The Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach has an announcement in respect of this item.
Private Members' Business. - Green Paper on Education: Motion (Resumed).
It is proposed that notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Orders Private Members' Business shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. this evening.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The following motion was moved by Deputy Hussey on Tuesday, 16 June, 1987:
"That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to implement the proposals of the Green PaperPartners in Education published in November, 1985.”
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute:
"Dáil Éireann notes the proposals contained in the Green PaperPartners in Education published in November, 1985 and also notes the Government's intention to give full consideration to the proposals in coming to any decisions in this regard.”
—(Minister for Education).
I hope to share the rather limited time available to me with Deputy Madeline Taylor-Quinn and Deputy Dinny McGinley.
Last evening before I moved the Adjournment of the debate on the Private Members' Business I had time to make a few general remarks about the Green Paper, Partners in Education. I commend our present spokesperson on Education, Deputy Gemma Hussey, for reintroducing the Green Paper on to the Order Paper. She is doing a service to education in general and I compliment her for that.
I was not here for the Minister's full contribution but I read it twice. She was a little too dismissive and perhaps too arrogant in her approach to the Green Paper, Partners in Education. The whole thrust of this paper lies in its subtitle, “Serving Community Needs”. The then Minister for Education, Deputy Hussey, introduced it for the sole purpose of giving the community better value for the money spent in education at post-primary level, particularly at VEC and regional college level. It is with that in mind that this Green Paper was initiated and produced. Much time, energy, money, thought and research has gone into its production. It is a good thing for education that unlike many reports and many other Green Papers and White Papers it was not just left to gather dust on the shelves. Deputy Hussey has resurrected it and brought it to the attention of the House, of the Minister and of the Department so that the very salient facts and advantages of it can be discussed again and, I hope, implemented.
The whole purpose of the Green Paper was to stimulate discussion and debate so that the students, the Department and the country will get the best value for the taxpayers' hard earned money. In the production of the Green Paper there was no question of steam-rolling public opinion. There was to be consensus and the most wide-ranging consultative process was to be used to get all those who are involved in the educational field to work together on an equal basis so as to produce the best possible programme of education for our young people.
The Green Paper had to be produced because latterly a number of reports emanated from various sections. There was a report on adult education the main thrust of which was the establishment of local adult education committees. The Green Paper addressed itself to that aspect. Likewise, there was a report of the National Youth Policy Committee and that also suggested that local youth committees would be established and that the members of those committees would eventually find a place on the boards of management of local education councils and RTCs. Various other new developments in education have indicated that a Green Paper was absolutely necessary. I regret that the Minister is not here to hear my remarks and that she was not a little more constructive in her approach to this matter because after all it was not just the brainchild of the then Minister for Education but the combined wisdom of all the members and staff of the Department of Education that produced this very fine paper.
I agree with the Minister when she says that the Vocational Education Act, 1930, has stood well the test of time. It is flexible and adaptable. It is a backhanded tribute to the then Cumann na nGaedheal Government in 1930 that they could produce an Act that still has a rightful place in the educational system 57 years later. Any Act 57 years old needs renewal and it was from that point of view that the Green Paper was published.
Two of the central themes of the Green Paper was to have a more decentralised and a more democratic approach to education. It was to effect education at local level where the people who were best aware of local conditions could make a worth-while contribution. It was also to give a more democratic approach to education, to widen and broaden the scope for participation by parents, teachers, industrialists, trade unionists and all others who would have a constructive role to play in the formation of an educational policy. It is from that aspect that I commend the Green Paper, Partners in Education, to the House. There are also other aspects but time will not permit me to elaborate on them.
Part 2 of the Green Paper deals specifically with regional technical and other colleges. At present there are nine RTCs in the country. These were first mooted in May 1963 and even though they were established more recently than the vocational schools they could do with revamping in the light of educational developments and of advances that have been made in the technological and educational fields and in every field. When the regional technical colleges were conceived they were built around post-primary schools and the concept of post-primary education. We have seen an evolvement in the RTCs and now they have aspired to third level education. Many diploma and degree courses are now being run in regional technical colleges.
