Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 May 1984

Vol. 350 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Rural Home Economics Colleges: Motion.

(Limerick West): I move:

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to provide the funds necessary to ensure the continuing operation of the five rural home economics colleges.

This decision by the Government to withdraw the necessary finances from these colleges is blatant discrimination against women. We hear much talk of women's rights but this is another example of the Government's attitude towards this matter.

The five rural home economics colleges at Claremorris, Navan, Ardagh, Ramsgrange and Dunmanway are the colleges concerned. It is important to point out that when the Department of Agriculture was established in 1900 it was known as the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. Among the functions of the Department were to aid, improve and develop the agriculture of Ireland in such a way as to stimulate the self-reliance of the people. The intention was to help the people to help themselves, especially by encouraging local initiative.

Under the 1900 and the 1931 Acts the county committees of agriculture were set up to administer schemes to help rural people. In those early days the Department of Agriculture, through the county committees of agriculture, also set up schemes of education. These schemes were administered by instructors who were employed to help rural people. The Department recognised that progress depended on the training of Irish instructors and educators so that they could impart their knowledge to the young men and women of rural Ireland. The thinking at that time was sound.

By way of grant subsidy the Department set up a faculty of agriculture in UCD and they also set up the Munster Institute in Cork to train instructors in poultry keeping and dairying. This was for the purpose of training poultry technicians to deal with practical problems of poultry production and dairying. The Munster Institute trained teachers to teach dairying and poultry production in the rural home economics schools. In more recent times the Munster Institute trained farm home advisers.

The Department of Agriculture recognised the value of research and the problems relating to farming and rural living. They carried out research at their institutions, at the agricultural schools and colleges and also at Johnstown Castle in Wexford. Responsibility for this research was transferred to An Foras Talúntais in 1958 and this still continues in vigorous form. Responsibility for agricultural instruction, advice and education was transferred to ACOT in 1980.

Education is a continuing process throughout adult life. Like so many cutbacks by this Government, particularly in the agricultural area, the farm home advisory service has been phased out. This has been done on the instructions of the Government in a money-saving exercise. It is now being replaced on a much slimmed-down basis by a socio-economic service that will deal with farm problems and the problems of farm housewives in a very limited way. It will not be done on as broad a basis as the farm home advisory services that have operated up to now.

In addition to advice and education given locally in the counties, the county committees of agriculture and their successor, ACOT, provide scholarships in agriculture and horticulture to agricultural schools. Some of the schools are owned by the Department and some are privately owned and State-aided. These scholarships have enabled young farmers in their late teens and early twenties to spend a year at an agricultural school where they obtained a sound knowledge of the principles of agriculture and how to apply them. This is justified because farming today calls for business and technical knowledge of a high level. The farmer of the future must understand the sciences of animal production, of crops, as well as the importance of maintaining farm records and accounts in order to meet the demands of modern agriculture in knowledge and practical skills.

Along with these agricultural colleges there are State-aided private residential colleges of rural home economics of which there are five, to which scholarships were provided by ACOT for young girls. The course of instruction at these colleges is designed to prepare young women for farm work and rural living generally. The course includes dairying, poultry-keeping, gardening, household management, cookery, laundry and needlework. Participants are also taught the necessary practical skills when they return to their home farm or when they marry into a farm.

The problem is that men have not been taught the same things; men should have been included.

(Limerick West): I would remind the Deputy that we are dealing with farm women this evening; we will deal with the farm men on another occasion.

The same should apply.

(Limerick West): Today's farmwife must have a knowledge and appreciation not alone of everything in the farm household but also of everything occuring on the farm generally — the husband cannot always be there — he must look after mart and market and the women in the home must deal with emergencies as they arise.

He should be capable of dealing with the same emergencies.

(Limerick West): It is important that the farming wife has a training in all farming skills so that she can cope with emergencies as they arise from time to time, perhaps when her husband is ill or when she is widowed.

Farm records and account-keeping would appear to be within the domain of the housewife; the man cannot be out working on the fields — work which is proper to him — and keep accounts and records as well. The two activities are not conducive to one another. There is an old saying that the spade and the pen do not go well together. I am sure Deputy Taylor-Quinn would agree with me there.

Not entirely.

