Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1938 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1936 - 1937

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 1adh Mi na Nodlag, 1938.

Thursday, 1st December, 1938.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY J. DILLON in the Chair.

Mr. J. Maher (representing the Comptroller and Auditor-General) and Mr. A. D. Codling (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 52—AGRICULTURE.

Mr. D. Twomey called and examined.

1081. Chairman.—On this Vote there is the following note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in regard to sub-head F (2)—Grants to Private Agricultural Schools, etc.:—

“In addition to a maintenance grant of £137 5s. 4d. from this sub-head a sum of £4,570 15s. 7d. was paid towards the cost of erection of a new school of Rural Domestic Economy from a balance of moneys remaining in the hands of the Department, derived from penalties imposed under the Corn Production Act, 1917. Paragraph 5 of the Third Schedule to this Act empowers the Department to apply such moneys for the purposes of agriculture and other rural industries within or in connection with the county or counties in which are situated the holdings in respect of which the penalties were paid.”

Have you any further observations to make on that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—No, Mr. Chairman. The paragraph gives all the information. The point is that the conditions laid down in the Corn Production Act, 1917, do not appear to have been adhered to in making the grant.

Inasmuch as that the rural domestic economy school was not erected in the county on which the fine was imposed?— The actual wording of the Act is: “Any such sum when received or recovered by the Department shall be applied by them for the purposes of agriculture and other rural industries within or in connection with the county or counties in which the holding is situated.”

1082. Was this rural domestic economy school not situated in the county where the penalty was levied?—I understand the penalties have been levied all over the country whereas the school is in Navan.

Mr. Twomey.—In this particular case penalties were levied in Counties Meath, Kildare and Dublin. The school is situated at Navan, and we consider that the moneys are being used fairly in connection with the county or counties from which the penalties were collected.

1083. Chairman.—No further penalties are likely to be collected under this legislation?—No. The main collection of the penalties ceased about 1926. Those were old moneys that were on hand.

1084. Those moneys were lying as a balance in your Department?—Yes. The total amount collected was £6,500.

1085. Did the Department of Finance have any view on this subject, Mr. Codling?

Mr. Codling.—We are awaiting some information from the Department of Agriculture, and consideration is also being given to the advisability of winding up those funds. Until we get a full record from the Department of Agriculture, I think it might be better not to commit the Department to any particular view. The matter is in hands.

1086. Chairman.—I do not think we need be unduly anxious about this corn law fund in any case, because the likelihood of its arising again is remote. I think we can safely leave it to Mr. Codling and Mr. Twomey to dispose of it.

1087. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General’s note continues as follows in regard to sub-head H and O.O. 13:—

“The Estimate for sub-head H included provision of £23,000 to meet expenses incurred by county committees in connection with the distribution of cattle export licences. As stated in the account, inspections of cattle by officers of committees were discontinued early in the year, and in consequence the recoupments to county committees amounted to only £7,770 4s. 10d. The inspections were resumed in January, 1937, but were carried out by departmental officers, and the salaries and expenses of the additional staff required, amounting to £1,827 8s. 10d., are charged to sub-head O.O. 13—Distribution of Cattle Export Licences.

“As from 1st July, 1936, applicants were required to pay a fee of 1/6 for each licence issued, and these receipts, amounting to £11,144 9s. 6d., are credited to Appropriations-in-Aid.”

Have you any further observation on that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—No, Mr. Chairman. The paragraph is simply to call attention to the variation in the charge for carrying out this service.

1088. It would appear, Mr. Twomey, that you have received over £11,000 on foot of fees and expended only £1,827?

Mr. Twomey.—There were salaries and expenses of additional staff also, not shown in that particular sub-head.

1089. My recollection, Mr. Twomey, is that the original proposal was to put on some kind of fee designed to stop people from making reckless applications for licences which they really did not want? —Yes; it was partly with that object and partly with a view to ensuring that the expenses incurred in the distribution of licences would be borne by the recipients.