The Green Paper recommends on page 24, paragraph (ii) that: "The RTCs and the Limerick College to be reconstituted so that each would have a much expanded and more independent Board of Management." That would be a good thing. It states that the board would be a sub-committee of the appropriate LEC or VEC and therefore it would still remain under the aegis of either the LECs that were implemented or the VECs as they are presently constituted. There is food for thought there. The Minister and her advisers could have another look at the summary of recommendations and see if they could, in the future, reintroduce another Green Paper with this one as a basis. As I said initially, much time, expertise, money and research went into the production of this paper and it would be a pity if it was to be dismissed off handedly by any Minister for Education. It would be a great disservice to our young people and to those who are genuinely concerned and involved in education.
Finally, in giving way to my two colleagues, I urge the House to accept the Green Paper, Partners in Education. The subtitle “Serving Community Needs”, is appropriate because the Green Paper serves the needs of the community in a much better fashion than the 1930 Act or than the RTCs as established in May 1963.
Sílim go bhfuil socraithe an t-am a roinnt idir triúr againn, an Teachta Griffin, an Teachta Madeline Taylor-Quinn agus mé féin, má tá sé sin ceadaithe.
Tá sé sin aontaithe.
Sílim gur tráthúil an t-am é seo leis an Pháipéar Glas a d'fhoil igh an t-iar Aire Oideachais a phlé anseo. Tá sé dhá bhliain beagnach anois ó foilsíodh é agus bhí gá go ndéanfadh iad siúd a bhfuil plé acu le oideachas scrúdú air.
An chéad chúis go bhfuil deacrachtaí móra i gcúrsaí oideachais, san Roinn Oideachais cosúil le gach Roinn eile, ná go bhfuil ganntanas airgid agus gearradh siar sa Roinn. Sílim gur ceann des na moltaí fiúntacha san pháipéar ná an iarracht atá ann úsáid níos fearr a bhaint as an airgead a chuirtear ar fáil.
Deir an páipéar go bhfuil iar-bhunoideachas ar fud na tire scoilte suas i mórán páirteanna. Cuir i gcás i gceantair áirithe sa tír tá scoileanna cuimsitheacha agus scoileanna pobail, coláistí pobail, meán scoileanna agus mar sin de. Go minic i gceantar amháin b'fhéidir go bhfuil cúpla scol ag déanamh an rud céanna agus gan aon chomhoibrú eatarthu.
Ceann des na moltaí atá sa pháipéar agus ceann a chuaigh go mór in a luí orm féin ná go ndéanfaí an 38 coistí gairmoideachais atá ar fud na tíre agus a chosnaíonn £11 mhilliún sa bhliain chun iad a reachtáil, a chur ar ceal agus in a n-ionad go mbeadh comhairlí áitiúla oideachais, 13 ar fad agus go mbeadh na scoileanna seo go léir a luaigh mé faoina gcúram. Moladh eile sa pháipéar ná go mbeadh ionadaíocht ar na comhairlí seo — suas le 32 duine ar fad — ag gach dream a bhaineann le hoideachas agus le traenáil aosa óig. Chomh maith leis sin bheadh bord bainistíochta ag gach scoil.
Tá a fhios agam ó mo dháilcheantar féin na deacrachtaí a chothaigh sé seo sna blianta a chuaigh thart: cuir i gcás, b'fhéidir go mbeadh cúpla seanscol i mbaile agus go bhfuil gá le foirgnimh úra. Bíonn sé iontach deacair go minic comhoibriú agus tuiscint a fháil idir na scoileanna ansin. I mo dháilcheantar féin i mBéal Átha Seanaigh, tá trí scoileanna: tá an clochar ansin atá ag déanamh anchuid oibre; tá an gairmscoil agus Coláiste de la Salle ansin — níl na bráithre ann faoi láthair ach tá an coláiste ann go fóill agus daltaí agus míle nó dhó thíos an bóthar tá Bun Dobhráin. Tá sé an-deacair ar fad comhoibriú agus aontú logánta a fháil ar cad é an rud is fearr a dhéanamh sa cheantar sin.