(Limerick West): Yet, in an ever-developing technological era, when so much skill and expertise is required, we find that these five rural home economics colleges are being phased out, and that scholarships are no longer being awarded to young girls to avail of their courses. The Munster Institute, which trained instructors and teachers; has been closed by the Department of Agriculture. If we are not careful in the very near future we will arrive at a stage when not alone will rural people not possess the skills to do their job but we will not have teachers to train them because of the closures of training colleges like the ones to which I have referred. Yet we have the Minister for Agriculture asking that we should be more self-sufficient in cereals, fruit, vegetables and so on. In the context of the report issued today on the food-processing industry surely it is important that we endeavour to produce a proportion of imported products? The ideal way of doing so is through the training of our young boys, particularly, and girls in the area of self-sufficiency. As a result of the closure of these colleges men and women in rural areas will not have an appreciation of the home-produced material because they will not have been trained in their value.

The Deputy has five minutes remaining.

(Limerick West): It is important that such knowledge and skills be instilled in their youth in order that they form a balanced judgment. Otherwise they will be brain-washed by the multinationals by high-powered advertising and through the media into accepting what is alien to them and what may be of dubious value to the country.

The closure of these colleges certainly will lower the educational standards of the farm family. It constitutes a blatant discrimination against farm women and, ultimately, the farm family. When one considers the paltry amount of money involved as against moneys made available to AnCO for industrial training, one will readily see the point I make in regard to discrimination. The amendment proposed by the Minister reads:

That Dáil Éireann endorses the policy of the government that in the allocation of State support to agriculture, priority in the provision for agricultural education and training should be given to activities which contribute directly to increasing agricultural production.

Surely the Minister is not implying that these colleges would not contribute to increasing agricultural production? Nothing could be further from the truth because I have ascertained from my contacts with these colleges that 85 per cent of the girls who participate in courses at them end up as farmers' wives, contributing in a very real way to increased agricultural production. Therefore the Minister's amendment rings very hollow and clearly indicates to me that the Minister is unaware of the facts. This is blatant discrimination by the Minister and the Government against the women of rural Ireland, particularly the young girls on whom the future of our country is dependent.

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. In the course of the debate this evening and tomorrow evening my colleagues will outline every clearly the other advantages of retaining these colleges and providing the small amount of money required. These should be retained as institutions — notwithstanding what has been said by this Minister — which will contribute to increased agricultural production in the future. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision to close down these colleges for the reasons I have outlined, for the importance of the role played by women in rural society, contributing to agricultural production, as they have done in the past and will in the future. Time and time again it has been said that behind every good man there is a good woman. Is this not more evident in agriculture which contributes upwards of 50 per cent of our total net exports, comprising the very basis of our economy? Therefore our farm women, who may ultimately become farmers' wives, should have a basic training in the rudiments of good farming, ensuring that agriculture in the future will contribute to our economy.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute:—

"endorses the policy of the Government that in the allocation of State support to agriculture, priority in the provision for agricultural education and training should be given to activities which contribute directly to increasing agricultural production."

I should like at the outset to say that I have the greatest respect for the work done by these private colleges over many years for the education of young women from rural Ireland. However, the question at issue is the appropriateness of continuing the current funding of the colleges through ACOT from the Vote for Agriculture.

The amendment is an insult to the colleges. They were given no protection.

Please conduct yourself, Deputy, and allow the Minister to speak.

In regard to the phasing out of this aid, it should be stressed, lest the eloquence of the Opposition Deputies on the subject should obscure the fact, that the original decision to take this action was made by the previous Government in the context of the 1983 Estimates.

That is not correct. The Minister is misleading the House.

The original decision was made in the context of the 1983 Estimates by the Fianna Fáil Government.

We have heard enough, this is painful deceit.

The truth is bitter.

You will all have an opportunity to speak later on. Please allow the Minister to continue.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Byrne accused me of misleading the House and Deputy Reynolds said something about deceit. The original decision to withdraw the funding for these colleges was taken by the Fianna Fáil Government in the 1983 Estimates.

That is incorrect. Did we bring in the 1984 Budget? Get a better excuse.

Deputy Reynolds should know because he was a member of the Government which made that decision.

I will tell the Minister all about it.

Do so when your turn comes and please do not interrupt before that.

Deputy Reynolds was a member of the Government which decided to withdraw funding from these five home economics colleges.

Will the Minister give me the date of that decision?

