Vocational Education Act amendments
The Minister plans amendments to enlarge vocational education committees and provide for teacher representation, but gave no timetable, citing the need for consultation. Fitzgerald criticised delays in implementing education policy and reports; the Chair and Minister redirected him to the Act under discussion.
asked the Minister for Education if she envisages the future possible amending of the Vocational Education Act, 1930 and the specific amendments that are envisaged.
Comment on this
As stated in the Programme for Action in Education 1984-1987, I propose to have the Vocational Education Act, 1930 amended to provide, inter alia, for the enlargement of vocational education committees and for teacher representation on those committees.
Comment on this
Will the Minister tell the House when she expects to amend the Vocational Education Act? I accept what the Minister has said about the amendments she mentioned, but will the Minister give us some exact details about this? Will the Minister give us exact details about any matter during Question Time? When is it intended to amend the Act referred to?
Comment on this
As the Deputy is well aware amending the Vocational Education Act, or any Act, requires a great deal of discussion with the various interest groups involved. It is my intention to amend the Act to provide inter-alia— there are other amendments in my mind which will have to be discussed with the parties and the Government — for the enlargement of vocational education committees. It would be very foolhardy of me to attempt to put a date on this.
Comment on this
Will the Minister accept that when she took office she inherited a number of reports from committees that dealt with various aspects of education? Will the Minister accept that it is possible to implement many of those reports at this stage? Why is it that all aspects of policy on which we have questioned the Minister in the last two weeks are subject to financial constraints, further consideration or further debate? Why is it that everything must be protracted before any action is taken?
Comment on this
My questions relate to the matter under discussion. Why is it that every aspect of policy that the Minister's programme for action looks at — I question the word "action"— must be subjected to further protracted debate and discussion when there are numerous reports from committees set up by the Minister's predecessors available?