Mar a dúirt mé, tá airgead gann de thairbhe cúrsaí eacnamaíochta, agus i gceantair mar sin b'fhéidir go mbíonn na fearaistí céanna ag gach scoil, seomra adhmadóireachta, seomra miotalóireachta, seomra eolaíochta agus mar sin de, trí cinn sa mbaile amháin, agus mar atá cúrsaí airgid anois ní shílim go dtig linn leanúint ar aghaidh le rudaí mar sin. Ceann des na cuspóirí sa Pháipéar Glas a chuir an t-iar-Aire, an Teachta Hussey, an oiread sin oibre ann ná deireadh a chur leis an chineál seo anchaithimh.
Ba cheart go mbeadh tuiscint ag na coistí áitiúla oideachais ar an saghas oideachais a bheadh ag teastáil ó dhaoine in a gceantar féin. Cúpla lá ó shin léigh mé sa pháipéar, cuir i gcás anseo i mBaile Átha Cliath go bhfuil an Coiste Gairm Oideachais cheana féin i ndiaidh sampla a thabhairt dúinn cad is féidir a dhéanamh. Chuir siad cúrsa maisiúcháin ar bun. Smaoineamh an-mhaith é sin mar éinne gur maith leis cúrsa i maisiúchán go dtí seo, chosnódh sé £2,000 é a dhéanamh go príobháideach agus tá an Coiste Gairm Oideachais i mBaile Átha Cliath ag cur cúrsaí ar fáil fá choinne é sin a dhéanamh faoin a gcúram féin.
Rud ba mhaith liomsa a fheiceáil nuair a bheimid ag plé an pháipéir seo agus á chur in bhfeidhm, tá súil agam sna blianta atá romhainn, ná gur cóir smaoineamh ar na deacrachtaí oideachais atá i gceantair Ghaeltachta. Bhí sé molta sa pháipéar 13 chomhairle a chur ar fáil, agus sílim gur fiú cuimhneamh ar cheantair Ghaeltachta a thabhairt le chéile ó Dhún na nGall, Maigh Eo, Gaillimh, Ciarraí, Corcaigh, Contae na Mí, go Port Láirge agus ceann des na coistí seo a chur ar bun a dhéanfaidh scrúdú ar an saghas oideachais atá ag teastáil ó mhuintir na Gaeltachta agus clár a dhéanamh amach a rachadh i bhfeidhm agus a bheadh fóirsteanach don chineál oideachais atá ag teastáil uathu sa Ghaeltacht.
Tá deacrachtaí móra ag muintir na Gaeltachta. Tá deacrachtaí acu i dtaobh, b'fhéidir, múinteoirí a fháil a bhfuil na cáilíochtaí cearta acu agus gur féidir leo teagasc a thabhairt i nGaeilge. Ba chóir smaoineamh ar cheann des na coistí seo a chur ar bun a mbeadh freagarthacht acu fá choinne oideachas a thabhairt do mhuintir na Gaeltachta. Níl sé luaite sa Pháipeár Glas ach is fiú aird a thart air.
B'féidir go mbeadh páirt le glacadh i gcúrsaí oideachais chomh maith ag Údarás na Gaeltachta, mar tá baint acu le gach ceantar Gaeltachta de bharr forbairt tionscail, agus tá tuiscint acu ar an Ghaeltacht.
Moladh eile atá sa Pháipéar Glas ná i dtaobh chigireachta. Aontaím go gcoinneofaí an chigireacht taobh istigh den Roinn agus go mbeadh seasamh náisiúnta acu, agus in ionad cigirí a bheith ag na comhairlí seo, go mbeadh comhairleoirí oideachais acu, is é sin daoine a rachas thart go dtí na scoileanna agus a thabharfas comhairle agus cuidiú agus treoir dos na múinteoirí nuair a bhíonn gá lena leithéid.
Tá go leor eile go mba mhaith liom a rá ach sílim gur mian le mo chomhleacaí, An Teachta Taylor-Quinn, labhairt sna cúpla bomaite atá fágtha. Arís, ní raibh mé anseo fá choinne éisteacht leis an méid a bhí le rá ag an Aire aréir ach de réir tuairiscí sílim go raibh sí patuar maidir leis na moltaí atá sa pháipéar. Cuireadh a lán smaoineamh agus oibre isteach ann. Tá go leor molta ag dul don iar-Aire, an Teachta Gemma Hussey, a d'fhoilsigh é dhá bhliain ó shin, agus is mór an trua nár ghlacadh an seans é a scrúdú go mion agus é a phlé.
