisfied with the conversation before Report Stage, I will be resubmitting these amendments on Report Stage and pressing them to a vote. It is not about symbolism.
We have a way forward, which I accept. While symbolism is important, these amendments are not about symbolism. The wording of the amendment states “to prepare and submit to the Minister a strategy to raise adult literacy and numeracy levels.” That is not symbolic. That is a statement of intent and a reasonable objective. There have been plenty of tokenistic symbolic insertions into legislation in the past which have gone nowhere. I am not a fan of them as they do nothing.
However, this is not symbolic, because it asks that the service prepare and submit a strategy to raise adult literacy and numeracy. This seems to me a reasonable objective to insert. If the Minister of State feels it cannot be done today, I will be happy to accept his suggestion that we work together on it for Report Stage. I also question the suggestion that it would be necessary to list every other one also, but we can discuss that. The Minister of State has given us a way forward and I am happy to accept that.
I do not for a moment underestimate how deeply the Deputy feels about this and I will work with him as best I can and meet him as far as I can in the legislation to address his concerns.
We can have something that is a statement of intent and which symbolises the State's response to a challenge that exists in society. If the Deputy believes that statement of intent is vital within the terms of the legislation, we will see whether that can be accommodated. The Minister and I readily acknowledge the challenge that exists in terms of adult literacy and we share the Deputy's passion and concern that the State should respond to that challenge. The challenge concerns how we can best legislate and develop a strategy to respond to it in the future. In doing that, we must ensure we do not restrict our opportunity to respond in a meaningful and effective way in the future. I am sure we can find a middle ground here and I will work with the Deputy to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 8, subsection (1)(i), line 1, to delete “to” where it firstly occurs.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 8, subsection (1)(i), line 3, to delete “for the purposes” and substitute “in respect”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 8, subsection (1)(j), line 5, to delete “to”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 8, subsection (1)(k), line 8, to delete “to” where it firstly occurs.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 29 to 31, inclusive, not moved.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9
Amendments Nos. 32 to 35, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 9, subsection (5), line 6, after “with” to insert the following:
“FET providers including community education providers, employers, adult learners,”.
I am a bit loth to withdraw this amendment because we have already withdrawn a number of amendments concerning the functions of the service. This amendment deals with the preparation of the strategy. The service may, in the course of preparing a strategy, consult with training bodies and providers of further education. I feel strongly that we must expand on this and see no reason we cannot. My amendment calls for consultation with FET providers, including community education providers, employers and adult learners.
If we are to have a conversation on this amendment also, we will have a lot of conversations to deal with between now and Report Stage. It is all well and good to agree to withdraw an amendment on the basis of a proposed conversation, but will we genuinely have a conversation or discussion on this? Are we being given a commitment here that we can have a private meeting of the education committee, attended by the Minister and the drafters of the Bill, at which we can have a serious conversation on the matter, or is it a case in which we withdraw the amendment and we are then given a Report Stage deadline and we end up resubmitting our amendments for Report Stage? Neither I nor anybody else wants to see that happening. We would much prefer to have a private meeting with the Minister and drafters where we can thrash out some of the issues. If we cannot thrash them out, we will resubmit them.
We have withdrawn a lot of amendments here and that is being done in good faith. We talked about the functions and now we are talking about the preparation of a strategy. We cannot afford to let these issues drop. If there is a genuine commitment on the part of the Minister of State to sit down with the education committee in private to look at what is being proposed regarding the inclusion of adult learners and community education providers and if we can have a serious conversation about how this can be included in the legislation, I am willing to withdraw the amendment. However, if we do not get that commitment, there will be a raft of amendments resubmitted on Report Stage and we will have this conversation again. Instead of having votes on Committee Stage, we will have votes in the Dáil. This is not about pushing things to a vote for the sake of a vote; it is about having a serious conversation.
I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that the Deputies are withdrawing these amendments in good faith and I will respond in good faith by saying we will have that meeting in private - all the members, with the Ministers and our officials - to see if we can arrive at a consensus approach.
This has already been discussed, but I used my discretion to allow Deputy O'Brien to contribute here.