If the Deputy looks up the Book of Estimates for 1983 he will see it there in black and white.

(Limerick West): The Minister should prove his statement.

It is in the Book of Estimates.

There was no instruction given to ACOT.

A Government decision was made.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputies will find all the decisions in the Book of Estimates. Among the factors which underlay that decision were the following: The colleges were originally set up early in the century to equip farmers' daughters with the practical skills to manage a family farm home and to operate farm enterprises such as butter-making and poultry-keeping. Changes in social and economic conditions have gradually diminished the contribution they make directly to the training needs of the agricultural industry, notwithstanding periodic revisions of the curriculum. In the words of the ACOT expert group which examined the situation in regard to agricultural education and training in 1981, the one-year RHE College Course —

is largely a young home-managers course with some emphasis on agriculture. It does not lead directly to a profession or career in agriculture and most girls take up a non-agricultural occupation on leaving.

Data available on the destinations of 122 students leaving two of the colleges in the years 1980 and 1981 would confirm this comment of the expert group. Only 15 per cent of these students went to work on their home or other farms or proceeded immediately to further training in agriculture.

On a point of order, where did the Minister get that information?

That is not a point of order. Please resume your seat.

By contrast, 56 per cent went into nursing, catering or secretarial work. Indeed a survey carried out in one county showed that not a single one of the 32 girls who attended the colleges on State scholarships over the period from 1977 to 1981 was engaged in agriculture at the time of the survey (1982).

(Limerick West): The Minister's information is all wrong.

(Interruptions.)

I would ask the Deputies on the Opposition side to allow the Minister to continue his speech without interruptions.

Sherlock Holmes is opposite and I am glad he has been able to find the previous debate because I did not give Deputy Byrne credit for that much intelligence.

(Interruptions.)

The Minister is not a schoolteacher here.

Obviously many Deputies did not get too much schooling.

Training in home economics which accounts for about 70 per cent of the RHE programme is of course widely available through the general education system. It goes without saying that the residential training system of the RHE colleges catering for some 250 students is an expensive one. The State support for the RHE colleges has been substantial, covering full recoupment of teachers' and technicians' salaries, grants for student capitation and management expenses, while scholarships were awarded through ACOT to the majority of the students — 75 per cent in 1981. In addition capital improvements were grant-aided to the extent of 70 per cent for student accommodation and 50 per cent otherwise. In 1980-81, 204 students attended RHE colleges. I exclude here the Home Economics College at Dunmanway which is only partially funded for RHE training. In that year total State non-capital expenditure, including scholarships, was £437,575 or £2,145 per student, as compared with £2,040 per student for university and £780 for secondary education. In addition, capital grants amounting to £56,000 were paid to the RHE colleges that year, bringing total subventions to almost £500,000.

These then were some of the factors on which the previous Government had based their decision. In doing so, they no doubt also had in mind their own declared priorities in regard to Exchequer funding for agriculture. Perhaps the proposers of the original motion will bear with me if I quote briefly from a document they may recall, The Way Forward.

At page 61 we read:

Resources available to the Exchequer are limited and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Agricultural policy must, therefore, be redesigned in the context of a reallocation of existing resources, i.e. farmer's own resources and those of the Exchequer, in such a way that the overall level of returns to agriculture will be significantly improved;

and again at Paragraph 6—

The Government's objective in relation to agriculture is to achieve the greatest possible increase in output with consequential improvements in farm income, the balance of payments and the impact on demand throughout the economy. The utilisation of resources, whether of a current or capital nature will be strictly related to this objective and policies will be directed towards:

— ensuring a more efficient use of inputs with a view to generating increased net agricultural product;

(Limerick West): We will stand over that.

Will the Deputy stand over the decision in the 1983 Estimates?

A different curriculum.

On coming into office, the Government reviewed the decision which had been taken in regard to the funding of these colleges but, in the light of the serious financial situation, they found themselves unable to reverse it.