An Teachta Taylor-Quinn. Tuigeann an Teachta go gcaithfidh sí éirí as nóiméad roimh a hocht.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Green Paper. I thank Deputy Griffin for sharing his time with me. This is a very important document and I am rather disappointed at the attitude the Minister adopted in her speech last night. The former Minister for Education must be complimented on her initiative and progressive approach. It has been recognised throughout the educational field that Deputy Hussey was a Minister of initiative, courage and determination who set about preparing our educational system for the eighties and into the next century.
Education is extremely important for the future of our young people and unless we adopt a progressive approach to bring us into line with the rest of Europe, our young people will not be properly equipped to compete in a more integrated Europe.
Evidently the Green Paper was presented because of the concern of the Minister and the Department at the time about the overall structure, particularly in regard to second and third level education, with emphasis on the management of the RTCs. I commend the document to the House and hope the Minister will see fit to implement many of its proposals. In the past 20 years, second level education has changed with the coming on stream of more community colleges and comprehensive schools. As well, we have the traditional secondary schools and vocational institutions. There are many types of schools taking care of secondary education. Some secondary schools are now adopting technical subjects and the vocational schools are taking in more academic subjects, with the result that many of them are at cross-purposes, resulting in much wasteful overlapping of finance, teachers and management.
The recommendations in the Green Paper are very commendable. It recommended that 13 LECs be developed throughout the country. The Minister now in office should look at the boundaries. She may not agree totally with the suggested boundaries, but the basic principle is commendable. There will be one authority catering for the particular needs of the different regions. Especially in rural Ireland, there have been calls to amalgamate vocational schools, traditional secondary schools, Christian Brother schools and convents. There are difficulties. Amalgamation of management rather than of educational requirements of the areas would be retrogressive for young people who have very specific educational requirements. If the LECs were put into operation they could ensure that the structure of the education services could be improved. In many towns throughout Ireland we have one second level institution providing a very extensive educational curriculum and the young people are being discriminated against because amalgamation has not taken place on many schools.
Some social grades get more discriminated against than others.
I agree. Under the LECs the board would employ the CEO and the administrative staff. One suggestion concerns me. It relates to the employment of teachers and it is suggested it would be left to the boards of management of individual schools. I think that would be unwise. I suggest that specific instructions would be given to the boards of management that the teachers' terms of employment would be protected as they now are by the Department. The Green Paper does not go into detail in that regard but I am sure the Minister had it in mind and I hope the Department will consider it in detail when the decision is taken in regard to the LECs.
I hope the Minister for Education will be whole-heartedly behind the proposals in this document so that there will be local education committees in the different regions.
The second part of the Green Paper deals specifically with the RTCs and other colleges. I do not welcome that section because at present the boards of management of the RTCs are governed by section 21 of the Vocational Education Act, 1930. Sub-committees of 12 are set up from the VECs of the different areas to manage the RTCs. It is regrettable that heads of RTCs have to refer back to the local CEO for sanction for expenditure and in relation to maintaining progress in the respective colleges. It is my belief that members of VECs have very little to offer in the educational development of RTCs and therefore the less influence they have in running the RTCs the better. Over the years the RTCs have become very professional and have progressed enormously in modern technology, VECs were well able to provide good technical education in the thirties.
It is recommended that college councils would work in the respective colleges. I would like to see greater representation of students on these councils and on boards of management. In relation to RTCs we are now talking about students who have reached the age of majority and who are masters of their own destiny and therefore should have a greater input in their educational future and partake more in the management of the colleges at third level.