I will withdraw the amendment so.
I wish to make a general comment rather than comment on the amendment. Many of the amendments discussed together deal with the same issues. Therefore, while it may seem that many amendments are being withdrawn, just one or two amendments on Report Stage would cover all the issues.
Yes, dealing with the key challenges arising.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 37 not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10
Amendments Nos. 38 to 45, inclusive, will be discussed together.
I will withdraw amendment No. 38 as I presume we will have a conversation on the make-up of the board. If that is the case, I am willing to withdraw the amendments I have submitted in this section.
The Minister might tell us if he is going to accept any of the amendments.
Amendment No. 38 refers to the overall make-up and achieving a gender balance across the board-----
I understand this may not be possible and that there are other legal issues with the amendment. That is why I am willing to withdraw it.
On that basis, there is no need for any further discussion.
Amendment No. 38 not moved.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 9, lines 30 to 41, to delete subsections (3) and (4) and substitute the following:
“(3) Of the ordinary members of An tSeirbhís (other than the person to whom subsection (8) of section 23 applies)—
(a) 7 shall be appointed by the Minister, following consultation by him or her with the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the Minister for Social Protection, from among persons who in the opinion of the Minister have experience of, and expertise in relation to—
(i) matters connected with the functions of An tSeirbhís, or
(ii) matters connected with finance, trade, commerce, corporate governance or public administration, and
(b) 2 shall be appointed by the Minister, following their nomination by the Minister for Social Protection from among persons who in the opinion of the Minister have experience of, and expertise in relation to, the matters referred to in subparagraph (i) or (ii) of paragraph (a).”.
The purpose of the amendment is quite simple - to increase the number of nominations to the board of SOLAS by the Minister for Social Protection from one to two. It also provides that the eligibility criteria that apply to the other members of the board will apply to the nominations of the Minister for Social Protection. As there should be, there will be a strong relationship between SOLAS and the Department of Social Protection in the context of the provision of further education and training to support the activation of the unemployed through the Intreo network of offices throughout the country. Activation of the unemployed is a very high priority for the Government and it is, therefore, considered appropriate that the Minister for Social Protection should be in a position to nominate two members of the board. The amendment is simply to facilitate that.
I note that if this amendment is agreed, amendments Nos. 40 to 42, inclusive, cannot be moved.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 40 to 43, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 10, subsection (6), line 1, to delete “Each” and substitute “Subject to subsection (7), each”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 10, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following subsection:
“(7) Of the ordinary members of An tSeirbhís (other than the person to whom subsection (8) of section 23 applies) first appointed after the commencement of this section—
(a) such 3 members as the Minister shall determine shall hold office for the period of 3 years from the date of their appointment,
(b) such 3 members as the Minister shall determine shall hold office for the period of 4 years from the date of their appointment, and
(c) such 3 members as the Minister shall determine shall hold office for the period of 5 years from the date of their appointment.”.
May I make a point on the amendment?
Yes, although it has already been discussed.
It is proposed that three members, as the Minister shall determine, shall hold office for the period of three years, another three for a period of four years and another three for a period of five years. What criteria will be used to decide who sits for three or five years? Is it solely down to the discretion of the Minister who remains and who does not remain on the board? On what basis will those decisions be made? If he does not have the information today, the Minister of State can come back to me.
On the criteria applying to appointments, the legislation lists a certain number of skills in the areas of, for example, corporate governance and corporate finance that must be served somehow by the overall make-up of the board. The Minister will be the one to determine how that rolling process works. The reason it is in the legislation is to provide for the stability of the board and, at the same time, to continually replenish it with new people and new ideas. That has not been possible in the past and it needs to be made possible in the future. It is proposed that three members of the board will be replaced each year, commencing three years after the establishment. This is common practice on other State boards, including the boards of NAMA, Enterprise Ireland and, indeed, the current FÁS board. It is just to have a replenishing of ideas-----
So from year three on, there will be three new members every year.
Yes, but they will be determined by the Minister.
He will determine which members will no longer sit on the board.
I also wish to seek clarification on this point. Some of the appointments will be for three years, some for four and some for five. Will it be clear from the outset which board members are appointed for three years, which for four and which for five?