1090. It would appear that in fact they are bearing substantially more than that? They are possibly making a contribution to the Exchequer as well?—Possibly.

1091. Deputy McMenamin.—Has this practice been discontinued?—Yes. That was in connection with cattle export licences.

1092. Deputy Smith.—How would a fee of 1/6 per licence cover all the expenses in connection with the distribution of the licences? Does an application entail inspection in all cases?—It did in a good many cases. A cattle owner applied, say, for 50 licences, and there was reason to believe that he could not possibly have 50 cattle, so there were many check inspections made.

1093. You have more or less stated that there was a possibility that this fee would not alone pay the expenses but might, as the Chairman suggested, produce a profit for the Exchequer. I should like to know how a fee of 1/6 per beast could possibly pay the expenses, seeing that you must carry out a check inspection in nearly all cases?

Chairman.—You will observe, Deputy, that the fee produced a sum of £11,000 odd.

Deputy Smith.—I see that figure, and it has been partially explained by Mr. Twomey, of course. I am not accepting that figure on its face value.

Mr. Twomey.—You see, Mr. Chairman, there is a reference in the paragraph to refunds to the county committee amounting to £7,700, and then the £1,800 has reference only to additional temporary staff employed. As well as that, there was a number of our own permanent officers part of whose time had to be devoted to supervising. I think that possibly the £11,000 collected would in or about cover the total cost of the distribution of the licences, and the amount that would be available for the Exchequer would be very small.

1094. Deputy Smith.—How was the figure of 1/6 arrived at?—At the time it was a rough estimate of the sum which would be required to cover the cost of distribution.

1095. Deputy McMenamin.—In relation to the number of cattle?—Yes.

1096. Chairman.—On sub-head M (5) there is the following note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“Including the expenditure of £33,342 7s. 11d. in the current year, the total Vote expenditure to 31st March, 1937, from moneys provided for the improvement of the Creamery Industry amounts to £1,100,646 0s. 7d. Receipts amount to £180,754 4s. 11d., leaving a net charge on public funds of £919,891 15s. 8d.”

Mr. Maher.—That is an annual paragraph.

1097. Chairman.—Will the charge on public funds in respect to that service tend to increase?—It is tending to decrease, because new development work is slowing up. It will tend to decrease from this on, in particular.

1098. There has been furnished by the Department, as an appendix^* to our report, a return similar to one supplied for several years, and it would appear the tendency is to fall?—Yes.

1099. Paragraph 42 of Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report:—

Sub-head M (7)—Oats and Barley Purchase Scheme.

“This scheme was introduced in November, 1935, with the object of maintaining the prices of home-grown oats and barley. Under the scheme registered dealers in oats and barley undertook to purchase the 1935 crop at fixed prices, and were given a guarantee that the Minister for Agriculture would take over such stocks as remained unsold on the 30th June, 1936; 94,698 barrels remained unsold at that date, and arrangements were made by which the dealers concerned disposed of the stocks as agents for the Minister for Agriculture and were paid a commission on the sales effected and also allowances in respect of storage and interest on the capital involved. All stocks were disposed of by the 31st August, 1936, and the net cost of the scheme amounted to £2,149 1s. 2d.”

Deputy McMenamin.—Did they realise an economic price, or had they only to pay commission to people who had stocks?— They realised 16/- and 16/4 per barrel.

1100. What was the fixed price?—That was the price guaranteed by the Minister. The loss shown was mainly due to commission paid to dealers for disposing of the barley.

1101. As they had these stocks they would hardly dispose of them except at their own price?—Yes.

1102. Paragraph 43 of Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report:—

Sub-head O (9)—Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Acts, 1933 to 1935.

“The charge to the sub-head includes £695 14s. 3d. advanced in connection with the scheme of credit for seed wheat referred to in previous reports. Repayments during the year, which are credited to Appropriations-in-Aid, amounted to £2,695 1s. 0d. The total of advances outstanding at 31st March, 1937, was £1,532 3s. 4d.”

Has any of that money been recovered?—Yes. The amount now due is quite small. It is being collected gradually.

