Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, to the House and thank him for taking this matter on the Adjournment. This is an important issue which has become more so in recent weeks since the announcement of the decision on the locations of VEC headquarters.

Having spoken to managers, tutors and administrative staff who work in VECs, I have found the general reaction, not just to the amalgamations but also to the decisions on the location of VEC headquarters, has been that it may cause more trouble and cost more money than it is worth. The biggest grievance I have heard is that there is a complete lack of transparency in the decision-making process, especially with regard to the criteria used for the decisions on the locations of headquarters.

What criteria were used in deciding on the location of the VEC headquarters, or were the criteria decided retrospectively after decisions had been taken? Most important, who made the decisions? I know the ultimate responsibility rests with the Minister but I would like to find out, if possible, what advice was relayed to him and on what basis. Such big decisions and actions garner public acceptance not through secrecy and shady dealings but through transparency.

We all know that no VECs do things in the same way. It will be some time before any merger will result in a smooth operation. The current angst over the criteria and the headquartering decision will make this merger process even more difficult.

The an bord snip nua report recommended the number of VECs be cut from 33 to 22. The previous Government decided to go further and cut them by more than half. The four VECs that will remain without change are Donegal, Cork city and county and Dublin city. At the time of the announcement, questions were raised about the decision to retain those VECs, particularly Donegal's and the fact the then Minister was from that county. Calls were made for the release of information on that decision to ensure transparency.

The yardstick by which the success of the VEC amalgamation programme will be measured is whether the new structures will enhance educational opportunities and provision. However, the amalgamation of Cavan and Monaghan VECs raises some concerns. The decision to put the headquarters in Monaghan is strange, considering the education campus has not yet been built and its planning application contains no reference to a VEC headquarters. Cavan VEC already is leading in ICT infrastructure and the deployment of technology in supporting three non-VEC schools in the county.

I am not in the business of playing counties off each other as such parochialism only leads to trouble. However, there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the amalgamation process in Cavan and Monaghan, particularly the headquartering decision. If there were greater transparency around how these decisions were made, it would reduce the tensions that exist.

How does the Minister envisage maintaining excellence and good practice while engaging in this rationalisation? Where will savings be made, particularly considering the cost of building new facilities and rebranding costs? How has the amalgamation process fed into the comprehensive spending review? Will the Minister publish the cost-benefit analysis of this process? We need to have more information on the number of students and schools in each VEC. This would assist in understanding some of the decisions made in certain amalgamations. In the absence of transparency, the process will not be easy. There are outstanding issues surrounding criteria used in the process and costs. These need to be addressed before drafting any enabling legislation.

Restructuring should not be introduced to save costs or reduce the number of VECs. The purpose should be to realign the VECs in a manner that addresses the weaknesses in the system and results in a properly resourced system that meets the needs of teachers, students, staff and parents. Was there any dialogue between the committees and stakeholders in the amalgamation process?