This is in line with a major objective of Government policy — to provide a framework within which the agricultural industry can grow on an efficient and progressive basis and to ensure that the sector makes the greatest possible contribution to the national economy. It follows that State spending on agriculture must be directed to those activities which contribute most directly to increasing farm production. Consideration of the Government's support programme for agriculture — as indeed for all sectors — must be looked at in the context of the problems in relation to the public finances. Notwithstanding the action which the Government have already taken to correct the position, the situation — despite a considerable improvement — remains serious. It is the Government's view that it is more than ever imperative that the main thrust of Exchequer support for agriculture as for all other sectors must be for directly productive purposes. This inevitably has called for many decisions which may be unwelcome but nevertheless must be faced. Expenditure on rural home economics colleges has to be seen in this light. The facts which I have already set out on the marginal contribution which they make to agricultural training speak for themselves.

I might add here that there is no question of any discrimination against women in the decision taken. There is equal access for boys and girls to training in the agricultural and horticultural colleges under ACOT. I am glad to say that the number of girls entering these colleges has been increasing in recent years and is currently about 10 per cent of the student total.

At present over 1,000 students are attending these agricultural colleges run and supported by the Department. That number has doubled over the past 12 or 15 years. It is a considerable number. As well as that, 1,000 students are participating in ACOT certificates in farm training. That was when the course started last year. It is open to both boys and girls. Far from discriminating we are expanding the involvement of women in this activity, in farmer training. We would be the last party to deny women a fair share in participation in any such training. We are the party who led the way in this House in providing articulate and independent-minded women such as Deputy Taylor-Quinn.

What about Deputy Barnes?

Some people might say some of them are too independent-minded. I would not agree with that.

She followed Young Fine Gael when the Minister was against them.

They are quite right to express their opinions.

On a point of information, the House should be aware that these colleges discriminated against men, and the action the Government have taken has remedied that.

Is the Deputy in favour of closing them?

I would hate to see discrimination against men.

There has been a considerable expansion in training facilities available for men and women. The figure for both is over 2,000 at present.

Following on the 1983 Estimates decision, the board of ACOT in April of that year proposed that the colleges should be enabled to complete a "further and final year" of their traditional course, that is, to 30 June of the present year. This was conditional on the necessary State funding for that purpose being provided to ACOT and this has been done. This has given a breathing space during which the colleges could consider their future course. Last year the colleges, through ACOT, submitted a modification of the course as a basis on which the State funding might be continued. I found myself unable to accept the proposals as they did not constitute a sufficient re-orientation of their traditional activities to warrant an approach to the Government to have the original decision reversed.

However, in view of the possibility of the colleges having a role to play in the context of general youth employment and training programmes within the province of the Youth Employment Agency or AnCO, my Department have been in touch with these agencies and have facilitated the college management association in entering negotiations with them in the matter.

The Minister for Labour, at my request, has been actively involved for some months past. This followed a meeting I had with representatives of the board of ACOT. I am as anxious, if not more so, as any Deputy present that these colleges should continue to provide a meaningful agricultural training for young people, whether girls or boys, or both. We would like to see the Youth Employment Agency and AnCO helping in this area. They get considerable funds from the European Social Fund. It is more appropriate that the type of training which is necessary should be administered by one of these State agencies. The Minister for Labour and I are anxious that one of these groups, or perhaps both of them in unison, should take over the role of financing these colleges in the future.

The Minister is passing the buck.

I particularly dislike being accused of evading an issue when I am trying to be helpful. If these colleges are left under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture, if their courses do not change sufficiently, and if their curricula do not change there is no future for them. Their future lies in a change of direction. If that change of direction takes place, they could be financed by the two agencies I mentioned.

Will they be?

They could be, if people are willing to change. We are told that these colleges have been in existence since 1900. That is all very well. It is a great tradition to have going back over 80 years, but we must change with the times. Courses which may have been suitable many years ago are probably not suitable to modern day needs.

The courses are very relevant.

(Limerick West): And they are up-dated.

We are trying to train the Minister.

I am trying to train the Deputy.

The Opposition Deputies are achieving nothing. They are just causing annoyance by their attitude. I am trying to be helpful and constructive and all I am getting is obstruction. This is not doing the colleges, the staff and the pupils any good. That type of unhelpful attitude will not push people any further.

The Minister took long enough to do something about them.

Deputy Byrne, you are being very disorderly. Will you conduct yourself please?

As I remember, it was Deputy Yates who first raised this question in the Dáil last year. He made a very useful, constructive speech.

(Limerick West): The Minister should have heeded what he said.

It was largely instrumental in keeping the colleges open for a further year. I am hoping that, given that breathing space to seek alternative sources of funding, the colleges will be able to continue in existence and provide very useful training courses.

