Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Feb 1952

Vol. 129 No. 5

Private Deputies' Business. - Gaeltacht Tomato Scheme—Motion.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That in order to achieve a balanced economy for smallholders resident in Gaeltacht areas and with a view to implementing the Government's stated policy for taking all steps necessary for the revival of the Irish language, Dáil Eireann is of opinion that the Minister for Agriculture should fix a guaranteed economic price to be given in respect of the total output of tomatoes from Connemara and other Gaeltacht areas for this coming year.—(Deputies MacBride and Tully.)

I was surprised at the temerity of Deputy MacBride in putting down a motion such as this, in view of the fact that he was a Minister in a Coalition Government for three years.

Which Coalition?

Mr. Walsh

The only one we have had in this country. As a member of that Coalition, it was surely within his power to advise the then Minister for Agriculture that, instead of killing the tomato industry, he should do something to improve it. But, instead of helping the tomato growers here, the then Minister for Agriculture went out of his way, as did the Coalition Government generally, to kill tomato growing. That is evidenced by the fact that there was a reduction in the incomes of our people engaged in the production of tomatoes. In 1947 the Fianna Fáil Government experimented in the production of tomatoes. A number of houses were erected in Donegal and Connemara. Unfortunately for the tomato growers, that Government went out of office in 1948, but the provisions laid down in regard to the experiments held good for the year 1948. They could not be changed.

The results of the experiments are shown in the records we have of the amount of money received by the owners of the glass-houses in that year. The Connemara houses in the year 1948 gave a return of £84 15s. 8d. per house. The return in Donegal was £63 10s. 0d. But, in order to kill the scheme, the protection that was given to the tomato growers was withdrawn in 1949, with the result that the income of tomato growers in Connemara dropped from £84 15s. 0d. in 1948 to £50 2s. 0d. in 1949 and of the Donegal growers from £63 10s. 0d. to £26 2s. 0d. Deputy MacBride was then a member of the Government, and if he had been as concerned then for the tomato growers as he is to-day, surely he would have seen that something should have been done for these unfortunate people whose income had been reduced by one stroke of the pen, in the case of the Donegal growers, from £63 to £26, and, in the case of the Connemara growers, from £84 to £50. What concern did he show in 1949 and why does he come here now to ask the Minister for Agriculture to give a guaranteed price? Is there any sincerity behind the man or was there ever any sincerity behind him? Is this his way of showing his insincerity? He has shown it in many ways already, but this is one of the damnedest ways of doing so——

Mr. O'Higgins

Who is getting into the sewer now?

There is no need for the Minister to become personal.

Mr. Walsh

I am not being personal. I am giving facts. Are you prepared to take them?

Mr. O'Higgins

We are certainly not prepared to take them from the Minister.

Mr. Walsh

In 1950, we had exactly the same thing happening. We had the Connemara growers getting an income of £52 10s. because they had no protection and the Donegal growers an income of £36 10s. They had two years' experience of the Coalition Government and what they were doing for the tomato growers, but my action was different when I came into office. I restored protection, and, by the restoration of protection, the income of the Connemara growers which was £52 10s. in 1950 increased in 1951 to £94.

Per house?

Mr. Walsh

Yes, per house. In Donegal, the income increased from £36 13s. to £55. Deputy MacBride claims that I am doing nothing and have done nothing for the tomato growers.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am sure that less tomatoes were eaten by the poor of Dublin.

Mr. Walsh

I have already challenged his sincerity in putting down this motion, designed to mislead the House and the people into thinking that he wants to get them something, although he denied it to them while he was a member of the Coalition Government. I met representatives of the tomato growers as far back as last July and I gave them the protection they needed. We stopped the import of tomatoes in August and September and we were able to supply the market during that period. In addition, I told them that I was anxious to see tomato growing extended and that every facility I could give them would be given to them. I told them on that occasion that if they were able to tell me as early as next May or June that they would be able to supply tomatoes for the market towards the end of July I would give them further protection in the Irish market.

Mr. O'Higgins

You were very generous at the expense of the poor but not at your own.

Mr. Walsh

Neither at my own expense nor the expense of the poor.

The Minister is entitled to be heard.

Mr. Walsh

The tomatoes did not go up to the extent to which they went up when the people of Dominick Street were not able to get them, the people about whom we heard so much in the past. It is not Deputy MacBride's concern to make cheap tomatoes available, because, if it were, he would not put down such a motion as this. I told the tomato growers as far back as last July that if they were able to give me a guarantee as to putting tomatoes on the market in the last week or fortnight of July, we would prohibit the importation of tomatoes, and that if they were able to extend the period over which they could supply them, if they were able to put them on the market up to October, we would give them protection for that month. I have had no demands yet from the tomato growers for a guaranteed price, and I do not know who asked Deputy MacBride to bring forward a motion here with regard to it. I have been in very close touch with the tomato growers, and no such demand has been made to me at any time during the year.

What these people want is protection, the protection I have given and which has increased their income from £55 to £94 per house. If they are able to grow more, their income will be correspondingly increased. We are at the moment carrying out an experiment in Donegal whereby we hope that income will be further increased. We are experimenting on heating conditions in that county and if we could have electricity extended to people engaged in the production of tomatoes, we would have a further source of income. We are hoping that we may be able to do that, that we will be able to give them electricity so that they can produce vegetables. We have a ready market here for fresh vegetables. Lettuce, tomatoes, parsnips, carrots— all these vegetables can be produced at home and their production can be helped materially by the use of glass-houses.

At present we are doing our utmost to help these people. It is a question at the moment of price and production. We have numbers of people engaged in tomato production who are getting certain yields from their glass-houses and we have many cases of people who are getting over 30 cwt. In Connemara, there were ten people in 1951 who got over 30 cwt. per house. There are a number of people who got between 20 and 30 cwt. In 1948, there were 18 people who got between 20 and 30 cwt., and in 1951 60 people got between 20 and 30 cwt. In 1948, only one person got over 30 cwt. and, in 1951, over ten people got more than 30 cwt. so that it is a question of being yet in the initial stage, the experimental stage even.

All the people engaged in tomato growing are not as well educated in production methods as they might be, but they are making headway as the yields indicate. We are going forward and better yields are now being obtained in Connemara than were obtained two or three years ago. If they continue on that line, instead of having, as we had in 1950, 60 people getting between 20 and 30 cwt. we will have many more and the income from the industry will be much greater. That is a much better way of improving the income of the people engaged in the industry than the giving of a guaranteed price. It might be of interest to the House to know that there is a greater consumption of tomatoes now than there has been in years gone by. We have been importing tomatoes to a great extent for a great many years and in 1947 we imported 64,092 cwt. In 1951 that figure went up to 116,000 cwt. Therefore, there is plenty of room for the extension of tomato growing. The market is there and it is only a question of our people going into it and of trying to protect the market for them. As I have said, we are already prepared to do that.

It would be very interesting to show what protection has done, especially to show those people who are interested in having guaranteed prices but were not so interested in giving protection to the growers over the past two or three years. In August, 1950, when there was no protection, 15,000 cwt. were brought in. In 1951, 7,648 cwt. came in—already imported before the end of July and delivered in the first two or three days of August. In the month of September, 1950, the imports were 5,067 cwt., but in September of 1951 none came in. That is what we have been trying to do for the tomato growers.

I am sorry that I cannot accept this motion as it is here worded. I see no necessity for it, as my sincerity regarding tomato growing has been amply proved by the action I have already taken since I came into office in giving protection to the growers. It has been further proved by the statements I have made to the people interested in the production of tomatoes and not interested in the production of cheap political propaganda for themselves. I am going to give the protection to the people who deserve it.

Including the consumer?

He does not count.

Mr. Walsh

To the people for whom I am responsible. It will never happen, I hope, that I will have to go to Deputy MacBride to learn how I should help the producers of this country. I am not prepared to accept the motion, since I am doing as much as I can for these people by protecting the market for them, by giving every assistance possible regarding glass-houses and by carrying out experiments in regard to the heating of glass-houses. In that way I hope to improve the income of those growers.