1103. Paragraph 44 of Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report:—

Sub-head O (10)—Agricultural Products (Regulation of Export) Acts, 1933, and 1935.

“The amounts charged to this sub-head in respect of the purchase, storage and export of butter and eggs were £286,918 9s. 7d. and £141,254 4s. 9d., respectively. The accounts and balance sheets relating to the trading in these commodities during the year have not yet been furnished to me.

As the sub-head provided for the purchase of butter for export only. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding the sale on the home market of approximately 4,000 cwts. of the quantity acquired during the year. This matter is also referred to in paragraph 100 of this report.”

Mr. Maher.—The Audit Office has been furnished with the account in respect of eggs but, I understand, the account in respect of butter has not yet been furnished. It has been held up for some reason?— The account is, in fact, ready but we have had some discussion with the Department of Finance as to the precise form of it. The Department of Finance desires some change in the form in which we prepared it, and that has delayed submission. It will be ready in the course of a few days.

Mr. Codling.—The form has been approved of by the Department of Finance within the last few days.

1104. So that the Comptroller and Auditor-General may expect to receive the account soon?—Very shortly.

1105. How did the transaction concerning eggs, amounting to £141,254 4s. 9d., in connection with the purchase of eggs, turn out?—There was a net loss on the transaction for the year of £8,542, but there was no bounty paid on these exports. If these eggs had been exported by ordinary traders, say to Great Britain, the bounty payable would have been £38,147. Although there was a net loss on the actual trade, the Exchequer would have gained to the extent of about £30,000, by a saving of the bounty which would have been payable if they were exported in the ordinary way.

1106. The eggs were sent to the Continent?—Yes.

1107. Were these eggs exported to a particular market, or to a variety of markets?—Mainly to one market.

1108. Were they all sent to Spain?— No, to Germany.

1109. Have these exports ceased?— They will cease at the end of this year. As a matter of fact, the trading transaction in eggs will cease altogether at the end of the year.

1110. Can you give any account of how the butter transaction turned out, representing £286,918 9s. 7d.?—In that particular case, owing to the arrangement by which bounty and subsidy was paid, it will just enable the Newmarket Dairy Company to come out even. There is neither a profit nor a loss.

1111. What was the average price of the butter?—I have not the average price worked out.

1112. Deputy McMenamin.—Was the bounty on eggs payable only on what was shipped to Great Britain?—No, the bounty was payable to private traders on eggs shipped to any country, but, in the case of eggs sent by the Department of Agriculture to Germany, the bounty was not payable.

1113. On an ordinary business transaction the Department lost £8,542?—Yes.

1114. That is taking it commercially?— Yes, without bounty, because the Department of Agriculture, by buying at that time in the market, naturally had to buy at the same price as merchants to whom bounty was being paid.

1115. Perhaps it would be possible to furnish at a later stage the average price of the butter?—Yes.

1116. Paragraph 45 of Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report:—

Sub-head O. 13—Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts, 1934 and 1935, etc.

The expenditure charged to this sub-head includes:—

Chairman.—The several sub-heads are subsequently dealt with by notes, and we can take them as they occur. In regard to salaries, wages and travelling expenses, do these items relate to inspectors who go around looking at the cattle?—Yes, as well as to persons engaged in connection with the free beef scheme.

1117. They were checking up on the licensed victuallers?—Yes.

1118. Paragraph 46 of Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report:—

Loans to Companies.

“The balance, £2,000, of the loan of £16,000 referred to in paragraph 46 of my last report, was issued during the year to the Company concerned.

A further advance of £6,000 was made to this Company towards the cost of erecting and equipping an extension to the Company’s factory to deal with an increased supply of cattle. As stated in the account subsequent developments made it inadvisable for the Department to undertake delivery of the increased supplies agreed upon and, as a result, the question of payment of compensation to the Company for its expenditure on the extension to the factory is under consideration.”

Chairman.—Have any further steps been taken here?