We will see how he will vote to-morrow night.

There is a series of enterprises based on rural enterprise centres and other such projects which are aided by the Youth Employment Agency and AnCO but, as I pointed out, the curriculum will have to be changed considerably. The whole direction of the courses will have to change considerably. That is as it should be, because the statistics which I gave earlier indicate that most of the students are not being trained to go back into agriculture. Only a very tiny minority are being trained to go back into agriculture.

(Limerick West): That is not correct.

When resources are so scarce, it is essential that they are channelled into areas where they can provide the best possible training for agriculture.

It is about time the Minister was briefed.

From reading the papers it is Deputy Noonan who needs to be briefed.

I understand that a decision by the Youth Employment Agency is currently awaited on a submission made to them by the association on the use of the colleges as rural enterprise centres. That is where I see it in the future. I would hope that a mutually acceptable arrangement may emerge from these negotiations. However, as far as the provision of further funding through ACOT is concerned, the position must remain for the reasons already outlined, that the original Government decision cannot be reversed. Rather than having the closure I strongly recommend to the House that the line of approach I have suggested be adopted.

The Minister's contribution was like a long-playing record we hear on occasions when there is anything awkward to be dealt with or decided on. We are told on those occasions that the last Government had made the decisions. One would think that the Government were bound by every decision taken by the last Government. If I wanted I could spell out all the decisions that were changed by the Government because they did not like what the last Government had done. If they liked the decisions of the last Government the people were told that the last Government had made the decision and would have to carry the can. The Minister should realise that he and his colleagues were elected to govern the country. The Minister's contribution tonight reflects his thoughts and his speech on the night he was appointed to the Department of Agriculture. At 1.30 a.m. I was with the Minister when he announced on radio that he did not know in God's name why the Taoiseach put him into the Department of Agriculture. He said he had experience in health because he was a member of a health board, had experience of local government because he was a member of a country council, but for the life of him he could not understand why the Taoiseach put him into Agriculture. Today our farmers have a good idea why the Taoiseach should not have put him into Agriculture, but the Minister does not seem to have realised that as yet.

The Minister's miserly contribution tonight shows clearly that not alone did he not know anything about the courses run in those colleges but he was hardly interested in their existence. I am aware that when they were trying to contact the Minister in Waterford he was not the slightest bit interested in them. That was his first response. Under pressure from some of his party the Minister had to give them a hearing.

The Deputy did not know what was in the Estimates he made up.

I do. I asked the Minister to outline to the House a decision a Fianna Fáil Government made to take away the total subvention to the rural colleges and he has not done that as yet.

It is in the Estimates.

The Minister should not try to con the people who may not have sat at the Cabinet table. I was a member of a Cabinet and I am aware that a Minister can jockey around money any way he wishes. A decision is made on a certain amount and the Minister can change around the subheads any way he wishes. If the Minister takes a look at the Estimates I put forward in the Department of Industry and Energy, which his colleague changed very little, he will see I reduced it by 21.4 per cent in 1983 without any hassle. I exercised common sense and had my feet on the ground. I did not go around looking for excuses. Nobody ever heard of a Government 18 months after they came to power blaming the previous administration for taking certain decisions. I must emphasise that as a member of the Cabinet I consistently opposed the closure of those colleges.

The Deputy did not succeed.

I opposed those closures consistently, unlike the Minister who did not know anything about them when he was asked a question in Waterford. He did not have a clue what they were all about. There are people in the Department of Agriculture who for a reason best known to themselves want to draw a hatchet on such places, and for a long time. This is not the first occasion that this has appeared on the horizon. If that is the view of the Department of Agriculture, the Minister and the Government, I call on them to to back to the Cabinet table and get the Department of Education to pay the salaries of the people involved or get the Department of Labour involved, as I suggested on many occasions.

The Deputy did not do anything when he was in Government.

The Minister has been a member of the Cabinet for 18 months and he has not done anything. One would imagine that the Ministers were living on different continents because they cannot contact each other. The Minister cannot contact the Ministers for Education or Labour to decide on a constructive approach to this. The Minister must be aware that such colleges have served rural Ireland well. They have prepared women for managing household budgets. I am sure the Minister is aware of how important that is today. We have not heard anything from the Government since they took office except how they were running their budget.