It is only a very able member of the Dáil who would have the hardihood to put down a motion of this kind, in view of the record of his own Government when in office, particularly in regard to tomato growing in Gaeltacht areas. I think Deputy MacBride was in the House when his colleague, the then Minister for Agriculture, entertained the House for hours ridiculing this whole tomato scheme for the Western Gaeltacht. He took the rather disgraceful course of quoting private letters written by his predecessors in office to each other in regard to this scheme. He quoted letters from the Minister for Finance advocating it, and letters from the then Minister for Agriculture casting doubts on the wisdom of the scheme. The whole effect of his quoting these letters in the House was to lower the standard of debate here, and to lower the standard of dignity and decency in public life. The result in my mind and in the mind of every fair-minded person was to reflect credit on the then Minister's predecessor and on the Minister for Finance, who conceived this imaginative scheme and submitted it to his colleague.

A Deputy

What about the juvenile delinquent? Did it reflect credit on him?

It reflected a certain measure of credit on the previous Minister for Agriculture for having considered that scheme and having striven to point out where there were difficulties in it, and for having brought those difficulties to the notice of the originator of the scheme. Was not that a sensible course? Was it wise or prudent or even decent for Deputy MacBride's colleague in the Government to quote those letters, to hold them up as a matter for public amusement? Having quoted the letters here, the then Minister went on to say:—

"If I had to do it all again I would do exactly as before. I think the scheme is a thoroughly rotten one, and I wanted to protect as many as I could from becoming involved in it."

The Minister for Agriculture, in the Government of which Deputy MacBride was a member, wanted to protect the people of the West of Ireland from being involved in this scheme. He told us of his interview with the Rev. Father Moran, who, more or less, forced him to continue the scheme which had been initiated by his predecessors. In the debate for the 15th July, 1948, at column 591, Deputy Dillon, then Minister for Agriculture, said:—

"Father Moran came up here and shouted at me very loudly and I shouted at him. Next, Father Eaton came along. Father Eaton is a young curate there. He said to me: ‘Minister, these people, rightly or wrongly, believe that they have a claim in natural justice to the performance of what they understood to be a promise of a Minister of State to carry out the undertakings they had been given."'

"Rightly or wrongly," the then Minister for Agriculture said, he was forced to adopt the scheme; but, having adopted it, he sought to kill it by exposing these unfortunate people and other tomato growers to the merciless and unfair competition of imported tomatoes—possibly subsidised imported tomatoes.

Apart from the inconsistency which Deputy MacBride has shown—and I think I might excuse his inconsistency in this respect, in that he may not have been aware of what his Government was doing to the tomato growers in Ireland, and particularly the West of Ireland—possibly he was not acquainted with the agricultural policy being carried out by the Government of which he was a member, as his visits to the country were too hurried and too brief to let him know what kind of economic policy was being carried into operation. That is the only excuse that can be offered for Deputy MacBride's introduction of this motion.

Even the motion itself does not make sense. If the Deputy reads it again he will see that he asks for an "economic price"—that the Minister should "fix a guaranteed economic price to be given in respect of the total output of tomatoes in Connemara and other Gaeltacht areas for the coming year". That implies that those who do not live in the Gaeltacht areas are not to get an economic price. Surely any sane person will recognise that anyone engaged in production, particularly in production of this nature, is entitled to an economic price. Surely Deputy MacBride will acknowledge that those who do not live in the Gaeltacht areas, who live in Wicklow or Dublin or elsewhere, are also entitled to an economic price for their produce. Why should it be declared by this House, as Deputy MacBride seeks to have it declared, that those people are not to get an economic price for their produce? That is the type of legislation which this House would never stand for. I think there is nothing more dangerous than to try to provide special prices for special areas in regard to a particular commodity. I am all for helping the Gaeltacht areas. They deserve to be assisted in every way possible and I think the Fianna Fáil Government, when they were last in office, deserved to be congratulated on having initiated this scheme. As I say, it was an imaginative and a bold scheme and one which was specially suited for the needs and the requirements of the congested areas. What could be more suitable for a congested area than the provision of intensified production of fruit or vegetables under glass? They have not got the vast area of land on which to grow crops on a large scale or on which to maintain stock on a large scale. Therefore it was wise and right that they should be assisted in producing and in undertaking work of this kind.

The proper way to assist these people was along the lines on which this scheme was initiated, that is, to assist these smallholders financially in the erection of their glass-houses and also to give them the necessary technical instruction and assistance that they might require in order to become skilled in that particular work with which they were unfamiliar.

On the question of price, they should, in the ordinary course of events, take their stand along with the rest of the producers in the country. Only yesterday I was speaking to a farmer who has put a considerable amount of his own little garden, adjacent to his house, under glass for the purpose of producing tomatoes, mushrooms and other things of that kind. He has carried out that work without Government assistance in the way of grant or otherwise. He has carried it out from his small savings and with the help of his sons. I think that man is as much entitled to a fair and economic price for his produce as anybody else in the country. I do not think we should have a situation in which industrious people like that should be excluded from their God-given right to get a fair price for their produce and a fair reward for their labour. If Deputy MacBride had suggested something in the way of subsidy for transport in recognition of the handicap of distance, I might have considered the proposal favourably, but in the manner in which the motion is worded I think nobody could consider it, at least no reasonable person could consider it.

I raised this question of tomatoes on several occasions because I am very much interested in it, not from the point of view purely of the Gaeltacht areas but from the point of view of producers generally who, I consider, are doing very useful work. The Irish producer of tomatoes produces an article which is superior to anything that is imported, and I hope that superiority will continue. Questions have been raised about the consumers' interests. I think the greatest injustice that could be done to the consumer would be to kill native production of tomatoes because then they would be completely at the mercy of outside monopolies who would in all probability compel them to pay a higher price for an inferior type of fruit.

On 4th August, at column 1884, Volume 112—that is, in the early days of the inter-Party Government—I asked the then Minister for Agriculture:

"... if he is aware that owing to the very low prices paid to Irish producers of tomatoes there is grave danger that this important industry may be completely wiped out and if he will state what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the industry."

The Minister replied:

"I do not agree with the view expressed in the first part of the Deputy's question. As regards the second part of the question, tomatoes imported under licence bear a customs duty of 2d. per lb. and I have no reason to believe that Dutch producers are or should be more efficient than our producers."

I further asked:

"I should like to put two supplementary questions to the Minister: (1) Does the Minister accept the principle that it is his duty as Minister to see that the Irish producer gets a fair price for his products, and (2) is the Minister satisfied that the present price of tomatoes is fair to the Irish producer?"

The Deputy must have some doubt as to whether the price was an economic one.

It was not economic. That is the period in 1948 when prices were forced down due to the action of the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister gave his reasons:

"My principal duty is to see that every section of the people of this country, in so far as my functions extend to them, are equitably dealt with. I can see no justification for withholding from the poorest sections of our community access to desirable and nutritious fruit, of which the prohibition of imports would deprive them."

That was the attitude taken up by the Government of which Deputy MacBride was a member. He was prepared to allow this country to be flooded with cheap, inferior, imported tomatoes and other fruit and drive home producers, not only in the Gaeltacht areas but throughout the country, out of production, and having done that, to expose the Irish consumers to any injustice that might be inflicted upon them by the forces controlling the imports into this country. I think Deputy MacBride should have been ashamed to bring in this motion.

In view of his Government's policy when they were in office, both in regard to tomato growers in the West and the tomato growers generally in this country, if he was bringing in here at all a motion in regard to tomatoes, he should come dressed in sackcloth with a little pail of ashes on his head just to show that he does repent for the misconduct of the Government of which he was a member, not only in regard to their policy on tomatoes but generally to their agricultural policy.

Was King Herod at the head of that Government ?

Pontius Pilate was.

Mr. O'Higgins

I must confess that I always feel slightly ill having heard Deputy Cogan speak. I often marvel at the endurance of Deputies who, from time to time, remain in this House to hear him speak. Twelve months ago the present Minister for Agriculture, Deputies McGrath, Davern and Allen and other Deputies on the opposite side of the House always fled the House when Deputy Cogan got up to speak. Now, however, the chains bind them to their seats and, whether they like it or not, they must remain here in rebellious silence to hear his utterances. The Deputy talked about what he calls the "Galltacht". Might I translate for him that word? It means the foreign districts of Ireland. We are referring here to the Gaeltacht and to tomato growing in that area.