It is recommended that the Dublin Institute of Technology would be constituted as an independent institution. This would be done by legislation. This is highly commendable but I suggest that the other RTCs and the Limerick college should be similarly constituted to make them completely independent of the VECs. RTCs have progressed so much at this stage that they merit complete autonomy from the VECs, though I would allow one or two members from the VEC in each area to have ex-officio membership on the boards of management. Otherwise, I would not give them too much influence in regard to the future of the RTCs. I was very disappointed to learn that the Minister had decided to abolish the Youth Services Board set up to assist the VECs. It was a retrograde step. The fact that the Minister has decided to do otherwise is a bad move at this time. I am looking to the Minister for a gleam of light and a more positive approach to education.
The Deputy will have to listen to him rather than speak to him because her time is now up. I am calling the Minister of State.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on these important issues which are fundamental to our education structures.
Yesterday the Minister mentioned that the proposals in the Green Paper clearly failed to achieve a consensus. The reservations about the proposals in the paper came from right across the education spectrum — the primary area and all sections of the post-primary area. The variety of the reservations expressed is too wide for me to spell out here, but it stresses the necessity for the further consideration for review for dialogue and for negotiation, which the Minister already talked about, before any firm proposals could be made.
Without goodwill and co-operation from all those who would be affected, no plans will work irrespective of how effective they may be. Deputy Hussey in her arguments reinforced the points made by the Minister, that the many divergent responses to the Green Paper which she, as Minister for Education, received were a clear indication of the difficulties of implementing the proposals of the Green Paper. As framed in the Green Paper, implementation of these proposals would have been an impossible task. Yet Deputy Hussey is calling on the Government to implement these proposals as they stand something the previous Administration failed to do.
Deputy Hussey placed a lot of emphasis on the fact that it was not anticipated that substantial additional current expenditure would arise on foot of the proposals to establish local education councils as there were enough compensatory factors in the proposals. This is a very doubtful statement. Take, for example, the proposals to delegate to the local education committees the functions of the payment of teachers' salaries and second level capitation grants.
With the exception of vocational teacher salaries all teacher salaries and pensions are paid centrally from the Department of Education by an extremely cost effective system. The same applies to the second level capitation grants. To argue that 13 different payroll and grant paying systems would be more cost effective than a large central system when there are identical rates of payment seems to me to be a very doubtful proposition. At the same time it would be necessary to maintain a structure within the Department to maintain and update such items as pensions legislation, pay regulations, and so forth. If you will permit me to divide my time with Deputy Liam Fitzgerald, I wish to move on to youth services which were referred to by Deputy Hussey last evening in the context of the establishment of the local education councils and by Deputy Taylor-Quinn this evening in the context of the establishment of the local youth service boards.
I believe that the most efficient and most effective delivery of youth services takes place in the context of a voluntary movement of adults and young people. The youth service in Ireland has always been characterised by its voluntary nature. This has permitted innovative and rapid responses to changing circumstances and needs. Indeed, the voluntary nature of our youth service has often been held up as a desirable model to be emulated by countries with highly developed statutory provision for young people.
On taking up office, and even while in opposition, I was concerned that this voluntary provision was in danger of being submerged in unnecesary and costly bureaucratic structures. There was a real possibility that an over reliance on institutions of the State would inhibit innovation and instead of responding to real needs these structures would become ends in themselves, losing sight of the very reason they were created.
For this reason our Government decided not to proceed with the local youth service boards as they mainly constitute the setting up of a further administrative structure. We need anything but further administrative structures. What we need is an innovative and developmental approach to the youth services and to give assistance to people at the coal face of youth work. The central strategy in our proposals is to set up local youth service councils which will not cost the Exchequer anything.
The Government decided, therefore, that the policy of the previous Government, especially in relation to the establishment of statutory local youth service boards would be discontinued and the whole question of support and delivery of youth services would be re-examined.
I want to stress that while that is the central change we have made, we are quite happy with the contents of the Costello report and we are prepared to go along with almost all the recommendations in the report, subject to consideration of certain minor aspects. It is not our intention to delay the production of any further reports, policy documents or further consideration using delaying tactics. We are anxious to implement the recommendations of the report, with the exception of the local youth service boards because we do not feel they will assist in the local youth service provisions without the necessary resources, estimated by Costello at about £20 million. In brighter days ahead when that kind of money is available for youth services, we can look at such a proposal.
