asked the Minister for Education if she will elaborate further on her proposals contained in the Green Paper entitled Partners in Education with regard to the powers, responsibilities and functions of LECs; and if she will comment further on her statement as contained in the first sentence of paragraph 5 of that document.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Green Paper on Education.
1.
The functions of the LECs as set out in the Green Paper fall into three categories. The first relates to schools, the second to other services such as youth and adult education and the third to the public library service. The general powers and functions of VECs relating to continuation and vocational education as contained in the Vocational Education Acts would be transferred to the LECs.
I said in launching the Green Paper that I saw the role of the LECs as essentially one of co-ordination and delivery of services, both educational and other. It would not be appropriate at this stage to set out an exhaustive list of functions and responsibilities but I can say that each LEC would be charged with ensuring, in conjunction with my Department, that its area is well served in terms of second-level education, including a schools welfare service, and also in relation to other services such as youth, adult education and training. Accordingly, LECs would carry out all the functions necessary to meet that remit.
It will be clear, therefore, that there are two main prongs to the proposals in relation to local education structures the co-ordination of the effective delivery of post-primary education and training services at local level and the delivery of a range of services in the whole further education area.
The Green Paper contains proposals also in relation to the future management of the regional technical colleges. The LECs will have a funding function in relation to these colleges, the boards of management of which will be sub-committees of the LECs.
The proposals which are contained in the Green Paper are of tremendous importance for the future of Irish education and I have emphasised that it is my wish that full opportunity should be given to all of the interests involved to make known their views. I have, accordingly, arranged for the distribution of the Green Paper to all of these interests and my Department will shortly be inviting them to preliminary meetings at which any explanations or clarifications sought will be provided. Thereafter, we will be asking all the relevant interest groups to submit their views in writing by a specified date which will give them reasonable time for consideration and discussion among themselves. When the written views have been considered in the Department further meetings on the substance of the issues involved will be arranged.
I would appeal again to all to give these issues serious and balanced consideration so that in the final analysis when I go back to Government with definite proposals I will have the benefit of our combined wisdom in order that we may do what is best for the advancement of the service being provided for all of our people.
I should like to address two questions to the Minister. I am very concerned in relation to paragraph 5 (a) which deals with the provision, planning and development of second level education. It was that sentence that prompted my question. Is the Minister clear what she means in relation to devolution? It appears by implication that the thrust of her document points towards devolution. Given the terms and provisions she proposes in the LEC structure, how can she expect adequate long-term planning and co-ordination?
I have no difficulty in thinking we will have adequate co-ordination in the long term planning with the co-operation of LECs——
Does the Minister mean long term planning from her Department?
I mean the long term planning for the educational services. The main thrust of the Green Paper is to involve all the educational interests in the long term planning and provision of educational services in their areas so that we will have a genuine co-operative system involving interests that do not appear at the moment on vocational education committees. I am sure the Deputy is well aware they are having problems with the effective delivery of the educational services.
For example, one of the unfortunate results of having five different management structures at second level has been the fact that there have been disputes when several small schools needed improvements of a major nature. There have been discussions in local communities about the kind of school best suited for the future planning and development of educational services for young people. Unfortunately the delivery of those services to the young people has run into a layer between the Department and the young people when there was a dispute between different management structures and that kind of squabble was certainly an effective barrier to the delivery of services at local level. The result was that children suffered. This has been pointed out in this House on other occasions. Most people would agree that is a big problem. In bringing all the educational interests together to discuss these areas and by having local education councils represented on the boards of each school, we will achieve a breakthrough in this area.
Will the Minister not agree that it would be better to call this paper a rationalisation document? There is nothing against rationalisation because in many instances, and particularly in education, it would be good. However, it is a faulty argument for the Minister to put forward here, that her document is concerned with full partnership in education at all levels. Is it not the case that rationalisation is the main thrust of this document? Is it not the case that the Minister will hide behind that in the non-delivery of these services to the consumers, particularly in face of the massive cutbacks?
The Deputy is totally ignoring the many services that must be delivered throughout the educational sphere. I should be very sorry if I thought the Deputy had forgotten such items as the great expansion in adult education, the great work done by the Costello Youth Committee in terms of youth services, which report is at present before the Government——
What about answering the question? The Minister is dodging it.
I am answering the question. Apparently the Deputy does not want to see these new services provided for anyone in the educational system because she does not want to see any progress. Perhaps that is not what she means.
The document is a cop-out.
On a point of order——
It is not a point of order. It is very difficult to have a point of order at Question Time.
On a point of order, how can the Minister say I do not want to see any improvement in the educational services?
That is argument.
The Minister is introducing a note of contention into Question Time. She is very prickly.
Perhaps the Chair could prevail on the Minister to be less contentious and inflammatory in her remarks.
I should like to appeal to Deputies. This is a discussion document and it would not be possible to discuss it at Question Time.
The Minister gave a long scéal——
I am moving to the next question.
I asked only one supplementary question.
I must insist that we do not have any speeches at Question Time.
I am glad of that.
I asked the Minister some questions but I did not get an answer.
They were answered.
The provisions she outlined, despite how well articulated they may have been, do not take account of the number of criteria that have been used on educational grounds in the VEC system. For example, will she agree that the principle of transferability of staff would not be envisaged given the powers for planning and development of education? Perhaps it is the case that I have misinterpreted the word "development". If that is so, will the Minister not agree that any arrangements the LECs would have powers or functions to make in this area would be based on convenience rather than on sound educational grounds?
I reject totally the last statement made by the Deputy. The question of transferability of staff and a myriad of other matters will be discussed at the proper time in the discussion document by the interest groups involved in the question of staff transfers. We will proceed towards final proposals to Government after full discussion. I reject totally what the Deputy has said. I am not the person who is introducing a note of contention.
I am moving to the next question.
This is a very serious matter. The Minister has proposed radical changes——
This is a major matter. It deals with the Green Paper. I ask Deputies to accept what the Chair has said, that it is not practical to go into the merits and demerits of a discussion paper at Question Time. That is not sensible. I have called Question No. 2 and I ask the Minister to answer it.
I find the approach of the Chair rather defensive of the Minister and of her refusal to address the issues.
The Deputy should not say that. We have spent ten minutes on this question.
This is not the first time I have experienced this treatment. Every time I stand up to ask a question I am faced with the same kind of approach. I am not pleased with it.
The Deputy should not make any reflections on the Chair. Question No. 2.