Mr. Maher.—Yes. I understand that the question of compensation has been settled, and that it was the subject of a Supplementary Estimate in July last, when the Minister gave a comprehensive explanation in the Dáil.

1119. Chairman.—Did this company pay back the £22,000 it borrowed?—It has been paid in full.

1120. What was the total amount of compensation it received?—I think about £15,000.

1121. They got altogether £32,400, including £15,500 for the extension of the Roscrea factory, and £16,900 for cattle supplies?—Yes.

1122. Was it understood that they were to put in some money, over and above what they borrowed, to undertake the extension?—A very considerable amount over and above what was borrowed for that purpose.

1123. Deputy McMenamin.—What was the fixed ratio that they were to put up against the amount supplied by the Department?—Originally the extension was estimated to cost about £16,000, of which the Minister undertook to advance £12,000. In fact, the extension cost about £27,000 odd, and the Minister had actually advanced, not £12,000 but £11,000, and that £11,000 was taken into account in estimating the net compensation paid.

1124. What was that compensation for? —It involved two things. In accordance with the original agreement made with the company, under which the Minister undertook to compensate them if the scheme was terminated before the end of the four years’ period. There was compensation for the cessation of cattle supplies; and the other item was in respect to an extension which was undertaken at the instance of the Minister, but which, in fact, was not required for the business of the company.

1125. These were the commitments under these contracts of which we heard in the Dáil?—Yes.

1126. Paragraph 47 of Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report:—

Compensation for animals slaughtered.

“The animals supplied to the Company referred to in the previous paragraph are acquired under the scheme for the elimination of old and uneconomic cattle, in respect of which expenditure amounting to £106,492 10s. is charged to sub-head O 13 as compensation for animals slaughtered. The number of animals acquired during the year was 45,028, of which 44,675 were transferred to the Company and 353 to other concerns engaged in a similar business.”

Chairman.—Were these animals paid for by the company or given free, gratis and for nothing?—They were free. The only charge to the company was the cost of freight from the point of loading to the factory.

1127. Deputy McMenamin.—You put them free on rail?—Yes.

1128. Paragraph 48, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report:—

Purchase of Cattle for Canning.

“I have not yet been furnished with accounts of the purchase and sale of cattle for canning purposes required to be rendered under Section 39 of the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act, 1934.

The cost, including freight, etc., of the cattle purchased during the year under the agreement referred to in my last report was £15,037 9s. 3d. Receipts from sales, which are credited to Appropriations-in-Aid, amounted to £6,815 5s. 5d.”

Mr. Maher.—We have since received these accounts and they have been examined.

1129. Chairman.—Was this transaction anticipated to show a loss or a profit?

Mr. Twomey.—It was realised from the beginning that it would show a loss.

1130. What loss did it in fact show?— £8,659 11s. 10d.

1131. This scheme had reference to the healthy but uneconomic cow?—No; this had reference to the position that existed in the Kerry cattle area in County Kerry where there was a large number of bullocks of the Kerry type that were unsaleable except at a very low price; and it, was to relieve that situation that an arrangement was made with the meat factory at Waterford to set up a plant to convert these cattle into tinned meat. It was arranged that the cattle would be supplied to the company at 10/- per cwt. live weight. They cost the Department more than that. They cost the Department something in the region of 15/- per cwt. live weight. It was realised from the begining that the cattle would have to be supplied to the company at less than they were bought for in County Kerry.

1132. Deputy McMenamin.—Was there any agreement as to the price, and what were the conditions and terms for the delivery of the cattle? You say you agreed to deliver at a lesser price?—Yes. The agreement provided that the Minister would participate in the profits once they exceeded a certain amount.

1133. They were apparently given on different terms from the others; you delivered free to the factory in this case? —We did.

1134. Did that cost about 15/- per cwt.?—About that.

1135. Including all charges?—Yes.

1136. You charged the company 10/-? —Yes, 10/- per cwt.

1137. Deputy Smith.—I do not know if Deputies have very bad memories, but I heard so much about uneconomic cows and canned meat in the Dáil some time ago that it will do me for the rest of my life.