I do not want lessons in pronunciation from you.

Mr. O'Higgins

I certainly think you need them in both languages. I cannot follow the line of argument, quite liberally endowed with personal abuse, indulged in by Deputy Cogan. He has a very indifferent record in this House. He was one of the staunchest supporters of the former Minister for Agriculture for as long as it suited him and he was one of the staunchest supporters of the policy then introduced here.

Deputy Cogan's activities as a member of this House does not arise on this motion.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am referring to the policy—

The Deputy will deal with the motion.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am referring to the policy in relation to tomato growing referred to by Deputy Cogan.

Deputy Cogan's history, or alleged history, is not relevant to this motion.

Mr. O'Higgins

I also heard a contribution made here by the Minister for Agriculture. Obviously the Minister is a very pompous and a very vain little man. He clapped himself on the back having, I will not say by the grace of God, become Minister for Agriculture in June, 1951. Lo and behold, because Deputy Tom Walsh becomes Minister for Agriculture a golden age opens up for the tomato growers of the Gaeltacht. That is nonsense.

Mr. Walsh

We are putting them on the road to it.

Mr. O'Higgins

I want to deal with that. From my own point of view, I would find it extremely difficult to support this motion without considerable examination. I do not agree at all with the Minister's view, that his only concern should be to get a price, no matter how it may be obtained, for tomato growers. I feel that every Minister in this present "Coalition Government" or the Ministers of any other Government that might succeed it have a duty to the people. In discussing this motion the Minister has shown but a very slight regard for the people for whom tomatoes are produced, namely, the consumers. Like many other Deputies in this House I have a family and personal problems and I can certainly remember a time, two or three years ago, when this nutritious fruit, which Deputy Cogan has described here to-night, was denied to the people of this city and to the people of Cork, not denied because it was in scarce supply but because of the price demanded for it. Are we to adopt a situation here——

Mr. Walsh

You are in opposition to the motion?

Of course he is in opposition to it.

Mr. Walsh

Carry on.

Mr. O'Higgins

I said I have not decided. I hope that whatever remarks I have to make will be supported by Deputy Captain Cowan.

I am in favour of paying tomato growers a proper price for growing the crop.

Mr. O'Higgins

You do not want any tomatoes in your constituency because you might find yourself at the receiving end.

He wanted to bring Deputy Morrissey out of hospital to reduce the cost of living.

Mr. O'Higgins

There is undoubtedly this fact to be considered in relation to the price of tomatoes. Whether it is to be a guaranteed price, and I never understand what that means in relation to any commodity, or whether it is to be a competitive price, the consumer must be considered. It is a very easy matter for Deputies like Deputy Cogan or like the Minister for Agriculture, to make speeches about guaranteeing the rights of producers and all the rest of it. They may say: "What great fellows we are. We stopped the import of tomatoes and we conserved a market for producers."

Mr. Walsh

They have so many parasites to feed that there must be somebody else to look after their interests.

Mr. O'Higgins

The greatest parasite in the agricultural industry is the Minister, and he knows it well. The outcome of this kind of policy is that the unfortunate poor of Dublin, Cork and other cities in this country have to subsidise tomatoes. I feel that that is a factor we cannot afford to forget. It is all very well to prevent the import of any fruit in competition with our home-grown tomatoes when the production of tomatoes here is capable of supplying the entire market. If that position was obtained, then ordinary competition between growers would ensure a fair price, not an unfair price, from both points of view and would ensure a fair deal for the consumer. How ever, that is not the position. The complaint made here by different Deputies who have spoken is that the tomato growing industry is not capable of supplying the entire market even to the point of getting a competitive price.

Nobody has said that.

Deputy Cowan will have an opportunity of speaking later on. Deputy O'Higgins should now be allowed to make his speech.

Mr. O'Higgins

As long as that is the situation, then, by preventing, as the Minister has done, any competition from imported fruit, it means that a scarce article must be sold here at a price fixed by the producer. I am not speaking about those people who produce tomatoes in the Gaeltacht, be it Connemara or Donegal. Those are not the people who sell the tomatoes here in Dublin. There is many a stage between the actual growing of the tomato and its eventual sale in this city. If we ever permit a situation to arise where the suppliers to the markets here in Dublin can command the entire market, then the tomato will become as rare as the golden egg which Deputy Cogan thought this Government would lay. I suggest to the House and to the Minister that the point of view of the consumer should not be neglected in matters of this kind. It is very easy to ask, as Deputy Cogan did, are we going to allow a situation to arise in which cheap inferior fruit will be brought into the country? That is just a question in so many words. From the point of view of the ordinary family, in Deputy Cogan's constituency or anywhere else, Irish tomatoes are infinitely preferable, should they require tomatoes. The Irish tomato is undoubtedly a much better article, but the ordinary family does not see any sense in the Minister for Agriculture subsidising tomato growing and charging, in effect, twice the price that should be paid. That is an aspect of the matter that should be considered by the Minister for Agriculture.

Deputy Cogan referred to a constituent of his who had built glass-houses and is going in for tomato growing. He commended him for his enterprise. I also commend him. I think it is always commendable for people to engage in enterprises of this kind without assistance from anyone. No one enters into any enterprise unless he is assured of some return from a business point of view. No one will erect a lot of glass, a most expensive item in these days, for the cultivation of tomatoes or mushrooms or anything else unless he is fairly certain of getting a good return. Despite all we have heard I believe glass-house cultivation is growing in County Dublin. More and more people are going into the production of tomatoes because in recent years tomato growers have got a fair return. I appeal to the Minister now not to forget that, and not to do anything that might create a scarcity market. If that is done fortunes will undoubtedly be made by the producers, and those fortunes will be acquired at the expense of the poorer sections of the community; the poorer sections of the community will not pay the high price, and they will thereby lose the benefit of that particular commodity. The market will be dealt in purely by the richer sections of our people.

That is the objection that I see in this entire discussion. I do not think it is possible to discuss this motion without considering the effect of the market generally on the consuming public. I do not know whether Deputy MacBride, in referring to the guaranteed economic price for the product from the Gaeltacht area, adverted to that. If he had that in mind, then the motion would certainly have my support. But I would not like to see a situation arise in which the interests of the consumer are at a discount and that, I regretfully admit, is the interpretation I read into the Minister's remarks here.

He appears to regard the interests of the consumer as being no concern of his. He appears to regard his role as Minister as being one purely concerned with the producer and the price to be paid to the producer. I do not think that should be the approach of a Minister for Agriculture. Any Minister for Agriculture has a joint responsibility, a responsibility to the producer and a responsibility to the consumer.

The speech we have just heard has a very familiar ring. We heard the same speech from the same Deputy only a few months ago in relation to another agricultural commodity and the proposal of the Minister for Agriculture to increase the price of milk to farmers supplying creameries.

Is there not a guaranteed price for milk?

The same speech was made by Deputy O'Higgins in relation to the poorer sections of our community. It is a good thing for the success of Deputy O'Higgins as a future politician that the poor will be always with us. They will be there at all times to be exploited by Deputies like Deputy O'Higgins. They were there six months ago when one penny per gallon increase was proposed for farmers supplying milk to the creameries. They are here again now because it is the policy of this Government to encourage the production of tomatoes in the country and to guarantee the growers an economic market for their produce. The poor will always be dragged in by Deputies like Deputy O'Higgins to prevent any development whatsoever here.

We know the policy that was in operation while the inter-Party Government was in office. Deputy MacBride has now introduced this motion. It is an extraordinary motion, to my mind, and I would like some explanation from him as to whether he is concerned mainly with the revival of the Irish language or with the production of tomatoes. We have heard many suggestions for keeping the language alive. This is a new one tied up with tomato growers in the Gaeltacht. When Deputies come to vote upon this motion they will have to make up their minds as to whether they are voting for the revival of the Irish language or the promotion of tomato growing in the Gaeltacht.

Are not the two interrelated?