It will be made clear at the beginning for each individual on the board.
It will be clear from the outset?
Can board members who are appointed for three years be reappointed after three years?
They can serve a maximum of two terms, so, yes, technically, they can be reappointed.
SECTION 28
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 18, lines 1 to 14, to delete subsections (1) and (2) and substitute the following:
“(1) Save in accordance with any collective agreement negotiated with a recognised trade union or staff association, An tSeirbhís shall accept into its employment on the establishment day each person who immediately before that day was a member of the staff of the dissolved body on such terms and conditions of service relating to remuneration as are not less beneficial than the terms and conditions of service relating to remuneration to which the person was subject immediately before that day.
(2) The terms and conditions to which a person is subject upon his or her becoming a member of the staff of An tSeirbhís in accordance with subsection (1) shall be deemed to have been determined by An tSeirbhís in accordance with subsection (2) of section 27.”.
The purpose of this amendment is to amend the wording of subjection (2) of section 28. The section deals with the terms and conditions of service relating to remuneration that will apply to former FÁS staff who transfer to SOLAS. Again, it is a standard technical provision that is implemented on the transfer of staff from one public sector body to another public sector body. Essentially, it provides that FÁS staff will retain the same terms and conditions in regard to remuneration on transfer to SOLAS.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 29 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 41
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 23, subsection (1), line 9, after “shall” to insert “on and”.
This is a drafting change to ensure continuity for any claims of alleged loss against FÁS on the establishment of SOLAS.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 42
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 23, subsection (1), line 30, to delete “An tSeirbhís” and substitute “the authority”.
This is another drafting change to replace the words “An tSeirbhís” with the words "the authority". It does not have any other impact on the legislation.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 23, subsection (5), line 50, to delete “section 38 or 39” and substitute “section 39 or 40”.
Again, this is a drafting amendment which changes references to sections. It does not have any other effect on the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 42, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 43 to 45, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 25, before section 46, to insert the following new section:
46.—The Freedom of Information Act 1997 is amended by—
(a) the insertion, in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule, of "An tSeirbhís Oideachais Leanúnaigh Agus Scileanna",
(b) the insertion in column (2) of Part I of the Third Schedule of "the Further Education and Training Act 2013", and
(c) the insertion in column (3) of that Part, opposite the mention in the said column (2) of the Further Education and Training Act 2013, of "section 18".".
The purpose of this amendment is to delete section 46 and replace it with the text of this amendment. The amendment will include SOLAS in the list of bodies that are subject to the Freedom of Information Acts. Section 18 of the Bill prevents the disclosure of confidential SOLAS information by staff and other persons. This amendment will also provide that there is no conflict in law regarding a member of the public accessing this information where appropriate under the Freedom of Information Acts.
I am looking at the original section. What was wrong with it? Was it because it did not mention it in English? I think the original section just had the Irish version. Was the fact that it did not have the English translation the issue? It is a completely new section, but why was it needed? Was it because it left out the English wording?
It was not sufficiently strong enough to allow for the freedom of information provision to operate effectively in the context of SOLAS.
I noticed that the original section had only the Irish version of the name of the authority and did not have the English name. The amendment has the English name so I thought that might be the issue.
Does anyone have any comments or questions? Acceptance of the amendment will involve the deletion of section 46 of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 46
Question proposed: "That section 46 be deleted."
With the insertion of the new section, will section 46 become section 47?
We have inserted a new section 46 but we must delete the old one. I am putting the question that section 46 stand part of the Bill but we must say "no" if we want to delete it.
Question put and declared carried.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Does anyone have any further comments?
The meeting to discuss the withdrawing of amendments will probably be twice as long as the meeting to discuss the Bill. Let us clear an afternoon.
That is fair enough. Is the Minister of State happy?
I thank the Deputies for their heartfelt contributions. The spirit in which they withdrew their amendments is very much recognised by the Minister and me. It will be a long meeting but, hopefully, a productive one.
I thank the Minister of State, his officials and those in the public gallery for attending and the members for their contributions.
Bill reported with amendments.