Chairman.—I can well imagine that, Deputy.

1138. Paragraph 49, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report:—

Compensation to canned beef manufacturers.

“The expenditure of £1,410, provided in a Supplementary Estimate, relates to ex-gratia payments of £860 and £550, respectively, made to the firms formerly engaged in the manufacture of canned beef, whose activities in that business were terminated as the result of a monopoly granted to the firm purchasing the cattle for canning purposes under the agreement mentioned in the preceding paragraph.”

Chairman.—Where did the authority come from to make these ex-gratia payments?—A special authority from the Department of Finance.

1139. In any case, there was a supplementary estimate presented?—Yes, an estimate was presented and passed in the Dáil.

1140. Deputy McMenamin.—It would seem from this that there were two firms formerly engaged in this. Have they now been put out of business and is there only one firm with a monopoly?—That was the position during the currency of the agreement; but the agreement is now terminated and there is nothing to prevent other firms from engaging in canning again.

1141. Paragraph 50, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report:

Purchase of beef for distribution to recipients of unemployment assistance, outdoor relief or home assistance.

“The Beef Supply (Price to Recipients) (Amendment) Regulations, 1936, increased the price payable by recipients to victuallers for the beef supplied, from 2d. per lb. to 3d. per lb. as from 6th April, 1936. The contribution by the Department remained unchanged at 2d. per lb.

Under the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts. 1934 and 1935 (Cesser) (No. 2) Order, 1936, the provisions of the Acts relating to the supply of beef ceased to be in force as from 6th December, 1936. The payments by the Department in respect of beef supplied to this date amounted to £70930 17s. 10d. As noted in the account, this expenditure includes ex-gratia payments of £33 4s. 2d., £5 8s. 11d., £15 18s. 10d., and £10 8s. 1d. made with the sanction of the Minister for Finance to victuallers for beef supplied of a quality other than that prescribed by the segulations under the Acts, and also £2 8s. 4d. paid to a victualler for beef supplied for which no vouchers are available.

Claims by victuallers amounting to approximately £6,000 have not yet been passed for payment owing to contraventions on the part of the claimants of the provisions of the Acts or of the regulations thereunder.

The Department of Local Government and Public Health administered a new scheme for the distribution of beef as from the date of cessation of the statutory scheme and my comments on the expenditure thereunder will be found in paragraph 24 of this report.”

Chairman.—Have you anything to add to that paragraph, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—We have already considered this matter some months ago under the Vote for Local Government. I understand a good portion of the £6,000 outstanding has now been adjusted.

1142. Chairman.—What is the position now, Mr. Twomey, in regard to the £6,000 outstanding?

Mr. Twomey.—That is being collected.

1143. Perhaps I have not made myself clear. The penultimate paragraph says that claims by victuallers amounting to approximately £6,000 are under consideration by you as to whether they are valid or not. I was wondering if you had determined these claims?—No, they have not all been settled. A good many have been settled. The claims were not being paid because of certain breaches of the regulations, such as supplying the wrong type of meat, or in some cases the victuallers concerned had not paid the levies required under the Act.

1144. Deputy Keyes.—Was not the question of dealing with this transferred to the Local Government Department?— Not that kind of matter—nor the collection of moneys due prior to the date of transfer.

1145. Chairman.—I take it the Committee’s principal concern is to suggest that the sooner accounts of this kind are wound up and closed the better?—We feel bound to collect every penny that we can in the public interest.

1146. Is this a question of collection or of determining claims against you for money?—They are both involved at the same time.

1147. Deputy Smith.—Is it the intention to take legal proceedings in all cases where the amount of the levy outstanding is greater than the amount due by your Department to the particular person concerned?—No.

1148. Deputy Linehan.—Is not the Department taking proceedings all over the country?—For the collection of the levy?

1149. They were even facing cases where the amount in dispute was greater than the amount of the levy?—In every case where there is a levy due to us, if after repeated applications we do not receive the money, we have no option but to send it to the Law Officers for collection.