Tomato growing here would be in a sound position to-day were it not for the fact that the inter-Party Government came into office. Deputy MacBride sat cheek by jowl with the then Minister for Agriculture and supported him in his avowed determination to destroy tomato growing here. That Minister for Agriculture referred to tomatoes as an exotic crop with no place in Irish agriculture; he said that no self-respecting Minister and no self-respecting Irishman could stand over the policy of growing tomatoes in Ireland. He found other exotic crops but I do not suppose I will be permitted to refer to them now.

We welcome Deputy MacBride's belated assistance. Everything that he and his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, could do to prevent tomatoes from being grown in the Gaeltacht or in any part of Ireland was done during the inter-Party Government's term in office. Deputy Dillon used his position to decry every effort by agriculturists to promote the production of tomatoes. He threw the ports open. He depressed the price for the Irish growers, the price that would have been an economic price and would have represented a fair return for their labour and their capital investment. It was an approved crop that could be grown economically at a reasonable price to the consumer. They were entitled to get that for it. We would have had full and plenty of tomatoes at very reasonable prices by now had the last Minister for Agriculture and Deputy MacBride's Government allowed the development of the tomato crop to continue as it was when they found it. I have no doubt that Deputy O'Higgins had influence in the largest Party and the largest group that comprised the last Government. While you have the viewpoint I have outlined in regard to tomatoes one day, and in regard to milk and butter another day, no progress whatever will be made. Every possible scheme designed to help the Gaeltacht has been decried and Deputy Dillon has commenced to decry again proposals by the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Jack Lynch, which have as their object the promotion of certain activities in the Gaeltacht. Deputy Dillon has set out with bell, book and candle to try and kill these activities before they start. I wish some of his colleagues-they are now his ex-colleagues-would say a word in Deputy Dillon's ear to remind him of the damage he did to agriculture and agricultural production in this country during his three and a half years. The damage he did during that period will not be wiped out in a century. That is a recognised fact among agriculturists in this country at the present time.

Mr. O'Higgins

He has more support in the West than any of you fellows.

As I have said, the damage done by Deputy Dillon will take a century to wipe out. That is well recognised.

Mr. O'Higgins

Do not be talking nonsense.

If we have a famine in this country inside the next two years—

Inside the next 50 years——

——it will be Deputy Dillon who will be the person most responsible for it. We hope and pray that will not happen.

Deputy Allen realises full well that we are discussing the question of tomato growing in the Gaeltacht.

I realise that.

I hope you will keep to that motion.

Deputy O'Higgins was allowed——

Deputy O'Higgins was kept on the narrow path.

Yes, and with bell, book and candle he condemned the growing of tomatoes in this country——

Mr. O'Higgins

Who did?

——because they could not be grown as cheaply as Dutch tomatoes and, therefore, they should not be grown in the Gaeltacht or anywhere else. That is the policy we get from the opposite benches. It is well that this country fully realises the lead taken by prominent leaders of the Fine Gael Party on this matter and the viewpoint they take on these matters. Deputy O'Higgins represents in this House a purely agricultural constituency. A small proportion of his constituency consists of an urban population. There are a number of small industries in his constituency, but a big proportion of his constituents make their livelihood from agriculture. There is no doubt about that. I would like to see tomato growing in Leix-Offaly. It would be to the advantage of many small farmers in that constituency of his.

Mr. O'Higgins

They are farmers down there, you know.

They are we know, and I am sure that the Deputy's colleague from North County Dublin, Deputy Rooney, will tell us that there are some good farmers in North County Dublin who do not grow tomatoes. I am sure that Deputy Dunne would tell us that some of the best farmers in North County Dublin, who pay wages that satisfy Deputy Dunne, are tomato growers.

Oh bedad they do not. Do not make that mistake.

Some of them do, I am sure. Deputy Dunne, whose appetite for higher wages is insatiable, and Deputy Rooney, if he were here now, would admit that there are good farmers in North County Dublin who are engaged in tomato growing. Deputy Dunne will also admit, I am sure, that in the last three years some of those farmers who have gone in extensively for tomato growing, found themselves in the bankruptcy court. That is a well-known fact. They put their capital and all they could borrow or find in any way into the growing of tomatoes in North County Dublin, and found themselves in the bankruptcy court as a result of the policy of the late Minister for Agriculture.

I hope that all this will have its lesson in the future, as it had not in the past for Deputy MacBride who should, as Deputy Cogan stated, have come into this House clothed in sackcloth and ashes. If he comes in we will welcome him as the lost sheep. We will welcome him back. There is no doubt about that. The House will welcome back any sheep that strays away from the national fold.

We saw that recently.

We will welcome back any Deputy who goes back on promoting a policy that is detrimental to Irish national interests. We will welcome back any Deputy who pursues any good cause. The nation is greater than the individual.

These observations are scarcely relevant.

I submit that this matter of the revival of the Irish language which Deputy MacBride seeks to promote in this motion is relevant. Deputy MacBride admits, of course, by implication in the motion that it is the Government's policy to revive the Irish language and maintain the Gaeltacht with the largest possible Irish-speaking population in it. He admits that he wants a guaranteed economic price for tomato growing in the Gaeltacht with a view to promoting the revival of the Irish language.

The motion is there in black and white.

That is the motion. Deputy MacBride admits by implication that it is the recognised policy of this Government to promote the revival of the Irish language in the Gaeltacht and he wants an economic price for tomatoes for that purpose. Deputy O'Higgins, as his ex-colleague or whatever he is, is against that policy. He believes that an economic price should not be paid to Irish tomato growers and that the poor, of whom he is the only friend, according to himself, must get cheap tomatoes.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister for Agriculture is against it.

These are the extraordinary divergent viewpoints we get from two members of the Opposition. We hope they will come together when they have an agreed policy upon something and say that if tomato growing is to be desirable in the Gaeltacht or otherwise the growers of tomatoes will get a fair chance and an economic price for their produce. I am sure that the Minister for Agriculture is prepared to stand over that.

The Minister for Agriculture has already announced his policy of the further production and development of tomato growing in the Gaeltacht. One of his first acts when he became Minister for Agriculture was to indicate that the Government would give protection to those who are interested in the Gaeltacht and would provide further moneys for the production of tomatoes in the Gaeltacht to help the Irish language with which we are all concerned.

It is welcome to hear Deputy MacBride agreeing that this Government's policy is a sound one for the country, but it is sad to think that in his group there is a difference of opinion and that there are Deputies like Deputy O'Higgins who will give an economic price neither to tomato growers, milk producers, nor anybody else in an agricultural area.

I have listened very carefully for some time to various people and I must say that I did not interpret Deputy O'Higgins as being against the growing of tomatoes. I do not like to hear misrepresentation in this House from any side.

I think that on this motion we are discussing a problem in only one of its facets. The question should be much larger. The question of tomato growing in the Gaeltacht cannot be divorced from the general problem of tomato production in the country as a whole. I listened also very carefully to the Minister's remarks and I am satisfied that the welfare of the tomato growers in the Gaeltacht is safe in his hands and I am making a present of that to anybody who likes. To be fair to his predecessor, he had the courage to come into this House and say that he personally did not care for the policy that had been initiated in the Gaeltacht but that in so far as it had been initiated before he came into office he was prepared to give the scheme a chance. I think that we should be fair to Deputy Dillon in that respect also.

Deputy O'Higgins spoke in favour of the consumer and I think the consumer must be taken into consideration. We would all like to see our full requirements of tomatoes grown in this country but at the present moment we are not in a position to do that. If that is the case, is there not always a danger that a certain element who are in production in this country will, if they can get away with it, overcharge for their product? I know for a fact that a few years ago tomatoes were sold at 10/- a lb. at a time of the year when they should not cost that—they should not cost that at any time; I mean at a time of year when tomatoes were ripening without artificial means. The previous Minister took a step which I think was right. He allowed in foreign tomatoes at certain times in order to make sure that not alone the poor people but the ordinary consumer in the country could buy this fruit at a reasonable price. I know perfectly well what would happen if that foreign tomato were not allowed in. Quite a few of the natives would take advantage of the scarcity, as they did for a period, and the price of tomatoes would skyrocket. There are a number of individuals—I do not say that this applies to the producers as a whole in the Midlands and in the East—who built large glass-houses and hoped to recoup their capital outlay within a year or two by charging enormous prices for their produce. They were not prepared to recoup themselves over a fair period of years but wanted to get their money back within a couple of years and I think that the like of that should be carefully watched.