We have heard talk tonight about scarce resources. I do not know how the Government can continue to repeat the argument about scarce resources when they increased our national debt by £2,900 million in 1983. On taking office they said they would reduce foreign borrowing, but they increased it. They have not a clue what way the economy will turn out at the end of the year and have the audacity to try to convince the House that because of financial reasons they want to change this. If the lady Members are worth their salt they will get together like they did last week to get this decision changed in favour of the women of Ireland. I hope that when we have the vote tomorrow night we will see all the ladies joining together. Last week they were able to twist the arm of Minister Dukes and tell him how wrong he was. This Minister has gone as far wrong in regard to this for the sake of a miserly few pounds.

One of those colleges is located in my constituency and has been operating since 1927.

Do they know that the Deputy had the Estimates pruned in 1983 to abolish them?

They are aware of my position. There were reductions by every Department in the 1983 Estimates, although some people said Fianna Fáil would never do that. The Minister has told us that every item that was reduced in those Estimates was decided at Cabinet level. He should not give me that nonsense. It will not wash with me. The Minister should not try to convince those who have not been in a Cabinet how the system operates. If the Minister knows anything about how to run his Department he is aware that it is possible to find £50,000, £100,000 or £400,000 under a different subhead and that the Minister for Finance will be only too glad to let a Minister have whatever projects he likes in his Department. If, however, it is all to be run by the Department of Finance, as appears to be the position now, then it cannot be done. If all Ministers maintain their own independent republic and do not care what happens in any other Department it is no wonder the Government are on a hiding to nothing with the Irish people. It is no wonder that the Government ran away from the local elections because they knew they would get their answer. They will get their answer in the European elections and a resounding answer in Laois-Offaly. It is a pity that one of the colleges is not located in that constituency because the Government are inclined to change their views when sufficient pressure is put on them.

There is a request with the Department of Education for a subvention of £24,500 to keep the rural college in Ardagh, County Longford, in business. The teaching sisters there are prepared to forego their salary cheques to keep their school open because they know the benefit it is to the rural community and how well the girls they turn out are prepared for life in the household or in a career. That represents their contribution. I do not think it is unreasonable for any politician to ask the Government to match that with £24,500 from Government funds to keep that college open and give 53 young girls an opportunity to be educated in rural science, domestic economy and home management. If the Government vote that request down on Wednesday night, so be it; but when they go to the people of rural Ireland they will get their answer.

It has been said time and again that the Government are only interested in Pale politics and if matters do not concern Dublin city and the east coast they are not of any interest to the Government. This type of decision demonstrates that that is the real situation. An amount of £24,500 is being requested in subvention towards the salary of the lay people teaching in that college and if the Minister does not consent to this he will be creating six redundancies in that area, putting six people out on the dole away from teaching for the sake of £24,500. If the Minister for Labour has to give them redundancy pay or otherwise then they will be paid a damn sight more than £24,500 between six. Also 53 young girl students will be deprived of the opportunity of furthering their careers and the Minister will have them walking around the streets as he has 220,000 people walking around the streets because he does not know what makes the economy tick or when he is getting good value for money. The financial position must be put right but using a sledgehammer to crack a nut is not the way to do it. He can get better value for the money he is spending. The people have no idea how he managed to push up the national debt by £2,900 million, yet he comes in here talking about the few quid which could be very well spent and make a decent contribution to rural life.

The Minister does not seem to recognise that those colleges have given sterling service down through the years, that they are making a fundamental contribution to home management. It is just as hard for people in rural Ireland today to manage a household budget as it is for the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Finance, to manage his budget. Yet the Minister is prepared to take away the training and career prospects from these students and to say that rural Ireland does not need good housekeeping. He has been preaching good housekeeping since he came into Government and long before that. Indeed, he has not been very successful at it so far and he will not be successful if he makes this sort of decision.

The Minister and the Government have stood back from the vital decisions necessary to put this economy right. He knows them as well as I do. They preached for two elections before they came into office that current expenditure had to be cut down. They talked about miserly decisions and tried to pass the blame to somebody else; yet they took the soft option in two successive budgets of reducing capital expenditure because they were not prepared to take the unpopularity or the political flak for some decisions that had to be taken. However, saving £24,500 at the expense of the rural college in Ardagh will not put the country's finances right. When the people elected the Government they elected a Government they thought would look after all the interests of all the people and not just the Pale politics of Dublin and the east coast.