1150. Despite the fact that there may be a disputed account even of greater amount between the Department and the victualler for goods he supplied?—Yes. In a great many of these cases it is quite clear that we have no authority to remit the amount of the levies due to us.

1151. Deputy Smith.—Do you make enquiries from the Gárda Síochána locally as to whether, even if you succeed in getting a decree, the amount would be collectible? —That is a matter for the Law Officers, not for us. We could not consider that. We have to put the matter in the hands of the Law Officers.

1152. In some cases it seems rather foolish to proceed against a man for recovery of money when, although not known to the Department, it would be known to the local Gárdaí that even if a decree were obtained the money could not be recovered?—I am afraid that we are bound to go so far in every case where there is money due to a public Department.

1153. Chairman.—Would it be the view of the Department of Finance, Mr. Codling, that it is highly desirable to get these accounts wound up rather than to have claims of this character dragging on indefinitely?

Mr. Codling.—Decidedly. As regards taking proceedings, when you look at the two branches of the claim and counter claim, I think the amount of the balance should be taken into consideration before pressing legal proceedings against a man. That might be put to the Law Officers on behalf of the Department of Agriculture when they send on such cases. That would quicken things up and, at the same time, prevent the State throwing good money after bad.

1154. Deputy Smith.—That is the point that I had in mind.

Mr. Codling.—I think that is the practice in connection with odd cases that arise in administration in the Departments; but where you get a whole mass of cases, as in this instance, of course it might mean a great deal of trouble to go into each case minutely. Possibly a general direction, such as I have indicated, might simplify matters.

1155. Paragraph 51, of the Comptroller and Auditor-Generals Report:—

Purchase of cattle for export.

“The accounts for the year 1936-37 of the trade in cattle required to be rendered under Section 39 of the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act, 1934, have not yet been transmitted to me.”

Chairman.—Have you since received these?

Mr. Maher.—Yes, we have since received these accounts and they have been audited.

1156. Will they come up for consideration in your next report?—These particular accounts, I understand, will be presented under Section 39 of the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act, 1934.

1157. Will they fall to be considered by the next Public Accounts Committee?—If the Dáil so refers them.

Chairman.—These accounts, I understand, show a profit and will come up before the next Committee on Public Accounts.

1158. Sub-head P—Appropriations-in-Aid. Levy under the Slaughter and Sheep Acts, 1934 and 1935. Paragraph 52 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“The provisions of the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts relating to the collection of levy on cattle and sheep slaughtered for human consumption ceased to be in force as from 1st August, 1936, under the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts, 1934 and 1935 (Cesser) Order, 1936. Levy collected during the year totalled to £101,004 17s. 5d., and the amount due but still uncollected on 31st March, 1937, was £49,688 16s. 9d.”

Chairman.—Has the bulk of that been since collected?

Mr. Twomey.—I am afraid not. We have collected some of it, and the balance is coming in gradually by instalments. In a great many cases we have made instalment arrangements with the debtors. In some cases these arrangements extend over three years. We are getting the money in gradually, but about £40,00 is still outstanding. I have no doubt that some of it will be irrecoverable, but we are collecting portion of it.

1159. Chairman.—It is too early o say what amount would properly be regarded as irrecoverable?—Yes.

1160. Deputy Smith.—Take a case where £50 or £60 is due to your Department. You take proceedings in the District Court for recovery of that amount. On hearing the evidence, the District Justice makes an order for payment at the rate of 2/6 per month. If it is desirable, to have the whole matter wound up in reasonable time, would it not be advisable to seek some other method of recovery rather than be looking forward to the repayment of that amount at the rate of 2/6 per month?—The position broadly is that we have made repeated applications for payment to the persons who owed the money, and, in a number of cases, we have made arrangements for payment by instalments. Where the parties concerned make a fair offer to the Department to pay by instalment, no action is taken, but where the debtor refuses to pay anything, we must send the account to the law officers for collection.