The object of this re-examination is not to embark on a negative exercise. Its objective is to try to create the proper atmosphere in which volunteerism in the youth work service will be encouraged, not only as a means of providing important leisure and personal development opportunities for young people and adult leaders, but also as a means of encouraging development of community leadership and participation in resolving the issues and problems surrounding any community. It was the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, who, as Minister of State, initiated the principle of supporting volunteerism with an input of professionalism. That is the central plank in the promotion of our policies. We want to promote a comprehensive youth service built on the principles of volunteerism which will be the establishment and development of local voluntary youth councils. I am already working on this process and invite representatives of all interested groups to work with me to help map out the future for the youth service. I hope to be in a position shortly to announce certain initiatives with regard to the setting up of those local youth service councils.
Youth work is educational. It is concerned with the development of the person and it takes place normally in a voluntary, out of school and leisure environment. It goes without saying, therefore, that the educational establishment, at local and national levels, must be sympathetic to the cause of youth work. In many respects, youth work is complementary to the formal educational environment. It is neither subservient to it, nor totally independent of it. In this context the voluntary youth service must be in a position to tap into the more formal side of education. At local level this means that the expertise and back-up which can be provided by vocational education committees, or by other youth serving agencies, must be available to and utilised by the youth service.
I want to conclude by referring to our initiatives in regard to disadvantaged young people. The most important aspect of our youth policy will be to implement several aspects of our youth policy as they affect disadvantaged and disaffected young people. We are concerned that there is a growing gap between the haves and the have nots. We are committed to putting resources into areas which affect young people and are the cause of disaffection and disadvantage and lead to crime and vandalism. I am thinking of areas such as homelessness, absence from school, absence from reasonable training and work opportunities, especially in the inner city areas and the more deprived areas of this city.
Is that why the grants were cut?
We have not cut the grants. In fact we have ensured that they stay at last year's level.
The grants were cut for the disadvantaged right across the board.
We have not cut the grants for the disadvantaged. That is an incorrect statement because we have not yet announced what the grants for the disadvantaged are.
The Minister has the opportunity to announce them now.
A sum of £220,000 has been taken——
I suggest that Deputy Hussey hold her fire until such time as we make those announcements.
I will remind Deputy Hussey that I will have the pleasure of calling her at 8.15 p.m. and that she should not interrupt.
When we make provision for disadvantaged young people the Deputy will be pleasantly surprised at the outcome.
I hope so.
I dtosach báire ba mhian liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Aíre Stáit as ucht cúpla nóiméad a thabhairt dom.
I was going to concentrate on the Dublin Institute of Technology, one of the issues referred to and about which very little seems to be known. However, in view of the number of things that have been said, I must respond to some of the wild, sweeping statements made in relation to VECs. According to some speakers this VEC monster seems to be strangling the educational system and to be persona non grata with some people who think it should be pushed out of existence. We must talk a little about what VECs have been doing. An explanation needs to be given to those who do not know the meaning of vocational education, how it has contributed to the needs of urban and rural communities and responded so positively, caringly and effectively to the commercial and industrial sector.
In supporting the amendment put forward by the Minister, I am quite curious as to the motive of the spokesperson for Fine Gael in putting down a motion seeking an endorsement from the Government of her Green Paper. My curiosity is aroused by her failure as Minister to have her own Government adopt this Green Paper when there were people in the Cabinet who wanted and succeeded in having it thrown out. To put it mildly, it is baffling that the Government are now being called on by the former Minister to endorse the Green Paper. It is very clear to anyone involved in education or acquainted with the educational structures and services that a review and constant re-examination of the system is not alone desirable but, in certain instances, essential. It is an ongoing process and the Department and the Minister need to have that process firmly under control and to have a clear understanding of what it involves. Sadly, however, it seems that decisions can be made and the process adopted in haste while ignoring all the partners involved in education.
Education is about partnership and if we do not accept that central concept we will not get very far with educational reform. It is grandiose to come up with high-falutin statements and radical comments every now and again; we all love to do it and I enjoy doing it around committee tables and occasionally in the Dáil Chamber. However, it is sadly misleading and lacking in understanding for a Deputy or Minister to make decisions involving radical changes in educational structures while totally ignoring the involvement, essential goodwill and co-operation of the partners. Over the past few years, we have seen more than one of those examples.