I recollect that the mover of the motion suggested, on the last night, that the people of Connemara were getting 7d. per lb. and the people of Donegal 6d. per lb. for their tomatoes and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement. Let us examine this question: those tomatoes for which the people in Connemara got 7d. went to 1/4 and 1/6 per lb. and more in Galway City, 15 miles away.

And 3/6 in Dublin.

I am talking of 15 miles from the area where they were produced; the consumer there paid three times the price the producer got for his tomatoes. That is a problem that must be attacked. The mover of the motion is fighting his cause on the wrong line. The Minister should inquire into the reasons why the producers in Connemara got only 7d. and the consumers 15 miles away were charged 1/6 a lb. As far as I can judge some robber of a middleman or a wholesaler got more than his fair share of the profits. This problem of the middleman applies not alone to tomatoes but to any other produce of the farm. I do not want to go into it, but it is the same old story: the producer is not getting a fair return but the middleman, the distributor and all these people are getting more than a fair proportion of the profits.

I would suggest that the mover of the motion should drop it and accept the Minister's assurance that the welfare of the tomato growers in the Gaeltacht will be safeguarded so far as lies in his power.

Listening to the debate and particularly to Deputy O'Higgins's contribution I felt that we have not learned the lesson taught by Arthur Griffith. If we can produce an article in this country like tomatoes, that is superior to an imported article, the production of that article should be encouraged until it is fit to supply the complete home market. There is no reason why with encouragement and assistance we cannot supply the complete home market with tomatoes. I do not see any reason why we should give employment to Dutch workers that could be given to our workers here. That is fundamental in any approach to the problem of national production. I agree with Deputy McQuillan that the producer should get a reasonable and fair price. Of course, it is a difficult problem. What is a reasonable price? I asked Deputy MacBride when he was moving the motion, had he any view as to what in present circumstances is an economic price per lb. for tomatoes. In putting that question I realised that it was a difficult one and that consideration of many problems was entailed in estimating an economic price to the producer in a particular year.

The dangerous thing I see about the Motion is that during the period of office of the inter-Party Government Deputy Dillon did everything that one individual could do to sabotage the tomato-growing industry, not only in the Gaeltacht but elsewhere, and Deputy MacBride's approach, that the price being paid now is uneconomic, is an unsettling factor.

What we must do is to encourage the production of tomatoes and, particularly in the Gaeltacht areas, I want to see more and more glass-houses built. From my discussions with people in the Gaeltacht who have glass-houses I know that they consider it an excellent scheme. I know that there are many people in the Gaeltacht who want that scheme extended. That being so, it is the duty of every one of us to encourage the extension of the scheme. There are 200 glass-houses, approximately, in the Gaeltacht of Connemara and Donegal. I should like to see many hundreds more. The people in the Gaeltacht have to do their part in the scheme and anything that unsettles them or leads them to believe that the scheme will break down in a few years, that the country will be flooded with Dutch or other foreign tomatoes and that they will not have a market, is not in the national interest.

It has been stated here specifically by the Minister that when he took over control of the Department of Agriculture last year, by stopping imports of tomatoes in August and September he was able almost to double the receipts of glass-houses in the Gaeltacht. The Minister has done a remarkable job in a very short period by that simple method of stopping imports of tomatoes that were flooding the country during those months.

Deputy Dunne—I am glad he is here —and others of us impressed on Deputy Dillon the necessity for some such prohibition on imports in the interests of our producers. I hope that as time goes on the Minister for Agriculture will be in a position to extend the period during which imports are stopped.

I have been at the Dublin market and I thought it was a shocking disgrace to see people walking around in rubber boots, up to their knees in tomatoes that had been brought in from Holland. They were trying to hand out boxes of tomatoes for almost nothing. I do not know how that is done, but it is not nationally desirable that the country should be flooded in that way and that a valuable national industry should be sabotaged in the initial stage.

I am glad Deputy Rooney is here. I am sorry he was not here to hear Deputy O'Higgins talking on this subject. Deputy O'Higgins's contribution to this debate was that the Minister was to be condemned because he was trying to improve the price the tomato grower would get. Deputy O'Higgins says that that is wrong; that you must consider the consumer. If we have concern only for the consumer we will flood the country with Dutch tomatoes and will have the position in the Dublin market that you have to wear rubber boots to walk through rotten and rotting tomatoes.

Is the Deputy not interested in the consumers?

I have considerable interest in the consumers, because I represent a constituency in which nearly everybody is a consumer. The fact that I am interested in consumers does not necessarily mean that I have to forget all that I ever learned about the fundamentals of building up our Irish national industries. I am not afraid or ashamed to go into any part of my constituency and explain to the people that the development of our industries gives good employment, that it is in their own interests that there should be that employment, that it means employment for some of their own children, some of their own friends.

You will be misrepresented.

I know, but I do not mind about being misrepresented. I consider that the consumers in my area and in other areas in the city are intelligent people, who understand things. They are not led astray by all this talk about the consumers. They do not want tomatoes at ½d. a lb. if it means that there will be derelict glass-houses all over the country and more unemployment.

I have a little practical experience of growing tomatoes. I grow tomatoes, not on a very extensive scale. During the period of office of the inter-Party Government I was selling a certain amount of tomatoes, making what I consider was a reasonable return. It would take me nine or ten years to pay for the glass-houses. Nevertheless, I and my family worked in our spare time, and we had an interesting occupation. I found that the price dropped so low that it was not worth while taking the tomatoes to the market. I bottled the tomatoes that I produced. I hope the Minister will be able to do the same thing in the Gaeltacht and elsewhere. I have bottled tomatoes all the year round. I make at home the sauces and chutneys that we need for the whole year round and quite a considerable quantity that we give away. In doing that I find I can save more money than if I were to sell the tomatoes at the market price and buy tinned or bottled tomatoes when the fresh tomatoes are gone. I believe there is a germ of an idea there. It would be of great assistance, particularly in the Gaeltacht, if we could have increased production of tomatoes, and if those tomatoes could be bottled or tinned in the Gaeltacht or converted into sauces or chutneys. In that way the producers in the Gaeltacht would get a much better return and industry would be created in the areas.

I just wanted to make those particular observations. It is regrettable that in 1952 we should be driven back to discussions as to whether the correct thing is to build up our own industries or to allow unlimited imports and destroy our own industries. I think that Deputies who come here as representatives of the people should have their minds made up on that matter. If they had made up their minds, we would be able to approach the problem in the correct way without going back to these out-of-date discussions as to whether we should have these unlimited exports or build up our own industries.

I think that the problem of the tomato growing industry crystallises in its own way the whole problem of agricultural production and distribution in this country. I hardly think it is realistic to assume that there are in this House amongst any Party persons who would consciously try to promote a policy which would have as its results the destruction of a native industry and an improvement in demand for the benefit of the products of a foreign industry, no matter what the cause or the circumstances might be. I think it will be found when you tear away the arguments made on all sides for political advantage, when you cast aside these considerations, and look at the problem as it is, an economic problem, you will find there is very little difference of opinion and very little difference in the real attitude of all Deputies towards the question of tomato growing generally. I have interested myself in this question since the first day I entered this House and it will be within the recollection of Deputies that during the lifetime of the previous Government I lost no opportunity to bring before the then Minister the position in which the tomato-growing industry was placed and the steps which I felt should be taken to put it into a satisfactory condition. As I have said, the industry in those years was not and now is not in a satisfactory condition because the attitude of mind of successive Governments towards it and towards agriculture generally, particularly so far as the distribution end is concerned, has been identical. Deputy McQuillan hit the nail on the head when he talked about the price that the producer gets and has got in other years and the price that the consumer has to pay. Thereby hangs a tale.

This motion of Deputy MacBride is a laudable motion. Anything that can be done to promote and encourage the growth of the language in the West should be done, within, of course, reasonable limits, because the language is something that every one of us wants to see revived but some of us should cast our minds back to the war years and, if we can recall the language that was used by the working class people of Dublin in relation to the price of tomatoes during the years of the war, I think it will be agreed that it was a language, in the words of the song, that the English did not know. What was the position then? Is it not a fact the working class people in this city, and in every city and town, had to pay an extraordinarily high price if they wanted to get tomatoes? Is it not a fact that they had to pay 6/-, 7/- and 8/- per lb? Is there anybody who will try to justify that price? I do not think that anybody will dare to do it.