There are many options and solutions. I would not object one iota to taking this away from the Minister's Department because somebody over there decided long ago that it should go. In his speech here tonight the Minister appeared to say that he would love to pass it on to somebody else. Let him get the money from wherever he likes and forget about this present carry-on between Ministers saying: "I was talking to the Minister for Labour and maybe he will do something". The Ministers sit at the Cabinet table I do not know how many times a week. I know that the meetings have become very boring and that Ministers are not appearing as often as they should and some of them are tired of going to them. I can see by their faces that Ministers are disillusioned because they cannot do the things they want to do, the Taoiseach rambles on and no decision is taken. All you can do is try to pass the buck to a Government 18 months out of office.

Forecasts are made up and known by the name of Estimates. The Government produced and carried through this House the budget of 1984 which brought effect to the Estimates that were produced. The Government were bound by no Estimates produced by a previous Government, by no blanket decision as to what reductions were to be made and in what areas. The Government examined the Estimates when they came in and changed any that suited them to change. Do not try to pass the buck and the responsibility down the line. The Government have the responsibility. They were elected to do it and they brought in that budget in January 1984 which implemented those decisions. They must carry the can and take the responsibility because God and the Irish people hate people who run away from their responsibilities and try to blame somebody else. That feature has been developed by this Government since they came in. It has been developed very well and very professionally by the professional handlers of this Government. It is no wonder that their faces were down on the floor last week when the opinion polls showed that people thought for the first time that the Government have gone wrong. The trend in those polls in the last while shows that it did not happen overnight. It will continue to happen because the Government have been found out 18 months after they went in. They are all talk and no action. Governments are about leadership, decision, action, not about looking into this and that, it is under consideration, we will appoint a committee, a task force, a planning board —everything under the sun that you can name. Governments are elected to rule, to lead the country, to make decisions. The Government have passed over decision-making to every conceivable task force committee, task force of Ministers, everything they could dream about, to try to get away from the responsibility.

The real problem is inherent within the Government because the two parties are ideologically different. They have no unity of purpose. They cannot agree on what to do, and when any little bit of good news comes out concerning, for instance, the National Development Corporation that the Minister seems to think is a good idea, what happens? The Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism and the Minister for Energy rush to the Press, one blaming the other for upstaging him. That is not what Government is all about. They must decide to make their decisions and get rid of the paralysis.

The excuse that previous Governments were to blame when they have been in government for 18 months will not wash with the people or in relation to the rural college in Ardagh. No Government can justify the closing of such an institution. I am not familiar with the other four but other speakers will line them out. This college is isolated. It is not part of a secondary operation that can use its facilities otherwise. It is a unity of purpose. The sisters there have made a contribution in good faith. They are asking for a response from the Government and expect a result from this motion tomorrow night when it will be voted on.

The Minister has plenty of time between now and then to tell this House who is going to make up the funding. We do not mind who does it. The Government can decide. The Minister can make his decision any day he likes. They have a lady Minister for Education who has had the application on her desk for quite a long time. I will accept in good faith that the Minister has been talking to the Minister for Labour. We have until tomorrow night to find out the results of the long discussions and consultations. In 1983 the same Department handed back £11.5 million into the Exchequer because they did not know what to do with it in relation to young people. An obvious way to spend spend £11.5 million is in relation to career guidance, which was referred to. The Department of Labour have money that they could not spend in 1983. Maybe they cannot spend it all in 1984 but they are not going to spend it in industrial development. They are going to produce only about 1,100 jobs this year. Money is to be got from various Departments. Other Departments may have a little money to spare but no Department would tell you.

The Government are charged with the responsibility of governing. Give people value for money. Recognise the problems of rural Ireland. They will not get smaller. Let the Minister show his concern that young girls like this have the opportunity of being educated in the role they want to play in society, that he is caring and concerned about rural Ireland. We will know from the attitude the Minister adopts tomorrow night. I hope he will take the opportunity.

I support the Motion before the House, which is:

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to provide the funds necessary to ensure the continuing operation of the five rural home economics colleges.