A number of fine and laudable objectives have been stated in the Green Paper and, as someone who has been involved in education for 14 or 15 years, I acknowledge that. Some of those objectives are to make the administrative structures within the educational system more centralised, to make their responses more flexible, to devolve to local bodies matters affecting their welfare and development, etc., to achieve a degree of community orientation, to improve regional and local co-ordination and so on. They are lovely phrases and include concepts like decentralisation, devolution and other matters. However, when you examine those concepts and pitch them against the proposed structures, it is obvious there is a very serious mismatch between the fine aspirations and the mechanisms of the proposed structures. I commend the wisdom of the Minister in not simply adopting a document which, to put it mildly, is at least flawed.
The Dublin Institute of Technology was referred to by Members who showed a total lack of understanding of what they have achieved, the recognition they have enjoyed not alone from educational institutions but from professional organisations outside this State. People have come from Britain and Europe to ask the Dublin Institute of Technology, under the aegis of the City of Dublin VEC, to take on courses to provide graduates. I want to make a number of other points——
I am sorry, Deputy, your time is up.
I wanted to address some of those issues, unfortunately I do not have time.
I should like to thank my colleagues for their contributions to this debate on a very important subject, in particular my Fine Gael colleagues who divided their time so efficiently and who spoke so eloquently. I am sorry that some Opposition parties were not in the House last evening to hear the first part of the debate and that we have not been able to hear from them——
Some of us were here longer than the Deputy.
I said that some of the Opposition parties were not here. I am sorry the debate was so truncated because of the Finance Bill. Yesterday I said that education is an evolving and dynamic process and that legislation and institutions which met the needs of previous generations should and must be constantly reviewed to test their relevance today. I am sorry that Deputy Liam Fitzgerald was not in the House yesterday when I dwelt at some length on the excellence of the Vocation Educational Act, 1930, and the excellence of the vocational committee.
The Deputy threw the Green Paper out the window.
The 1930 Act was very far seeing but, despite that, there are difficulties, anomalies and challenges in 1987 which make it necessary to urgently update and change the 1930 Act, keeping what is durable and valuable, discarding what is limiting or irrelevant and certainly not abolishing ten VECs——
Has the Deputy changed direction on the Green Paper?
Listen and learn.
Yesterday I outlined the reasons behind the publication of the Green Paper as they affect second and third level education. I stressed the difficulties facing local communities and the Department of Education in their mutual anxiety to get agreement for new and much needed schools in their areas.
We detailed the multiplicity of services which should be available in all schools in the training youth services and adult education areas. We also touched on the importance for the RTCs of a new freedom and self-governing characteristic which would enable them to develop their research and industrial liaison capabilities as well as the urgent need to give the Dublin Institute of Technology a statutory governing body which would unify and streamline the duplicated and diverse activities at present of six expanding colleges. I am very glad that when in Government we established the international study group to look at technological education——
The Deputy chose to ignore it.
I am very glad they had a time limit ending in September——
Deputy Fitzgerald, Tá tú dána agus ní ceart bheith ag cur isteach.
Tá sé an-dána.
I should like to remind the Deputy that this is the second last week of the Dáil and that the study group is due to report by September. I certainly did not expect the Minister to bring in the legislation next week so the Deputy is a little intemperate in his remarks. It is a pity he does not listen to what is being said. The Green Paper could not be described as revolutionary or premature. Indeed, many commentators at the time of its publication welcomed it as a timely addressing of the areas it covered. I stated at the time and on several occasions since that it did not have the status of holy writ and that it was a very strong indication of the way we felt these problems should be addressed after all the interested parties had been fully consulted and their considered view given, thus clearing the way for ministerial and Government decision. I was not surprised by the very many and diverse reactions to it because, as I well know from being Minister for Education, that is the nature of things in Education.