The previous Minister for Agriculture in his approach to this problem did not, in my view, take the steps which were necessary to correct the abuse that occurred during those years. I do not see any evidence that the present Minister is doing it either. I am convinced that in order to get a condition of affairs in the tomato industry which will be satisfactory to all, there must be some degree of State supervision in this industry. I have spoken over many years to men in my own constituency who have spent long years growing tomatoes, to their employees and to the Tomato Growers' Organisation, the organisation which represents growers nationally in this country. They have expressed to me on numerous occasions the view that could they be assured of an economic price all the year round for their produce, they would rest content, but they are not assured of that. Even the restriction on the importation of Dutch tomatoes, which now applies, does not give them that assurance or that guarantee because, if Irish producers have an exceptionally good year, and produce too much for the needs of the market on a particular day, week or month, they are subject again to the fluctuations which come from this system of supply and demand, this system of profit-making which dominates every phase of national life in this country. The producers of tomatoes, like the producers of every other agricultural commodity, are completely at the mercy of those in charge of the distributing end. Even in past years to which Deputy Cowan referred, when the price of tomatoes in the Dublin market sank to a very low level, you could still go down Moore Street or any of the shopping centres in Dublin to buy tomatoes and you were charged a very high price, a price far too high so far as working-class people were concerned.

What is the point in our talking in vague and general terms about this industry without realising that before there can be any satisfaction, any proper adjustment of the position, there must be some degree of State supervision? There should be a guaranteed price for the producer. I was told 18 months ago by a number of producers that if they were guaranteed a price of 1/3 to 1/6 per lb. for home-grown tomatoes-tomatoes grown under glass —they would consider it an adequate price. Since then costs may have altered somewhat. Wages have not altered very much, I can assure the House. Other costs may have altered. How many working-class families in this city can be assured of a supply of tomatoes at 1/9 to 2/- per lb. all the year round? I believe that if the Minister is in earnest—and I have no reason to think he is not—in his desire to promote this industry and to encourage its expansion, he will have to take the bull by the horns. He will have to provide a central marketing board which will lay down a guaranteed price for the producer and which will fix a ceiling for the price to be charged to the people in the cities and towns who consume tomatoes.

We are all anxious that native industry should be encouraged and built up and that the maximum number of our own people are employed in native industry. None of us want to see foreign tomatoes being imported—or, indeed, any foreign article, for that matter. However, in our desire to bring about that position, we must ensure that we do not impose too great a hardship upon the consuming public. Some advocates here would appear to think that you have either to be all for the producer and against the consumer or all for the consumer and against the producer. That is a nonsensical attitude to take up in this matter. There is a happy medium which must be found. People who like to eat tomatoes will tell you that the Irish tomato is superior in flavour to the imported tomato—and that is correct. These people are prepared to pay a differential over the price demanded for foreign tomatoes. I do not think that this is a question which should be left to the jungle economics that obtain in so far as the present-day business methods of this industry are concerned. I do not think that the economic policy of the survival of the fittest and of the glorification of competitive business will serve any useful purpose in relation to this industry. In fact, I think it will do immeasurable harm. I think it will lead, eventually, to monopolisation even in this small industry because the small man will have no chance whatsoever of carrying on if prices are going to be driven down to such a level that only large-scale production will enable a man to carry on in business at all. The tomato-growing industry is an industry that can prove of immense value to the country. It is not at the moment employing one-twentieth of the number it is capable of employing, if properly developed. If this motion does nothing else it will at least have occasioned a discussion in this House which will give the Minister food for thought.

I hope that the Minister will get rid of the old idea of letting this industry go whichever way it will and of taking care of itself, with the least possible interference. That attitude is not good enough because it will lead to an end of the tomato-growing industry. That industry needs supervision, aid, guaranteed prices for the producer, a reasonable profit for the distributor— and not the robber profits which have been made and are being made at present by distributors in this particular line—and a ceiling price for the people who, in the last analysis, have to pay, namely, the community. The Minister will do a great deal of good if he does that.

I support this motion. My attitude towards the tomato industry has always been consistent and the record will prove my statement.

When a problem presented itself to the growers early in 1948, Deputy Dunne and myself were the first two persons in this House to raise the question of the dumping of tomatoes in this country which resulted in Irish-grown tomatoes being sold at a price below what could be regarded as an economic level. I am in favour of protection for the tomato industry in so far as the growers can (1) meet the demand, (2) provide tomatoes at a price within the reach of the consumers and (3) provide the tomatoes at a price related in some way to the price at which the foreign tomatoes can be sold in this country—these foreign tomatoes having been brought, possibly, 1,000 miles over land and sea and put on the market here. I realise that the weather in these other countries probably suits tomato growing better than our climate, and also that the level of wages paid to persons engaged in the tomato-growing industry outside this country is higher than the level of wages paid to people engaged in tomato growing here. These are factors which must be taken into consideration when the question of price presents itself. I hope that the present Minister will encourage the expansion of this industry and that, when he is expanding this industry at the expense of the taxpayer, he will keep in mind the interests of the taxpayer in so far as the prices of tomatoes are concerned. If the taxpayers are going to finance the expansion of the tomato-growing industry in order to ensure that Irish-grown tomatoes will be available, it is only right that they should expect the Administration and the Minister to ensure that tomatoes will be available to them at a reasonable price.

We are aware that our climate does not permit of a large quantity of tomatoes becoming available during most of the year. There are only a couple of months—I think August and September—during which our growers can produce the full requirements of the consumers of this country. With expansion, it is probable that a sufficiency of tomatoes could be grown for the consumers in this country, to be available during the month of July and, possibly, the earlier part of October.

When the scheme for the expansion of tomato growing comes under way, I hope measures will be instituted to ensure that heating will be provided in glass-houses to enable growers to produce tomatoes during months other than the months of August and September. It is probable that the production of tomatoes by means of artificial heating may prove more expensive than the ripening of tomatoes under normal conditions. In that respect, I believe that the growers would be entitled to some kind of price adjustment. I was very glad to see that last year the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, made an Order which provided protection for growers in this country during the months of August and September. He probably did so having regard to previous experience and the knowledge that our growers were capable of producing sufficient tomatoes for consumers in this country during those months.

When the question of protection arises, however, there is always the danger that advantage will be taken of that protection, and there is the point at which the Minister should have a function to ensure that fair play will be given to both sides, particularly having regard to the cost of producing the tomatoes. It would be a great hardship on tomato growers, having cultivated the crop and put the tomatoes on the market, if they did not receive in return a little profit in addition to the cost of labour, and the other expenses in connection with the production of the tomatoes. That is where the level of protection should come in.

The law of supply and demand is one which has always hit producers in this country. All is well when there is a scarcity. The price appears then to provide a return to the producer. But the very moment he produces too much he finds that advantage is taken of his position, and that he is obliged to take a sacrifice price for his produce. At the same time, the cost in the matter of labour and other expenses of producing the surplus is the same as the cost of producing a smaller crop in the long run. Therefore the law of supply and demand should only be permitted to operate when prices have reached a certain level, and below that the law should not be permitted to operate.

In every other branch of trade and industry there are basic figures. The only basic figures existing so far as people engaged on the land are concerned are for wheat and beet. These are the only two crops for which the producers when they are planting the seeds can say the price which they will get when they produce the crop. Every other crop is subject to supply and demand, and that is an unsatisfactory position when the price goes below the cost of production

If this scheme is extended in the Gaeltacht areas, I hope that it will be a success. It has been an experiment so far. The experience we have had up to the present—perhaps it would not be advisable to base our views on that experience—has not been very encouraging. It is, however, worth another trial. Every effort should be made to find out whether in fact it is an economic proposition, first of all for the growers of tomatoes and, secondly, for the consumers, to expand the tomato-growing industry in the Gaeltacht and western areas. We know that the climate there is very humid, and possibly there is not as much sunshine there as there is in the drier districts of the country. At the same time, we know that this is the type of industry which suits smallholders best. It enables them to get the most from a small area of land.