The Government, through the Minister for Agriculture, intend to close the colleges on 30 June 1984. I am absolutely disgusted when I read the amendment put down by the Minister. We do not ask where the funds are to come from — we do not care if the money comes from the YEA or AnCO — provided the five rural home economics colleges are kept open. I thought I detected a wilting in the Minister's stance in relation to the colleges. Maybe he is only now waking up to the fact that they are due to close on 30 June. I hope it will not be a case of closing the door when the horse has bolted.

I want to clear up the matter of who took the decision to close the colleges in the first instance. All Departments came under the hatchet in the Book of Estimates prepared by Fianna Fáil, and this line of action was followed by the present Government. In our Book of Estimates we did not specify that the five rural colleges should close. ACOT received on 17 June 1983 a communication from the Minister for Agriculture specifying that the colleges should close. That was the first communication received on the matter by ACOT. The Minister should not give us the bull that we were the people who decided to close the colleges. If the Minister can disprove what I am saying, then I will listen to him. When I see the communication from the Fianna Fáil Minister to ACOT specifying that the five colleges should close, then I will believe the Minister. I am a member of Wexford County Committee of Agriculture and it was indicated to us that this very definite direction came from the Minister to ACOT on 17 June.

I have a particular interest in the Ramsgrange College but I am also interested in the whole scene because of the tremendous work that has been done through the years. The amount needed to keep the five colleges open for a year is £446,000, or about £100,000 per college. The colleges made tremendous sacrifices last year and did everything possible to enable them to remain open. They sought scholarships and held open days, and this kind of activity received the full co-operation of all rural organisations in Wexford and throughout the country because they believed that they should be kept open. I do not believe any group of colleges in any sphere of education could have given such excellent productivity as the rural home economics colleges. The teachers there are wonderful. I do not know if the Minister has met them, although the Minister of State has done so and concurs with my view. In Ramsgrange we have a wonderful principal in the person of Sister Matthias. She has been reasonable and very patient and has put all her energies into keeping open these colleges. The Ramsgrange College is in an excellent state of repair and anybody who visited it could only remark that it seemed to be very new, although it was in existence prior to 1900. This is a reflection of the way the Sisters of St. Louis have kept the college. The work done by religious has not been recognised. Nuns, Christian Brothers and other religious have done a tremendous job, not only for agricultural education but for all types of education. This is particularly true of Ramsgrange and the other home economics colleges.

I was delighted that Deputy Yates raised this matter last year. He definitely committed himself, as can be seen in the Official Report, to the continuation of that college. I am sure that will be reflected in his vote tomorrow. Deputy D'Arcy and Deputy Avril Doyle have also indicated their strong support for keeping Ramsgrange College open, and I am sure the people of Wexford will be very interested to see how they vote tomorrow.

There are five of these colleges and the size of the farms are as follows: Ramsgrange, County Wexford — 67 acres; Ardagh, County Longford — 230 acres; Claremorris, County Mayo — 30 acres; Portumna, County Galway — 30 acres; Dunmanway, County Cork — 25 acres. They have capacity for 260 students in full-time residential training. 27 salaries are recouped by ACOT and 25 others are not recouped. Total State financial aid in 1982 was £446,500.

The course content in the colleges is of major significance, particularly since the Minister has tried to tell us that because the colleges have been in operation since 1900 the courses are out of date. There is a course on dairying which is concerned with milking, dairy hygiene, calf rearing, common diseases, feeding and management. Does the Minister feel these are relevant today? The course also deals with the production of dairy products such as cheese, butter and yogurt. I have often heard the Minister say that if we are to make progress in the dairy industry we must diversify and go into the area of new cheeses, new types of yogurt. These courses are training people for the very things about which the Minister has so often spoken with conviction, yet he now finds it necessary to close the colleges and put an end to the training of people in these areas. How hypocritical can he be? The aim of the course is that any student should be able to operate a dairy unit profitably.

Farm accounts are an important aspect in the colleges, and this subject has been dealt with by my colleague, Deputy Noonan. The Department of Agriculture insist that farm accounts be kept. My personal view is that it is absolutely essential. It is well known that farmers are not the best keepers of accounts. I suppose they did not have the same educational facilities as those in other walks of life. Therefore, they leave it to the good wife and in most cases she is a fairly good accounts keeper. Farmers' wives could be trained in accounts keeping, yet, against his own advice again, the Minister will not support this training. He wishes to close down those very relevant courses which have existed since 1900.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share