1161. Deputy Smith.—The position is that the District Justice must give a decree. At the same time, that does not seem to me to meet the case. It is not a practical method.

Deputy Linehan.—The District Justice must give a decree for the full amount. He has no option. The State, having got the decree, might as well, in a case I have in mind, have hung it up on the wall for all they could recover through the sheriff. The only alternative was examination of the debtor and an instalment order. The district justice, in that event, must deal with the position of the defendant, and not with the question whether or not the debt is due. He may decide that the position of the defendant warrants only an instalment order at the rate of 2/6 per month?—We, as a Department, are in the same position. We must take all reasonable measures to collect moneys due to the Department. We could not, as a Department, remit any moneys due to us except under statutory authority.

Chairman.—The matter is really one for the Minister. If Deputies think that steps should be taken on the lines they indicate, they should advocate such steps on the Vote for the Department of Agriculture.

1162. Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Act, 1935. Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund. Paragraph 53 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“Levy was collected throughout the year on butter, cheese and bulk cream sold on the home market and, from 1st May, 1936, on home sales of condensed milk. As will be seen from the account, these receipts amount to £512,309 1s 6d. Bounties amounting to £412,509 18s. 0d. were paid at the prescribed rates on exports of the commodities mentioned and on exports of tinned cream and dried milk.

In view of the abolition of levy on non-creamery butter as from 1st May, 1937, it was decided not to enforce the provisions of Part II of the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Act, which relate to the registration of sellers of non-creamery butter. As a result only £1,351 8s. 6d. is shown as received on account of registration fees, as compared with £3,493 4s. 8d. in the previous year. I understand that it is the intention to introduce legislation revoking Part II of the Act, or enabling the operation of this part of the Act to be suspended from time to time.

In my last report I mentioned that bounty at less than the statutory rates had been paid from the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund on certain exports of creamery butter to the continent, Bounty at less than the statutory rates was paid in similar circumstances on certain exports of creamery butter during the season, 1936-37.

No advances were received from the Vote for Agriculture, but a sum of £10,000, representing the balance of moneys temporarily advanced in the previous year, was repaid to that Vote.”

Chairman.—Legislation has been introduced suspending Part 2 of the Act?

Mr. Twomey.—Yes. The Bill is before the Seanad at the present time.

1163. Chairman.—The third part of this paragraph relates to a matter on which we made a note last year—the propriety of altering by fiat the terms of a statutory order.

Mr. Maher.—That is so. At the time the Committee considered this matter last year, this bounty had already been paid.

1164. Chairman.—Was your attention directed to that note, Mr. Twomey?

Mr. Twomey.—Yes. We have considered the Report of the Committee and we are prepared to pay the full statutory rate of bounty and require the Newmarket Dairy Company to refund to us what would be their excess profit on the export. We do not propose to make it retrospective.

1165. Chairman.—Our concern on the last occasion was that a statutory order would not be varied without the making of another statutory order so as to preserve continuity and make accurate knowledge of the law available to everybody. The Department have accepted that view?—Yes, and we are prepared to adjust the matter.

1166. On page 156, full details of the Price Stabilisation Fund are set out. What is it proposed to do with this substantial credit balance which you carried forward?—It is brought into the next year and utilised for payment of bounties in the earlier part of the year.

1167. What is the determined policy of the Department. Are you building up a reserve fund?—No. We endeavour to collect in each year only what will pay for the bounties in that year.

1168. It would appear from the carry forward you had from 1937 that the levy ought to have been reduced by 25 per cent, in the subsequent year?—Everything depends on the standard price which it is proposed to pay. In the year following that to which you have referred the standard price was raised.

1169. Deputy Keyes.—Is it permissible to vary the levy?—The levy is variable.

1170. By Order?—Yes.

1171. Chairman.—We now turn to the account proper. As regards sub-head E 2. is veterinary research carried out at the Veterinary College only?—It is carried out at the Veterinary Research Station at Thorndale, Drumcondra.