I fully support the terms of this motion. I believe that it is one more step in our efforts to be self-sufficient. After self-sufficiency the question of efficiency arises. We ought to be able to compare the results of our efforts in this country with the results that can be obtained elsewhere. Prices generally in the country should be compared with the prices of similar articles elsewhere, having regard to labour costs and expenses and all other considerations. I am not one of those who believe that the public should be made to pay through the nose rather than pay a normal price, so that an Irish product can be grown. There has been an inclination to go all out for self-sufficiency and to make the public pay for that. It is all very well getting people to pay for it in the initial stages in order to get production into full gear, whether it be the tomato industry or any kind of manufacturing industry, but, when it has been firmly established, it is only right for the taxpayer to expect that the measure of protection required and the measure of protection to be afforded should not be so great as in the initial stages.

The measure of protection now to be given to tomato growers must be carefully considered. The industry is only in its infancy, especially if we are to aim at producing Irish tomatoes all through the 12 months of the year. It will be more expensive to produce Irish tomatoes during the winter months than during the summer months. If we are to aim at tomato production in this way, we ought to be able to get some scale of prices related to the cost of production at these different times. But at all times we must ensure that if the housewife wants tomatoes she will be able to buy them, and buy them at a reasonable price. We do not want to have a position in which the housewife will find that there are no tomatoes to-day, or there will be no tomatoes this week because of one difficulty or another. We must take steps to ensure that, no matter where the tomatoes come from, the housewife will be able to get them when she wants them, and able to get them at a reasonable price.

Chuir sé fonn gáire orm nuair a chuala mé gach duine ag labhairt faoín nGaeltacht agus faoi mhuintir na Gaeltachta agus gan fiú is focal amháin Gaeílge á labhairt sa Teach. Ar buíle a bhí mé nuair a ibhreathnaigh mé ar an rún; chuir sé onadh orm. As an nGaeltacht, as príomh-chathair na Gaeltachta, isteach mé agus tuigim an Ghaeltacht, ach níor thuig na daoine a bhí ag caint ar chor ar bith an Ghaeltacht agus, dá mbeidís anseo ar feadh míle bliain, ní thuigfeadh siad í. Tá ímní orm faoin nGaeltacht. Is beag an tsuim a chuir na daoine sin i dtrátaí ná i gcúrsaí na Gaeltachta ná i muintir na Gaeltachta leis na trí bliana atá caite, agus tá fhios agam sin. Tá fhios againn an luach a bhí ar na trátaí i gcaitheamh, na haimsire sin, ach anois tá Aire ann go bhfuil dearcadh nua aige agus atá sásta obair ar mhaithe leis an Gaeltacht a dhéanamh. Tá siad anois ag iarraidh go bhfuighidh muintir na Gaeltachta luach ar na trátaí, ach sílím go gceapann siad go bhfuil muintir na Gaeltachta an-bhog ar fad agus gur féidir leo dallamallóg a chur orthu. An geeapann na daoine seo gur cineál amadáin muid? Tá fhios againn céard a tharla le trí bliana anuas, ach anois i mbliana tá muintir Chonamara sásta leis an luach a fuair siad ar na trátaí. Tá Aire tuisceannach againn inniu agus tá iontaoibh ag muintir na Gaeltachta as. Tá fhios againn go maith go bhfuil sé ag tabhairt aire do chúrsaí mhuintir na Gaeltachta agus go ndeanfaidh sé an rud ceart dóibh. Ná bíodh aon fhaitíos oraibh faoi sin. Tugadh Baile Atha Cliath aire do Bhaile Atha Cliath agus tabhairfaidh muide aire don Ghaeltacht agus do príomh-chathair na Gaeltachta. Dá mbeadh spioraid ar bith sa dream a chur síos an rún seo, sé an rud a dhéanfadh siad ná é a tharraing siar agus dul an doras amach, mar ba cheart náire agus ceann faoi a bheith orthu.

This is a motion that I would like to support. At the same time, I have grave doubts as to whether a success can be made of the national tomato industry unless there is good organisation at the top. With the organisation we had during the last number of years, the tomato industry left a very bad taste in the mouths of consumers.

I would remind the Deputy that the discussion on this motion must end at 8.22. Deputy MacBride will require about 15 minutes or so to conclude unless the House agrees that he should conclude at 8.20.

I will not be long. There are two sides to this question. I agree that the tomato-growing industry should be tried out in the West of Ireland amongst the small uneconomic holders. I am satisfied that at present, at least in my end of the country, the wrong type of people are in the industry. I think it is very wrong that money should be given to men with large tracts of land. This is an industry which, I think, should be confined to the cottier and the small uneconomic holder, to men who cannot make a living for themselves on their small holdings. But the present position is that the industry is being allowed to extend to men with 1,500 acres of land. They cover a couple of acres of their estates with glass-houses at the expense of the State. I think that is going too far. While that is the position, those men, with their vast estates, do not grow a head of cabbage. They have cattle roaming over their estates and, at the same time, they avail of every opportunity to get Government money at the expense of the ordinary poor people.

As I have said, unless there is a proper organisation at the top, the drive that we are making in regard to this industry will flop—that is, unless the people concerned wake up and do something for themselves. I am also satisfied that, for a couple of years, the public were absolutely fleeced when there was no competition. I believe that, whether a product is foreign or native, there should be reasonable competition in every industry. I am of the opinion that a ceiling should be fixed in regard to the price of Irish tomatoes. Neither the poor man nor the middle-class man can afford to buy tomatoes at 4/-, 5/- or 6/- per lb. I think the price should be kept at a reasonable figure, say 2/- or 2/6. If the price fixed is a reasonable one, then I am satisfied that the industry will be able to get on a firm foundation. I believe that it should be a poor man's industry and that every effort should be made to confine it to the poor man. It is an industry which, in my opinion, should be encouraged in the West of Ireland, where so many people have a hard struggle to make ends meet. If we fail to do something for them then they must emigrate.

I do not wish to detain the House longer. I welcome the motion but I urge caution. If we are to make a success of the industry a good organisation will be necessary to see that the right type of people will get the grants. We should not allow the industry to pass into the hands of big people. If the points which I have urged are attended to, then I think I can say the industry will have the blessing of all of us.

Sílim féin nach raibh gá leis an rún seo ar chor ar bith. Tá fhios againn gurb é Rialtais Fianna Fáil a chuir tús leis an scéim seo agus tá fógraithe againn go bhfuil muid ar tí leanúínt den scéim seo agus tuilleadh tithe gloinne i gcóir trátaí sa Ghaeltacht. Is maith liom scéim ar bith a árdaíonn staid eacnamaíoctha mhuintir na Gaeltachta agus a thug ann caoi do na feirmeoirí beaga agus do na daoine nach bhfuil mórán talúin acu annseo slí bheatha a bhaint amach agus obair d'fháil atá siad ábalta a dhéanamh sa bhaile.

Ní aontuím leis an Teachta deireannach a labhair. Chomh fada agus a bhaineann an scéim le Tír Chonaill, is íad na feirmeoirí beaga a fuair na tithe gloine agus chuir siad obair chruaidh isteach ar an scéim sin-Bhí siad chomh bródúil as na tithe gloinne agus as na trátaí d'fhás ann agus a bhí as scéim ar bith chun tairbhe na Gaeltachta. Aontuím leís an rud adúirt an Teachta Cowan gur ceart ní amháin trátaí d'fhás sa Ghaeltacht ach gur cheart na trátaí sin, nuair a bhíos barraiocht díobh ann a dhéanamh suas i mbuidéal agus ketchup agus rudaí mar sin a dhéanamh más féidir é.

Ba chóir go mbeadh an tír seo ábalta, ní amháin sa Ghaeltacht ach ar fud na tíre go léir, dóthain an phobail de thrátaí d'fhás agus, sula dtáinig an Teachta O Diolúín mar Aire Talmhaíochta bhí lucht fásta trátaí ag cur oibre isteach sa tionscal sin agus tá mé cinnte, dá dtugta cabhair don tionscal sin i rith na trí lliana a chuaigh thart go mbeadh lucht soláthair trátaí ábalta inniu formhór na dtrátáí a h-úsáidtear sa tír seo d'fhás. Ba mhaith liom mórán eile a rá ach tá fhios agam go bhfuil sé in am anois don Teachta Mac Giolla Bhrighde labhairt agus dá bhrí sin cuirim críoch le mo chuid cainte. Sílim féin nach raibh gá ná feídhm nó gnoithe ar bith leis an rún seo.

