Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Mar 1949

Vol. 114 No. 7

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Scéim na dTithe Gloine.

D'fhiafraigh

Aire Talmhaíochta an abróidh sé, i dtaobh Scéim na dTithe Gloine i gConamara, (a) cé mhéad teach ar cuireadh planaí iontu; (b) an meánmheáchan trátaí in aghaidh gach tí; (c) an meán-chostas riaracháin; agus (d) an meán-fháltas ó thrátaí in aghaidh gach tí.

(a) The number of glasshouses planted in the Connemara unit of the Gaeltacht Glasshouse Scheme in 1948 was 63; (b) the average weight of tomatoes produced per house was 17½ cwts.; (c) it is not possible to give a figure which would accurately represent the "average cost of administration" of a Connemara glasshouse. These houses constitute one of the units of the Gaeltacht Glasshouse Scheme and the overhead administrative costs are charged to the scheme as a whole. Moreover, while a number of the central and local officers of my Department have to devote their whole time to the scheme, others give only part of their time to it, and there are certain general services in my Department which are common to all divisions of the Department's work. It is quite impossible to apportion these on any sort of costing basis. The growers do not have to bear any of the overhead administrative costs of the scheme, which are considerable. They refund only part of the prime costs, or running charges. The amounts recoverable from the growers are at present being worked out from the accounting records so that a final settlement may be made with each grower in respect of last year's operations. It is estimated that about £16 will be recoverable from each grower; (d) the average value of tomatoes per house after deduction of agent's commission was £110.

Will the Minister not now agree that the figures he has just given take this industry out of the fraudulent category and justify a further extension in Connemara and in other Gaeltacht areas throughout the country?

I trust the Deputy's optimistic forecast will be justified by the event, but I feel sure he will commend my prudence if I allow this experiment to continue for a year or two more before making any very substantial further investment in it.

You were not prudent in time.

Has the Minister any comment to offer on the figures which he has just read out?

Yes, but I want to give the experiment the fullest possible opportunity of success. As the Deputy probably knows, I have already directed that the full horticultural direction and assistance which was to terminate at the end of this financial year is to be extended for a further financial year so that no possibility of lack of skill or foresight could imperil the success of the experiment.

Is there anything peculiar about this year as a tomatogrowing year which impels the Minister to wait until he has had another year's experience of the scheme before he offers an opinion as to whether or not it should be extended?

Nothing the Deputy can ask will induce me to say a single word calculated to discourage the people who have been engaged by my predecessor in this experiment from continuing to do their best, in the assurance that they will receive every conceivable assistance from my Department in that effort.

That is what the Minister did last year—he discouraged five people to the extent of giving up their houses.

I wish I had discouraged 55.

We know your view of the whole scheme.

Top
Share