I did expect, however, something more positive from the Minister and the Government in response to this debate. Perhaps I should not have expected that because their record on education in the recent past and particularly since they came into Government has been very disappointing. If I had expected anything positive, then I would have been very disappointed by what I can only describe as a vague and I have to say slightly offensive and wholly defensive protection of the status quo which the Minister gave us last evening I do not believe that is good enough for a Minister and a Government who claim on the air waves constantly to be innovative and caring at the same time, who claimed all during their four years of Opposition and more particularly during the election campaign that education was special and would be getting special care. Not only have they attacked education with a series of wild cuts in vulnerable areas, particularly the VECs right across the country, without planning or cohesion but since obtaining office their every pronouncement shows that the dominant characteristic of the attitude of the Minister and the Government to education is a fear of tackling reform, a clinging to what is safe, and a narrow tunnel vision when it comes to any proposal, any legislation which did not originate with them.
I have heard the Minister — who I am very sorry is not here tonight although I am very glad that the Minister of State is — indicating at tedious length that she has plans to improve the governing structures of the RTCs. I would urge her to take out the files which are already in her Department which relate also to the second level area, the files on the Dublin Institute of Technology, the comprehensive range of submissions from all the interested groups and the Green Paper which are there in her Department following discussions which were held by the Department when the Green Paper was published. After having done that bit of homework, I hope she would shake off the apathy which seems to paralyse her at the moment, the inability to address the real problems. To do that requires courage and there is nothing that the education world needs more at this time than a courageous Minister.
Quite apart from the improvement and streamlining of services to our school population, which is the fundamental and basic reason for the Green Paper proposals, there is the imperative which all responsible people in Ireland today recognise, to make the kind of financial and administrative sense out of our long standing institutions which a modern society should have. What is the sense in five different kinds of second level schools competing with each other for students and for scarce resources? What is the sense in 38 vocational education committees costing £11 million to run their administrative structures alone in 1986, to deal with the minority of schools across the country? What is the sense in a plethora of agencies dealing with training, adult education, youth services, community recreation facilities channelled through small committees which again by their very statutes deal only with the minority of the school population.
They are to give every child a chance at a second level school.
That indeed is a very important part of the Green Paper proposals, to democratise the whole education system which I agree with the Deputy is not democratic at this time.
The Minister and Government therefore in the Green Paper have been presented with a golden opportunity to prove their mettle. They have suggestions here from a previous Government and the largest Opposition party which give them unprecedented comfort in Dáil Eireann if they only have the courage to grasp the nettle. I regret very much the non-committal and, I must say, dismissive tone of the amendment which I and my party unfortunately find it impossible to support. I would ask Fianna Fáil in the education area to try looking forward for once. The looking back in which that party indulge becomes very tedious and is possibly damaging, not only to the education world.
We referred earlier to the possible amalgamation of vocational education committees which the Minister has mentioned on several occasions and from which she seemed to be rowing back fairly fast last night. Her speech was a model of rowing back on every possible advance on education. She was at pains to point out that she had taken no decisions whatever on that area. I am glad to hear that because I will certainly deprecate any attempts at the kind of ad hoc-ery we have seen in the wild slashing of the health services. I urge the Minister and the Government to plan properly for the rationalisation and improvement of the educational services right across the country, to use the blueprint she has on this and many other areas in the Department. The kind of damage that could be done to the education system by any more of the kind of cuts we have seen already and which we had an opportunity to discuss last night would be unthinkable and would set education back 30 years.
I hope the House will support the Fine Gael motion this evening in asking the Government to implement the proposals in the Green Paper because they are fair, reasonable and, above all, approach major problems in the educational area which, despite the fact that Fianna Fáil would like to say do not exist, really do exist. The people who are suffering from those educational problems are the young people whom we all wish to serve. I commend the Fine Gael motion to the House.
The Chair is now putting the Question: "That the amendment be made".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 45.
Tá
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mooney Mary.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bruton, John.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies O'Brien and Flanagan.
Question declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.
The Urban Renewal Bill——
On a point of order, it was my understanding that at 8.30 p.m. there would be a vote on the Estimate for the Department of Education which is being opposed by my party because of the cuts to the vocational sector.
Is it being challenged?
Yes, we are calling a vote because of the cuts.