Mr. Coburn

May I ask a question? Am I to understand that this fixation of price deals only with tomatoes grown in Connemara, or are we to take it that there is going to be a fixed price for tomatoes grown all over the country? According to the speeches made by a number of Deputies on the motion, the Minister is going to give a guaranteed price for tomatoes all over the country which is a very different thing. At least, many of the speeches would lead one to believe that.

Quite the contrary.

Mr. Coburn

I should like to have that point made clear.

Deputy Coburn has practically made the first point I wanted to make. Unfortunately most of the Deputies who have spoken do not seem to have read the motion very carefully.

Mr. Coburn

Hear, hear!

The bulk of the discussion ranged over the question as to whether the tomato-growing industry, as a whole, should be protected or not. This motion standing in my name, which has been discussed on two occasions, does not propose any measure to extend the tomato-growing industry to the whole country, nor does it propose protection. Most of the discussion seems to have ranged over these two aspects. However, I suppose that is inevitable in this House, and to that extent the discussion has been rather disappointing.

The discussion was also disappointing in another respect, that a great many Deputies on the Government side seemed to have been far more interested in trying to launch some personal or political attacks against myself or members of the last Government. I do not propose to deal with a great many of the contemptible charges that were made by some Deputies, including Deputy Cogan. That type of thing is rather amusing, and indicates that many Deputies are not very observant. I have been accused of tabling this motion in order to make political capital, and that now that I am in opposition I was going to use this to make political capital against the present Government—that it was to embarrass the Government as such, and that it was dishonest. I think these words were used by the Minister.

Mr. Walsh

And they were perfectly true.

Very well, wait a minute. In point of fact, this motion was tabled more than two years ago. It has been on the Order Paper for two years, and was on it when the other Government was in office. Therefore, that in itself destroys the Minister's——

Mr. Walsh

Not in the name of Deputy MacBride.

Word for word, that motion was tabled in this House more than two years ago. It stood on the Order Paper for over two years in the name of members of my Party. I make no apology for it, and I retabled it immediately on the change of Government, in my own name. That disposes of the various suggestions of political dishonesty or trickery that have been levelled by the Minister and some of his colleagues. Possibly in future, before they level accusations of that kind, they might be a little bit more careful to investigate the motion which is under discussion.

Mr. Walsh

Why did the Deputy not have it discussed then?

The Minister does not want to let me talk. It is unfortunate that instead of dealing with a question of this kind objectively he should merely resort to the hurling of insults and epithets across the floor of the House. The motion itself is put forward on this basis, that the giving of protection in itself to the tomato-growing industry as a whole will not deal with the particular problem involved in Connemara and Donegal. It is one of the problems of the Gaeltacht, one of the problems which was faced recently by the Government, by the Tánaiste, when he found it necessary to introduce the Undeveloped Areas Bill. If you were to set up a market garden for the growing of tomatoes on any large scale, obviously you would not pick the Gaeltacht or Donegal, but you would set it up beside a big population centre such as Dublin, Cork or some big town. The same applies to many other industries. I thought that we had reached the stage where all Parties in this House were agreed that the Gaeltacht had to receive special treatment and special help, that we considered that the depopulation of the Gaeltacht was a menace that was threatening the existence of the Gaeltacht, and thereby threatening the possible success of the revival of the language and, therefore, we had reached the position where we accepted that special measures had to be brought in in order to assist the Gaeltacht.

The Gaeltacht tomato house scheme was a good one. I always thought it was a good one and said so; but it occurred to me that if it was to be a success it had to receive a certain degree of assistance that the tomato-growing industry in the rest of the country did not require. In other words, the big tomato growers or even the small tomato growers in County Dublin were obviously in a much more favourable position than the grower in Gweedore or Connemara and, therefore, they would require special assistance. The imposition of a tax or of a ban on imports undoubtedly is of some help to them, but proportionately it is of much less help to them than it is to the bigger producers in County Dublin or outside the big towns; and therefore, in order to extend a small measure of help to the growers in the Gaeltacht areas, it became necessary to impose a heavy levy on the consumer as a whole, the bulk of which went not to the growers in the Gaeltacht but to those in County Dublin, who did not require that help at that particular period. At some particular time of the year even the County Dublin growers may require help, but certainly not to the same extent as the Gaeltacht growers need it throughout the whole season. The position last year was, I think, that the growers in the Gaeltacht received 5d. to 8d. or 9d. per lb., while the tomatoes were resold at 3/- to 4/- per lb. Undoubtedly there is something wrong there.

Mr. Walsh

The average price was 1/- last year.

Mr. Walsh

Yes, in the Gaeltacht.

At some periods it was less. It was an improvement on the previous year. The previous year it ranged from 4d. to 7d. Undoubtedly, therefore, they required a greater degree of help than the grower in County Dublin. You are up against this difficulty in every phase of development here, that if you impose protection on a heavy scale you are imposing a tax on the consumer and contributing to an increase in the cost of living. I do not know to what extent that is necessary in the case of the tomato growers in County Dublin. I am not competent to judge that. It is a matter of costing and I am sure the Minister and the Department will look into it. I am quite satisfied, however, that the tomato grower in the Gaeltacht area does require protection and a greater degree of protection than the Dublin grower. The best way to deal with that position is not to impose a blanket protection on all imports of tomatoes at all periods of the year, which will make the price shoot up to the consumer, but to guarantee to the producer in the Gaeltacht a minimum price. If the guarantee of minimum price involves a subsidy, it would be a very small one. The cost of that subsidy could then be defrayed from the duty which is imposed on the import of tomatoes.

I think some Deputies mentioned that it would be better to subsidise the transport of the tomatoes. That would be a much more cumbersome method of achieving the result. It would be much simpler to guarantee a minimum price and provide a market at that minimum price.

Has the Deputy seen how they transport tomatoes from the glass-houses to the collection centres in the Gaeltacht?

I think that in Connemara the collection is arranged by a Dublin food merchant and that in the Donegal area it is done by a local merchant.

I think they use cleeves on asses.

I have not suggested a subsidy on transport. It was some of the Deputy's friends who suggested that. I think Deputy Cowan's friend, Deputy Cogan, suggested it: he might discuss it with him. I do not think that a subsidy on transport would meet the position, but I think a guaranteed minimum price would meet it.

Deputies should bear one point in mind in regard to the whole question of imposing duties and imposing protection, particularly with regard to an industry such as tomato growing. There is a much greater number of consumers in the country than there is tomato growers. I am all in favour of affording protection to the tomato grower, I am in favour of developing the tomato industry; but I think it would be highly dangerous for the development of that industry if prices were allowed to rise so high as to breed a reaction on the part of consumers. The consumers are in much greater force and could wield much more influence politically than a few tomato growers. Therefore, I think that the producers and the Minister, in looking after their interests, should always be very careful that, by affording high protection in any given cases, reaction should not be created which would be unfavourable to the development of the industry in the long run.

I wish to make one more point before I sit down. This guaranteed price was criticised by some Deputies as something extraordinary. Is there not a guaranteed price for milk? Is there not a guaranteed price for wheat? Is there not a guaranteed price for most crops?

Not for milk now.

Is there any reason why there should not be a guaranteed price for tomatoes in the Gaeltacht areas? I think many of the Deputies were very unfair to Deputy Dillon in regard to this. Undoubtedly Deputy Dillon was not enthusiastic about the scheme.

That is a masterly understatement.

It was he who extended the scheme and built more houses, which probably speaks more than a great many speeches.

Major de Valera

And made sure that the motion did not come up for two years.

There was no making sure the motion would not come up for two years. It was on the Order Paper and it was taken in its turn. I would ask the Minister to do everything to develop the industry in Connemara. I hope he will consider the proposal of a guaranteed price. It will save a good deal of trouble at the Dublin end.

Mr. Walsh

I have already told the House that I will do everything I can to extend tomato growing.

I then ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Top
Share