1172. Deputy McMenamin.—How is it doing?—There is a good deal of work being done in connection with certain disease in pigs, sheep, cattle and poultry. There is research into tuberculosis in poultry and cattle, contagious abortion, mastitis in cattle and braxy in sheep.

1173. Are you prepared to finance research substantially if progress is made. Progress, of course, cannot be made without substantial financial assistance?— Sufficient progress has been made in the production of vaccines for contagious abortion and braxy to make them available to the public at a reasonable price.

Deputy McMenamin.—That is not my point. You must spend money in order to get results.

Chairman.—Are you not now asking a question which should properly be addressed to the Minister?—If you look at the Appropriation Accounts you will find that Mr. Twomey was furnished with £3,778 and that he spent £3,247. We are free to ask him whether he was wise in saving £530, but we are not free to ask him whether he thinks he ought to have had £5,000.

Deputy McMenamin.—I know I am not free to put the question, but it is a very important matter for the country. It would be a wise thing if sufficient money were spent in this way. We shall not get results without spending money.

1174. Chairman.—Does the Veterinary Research Station publish an annual report?—It is referred to in the Department’s Annual Report.

1175. Deputy McMenamin.—Is that circulated?—Yes.

1176. Chairman.—Are you familiar with the day-to-day work there?—The Chief Veterinary Inspector of the Department is Director of the Station. We depend on him to look after the day-to-day work.

1177. Deputy Smith.—Mr. Twomey says the results of this research work are made available to the public at reasonable cost? —Yes.

1178. What exactly do you mean by that? Are the results subsidised so as to make them available to the public at reasonable cost?—Take, for example, braxy in sheep. Investigations into causes of this disease and finding a remedy, we think, should be carried out entirely at the expense of the State. Having, as a result of research work, produced a vaccine that will prevent or cure the disease, we think the stock owners should pay for the vaccine supplied to them a sum which would, roughly, cover the cost of production. In the case of sheep, the vaccine is supplied at 3d. per dose, which is not an unreasonable amount.

1179. Do you produce a vaccine for abortion in cattle?—Yes, for contagious abortion.

1180. Is not that expensive?—One shilling per cow per dose.

1181. It can only be safely used by a veterinary surgeon?—Yes. It has to be injected hypodermically. It could not be safely used by a layman.

1182. While the article itself is sufficiently cheap, the method by which it is used is cumbersome and expensive?—It is, and it should not be used save on veterinary advice because there are cases where it is not advisable to use it at all.

1183. Do you keep in touch with research stations in other countries?—Yes, in very close touch with them in regard to what is being done in the investigation of diseases.

1184. There is a very up-to-date station in Canberra, where investigation has been carried out in regard to flyblowers? —We get their reports. We exchange reports and information with other research stations.

1185. Deputy McMenamin.—Do you give scholarships for this research work? —No, we do not.

1186. Deputy Smith.—In regard to treatment for contagious abortion in cattle, tests, of course, would be necessary to establish whether or not you had actually that disease in your stock?— That is so. Blood tests are necessary to start with.

1187. Chairman.—It is known as the agglutination test?—Exactly. It is desirable that blood for that purpose should be drawn by a veterinary surgeon. Having got the result of the test in regard to the whole herd, he has to decide as to whether inoculation with vaccine is necessary. There are cases where it is not advisable to have inoculation.

1188. Deputy Smith.—Is the vaccine a complete success?—No. It is a success in a fairly large percentage of cases, but there are cases where it is not a success.

1189. Chairman.—Do you happen to know whether any research has proceeded as to the effect of this new drug parino-benzenesulphonamide?—I do not think that we are carrying out any research here as to the effect of that drug at present. Research is being carried out elsewhere.

1190. Do you not think that you might profitably consider investigation along these lines?—Yes.

1191. Deputy McMenamin.—In connection with these research stations, have you considered the question of giving substantial scholarships to good men?— To go abroad or to work at the research station?

1192. Any place at all. What is the mind of the Department in regard to it? —We find it very difficult to get good research workers. Undoubtedly anything that would help to provide us with good research workers would be a great asset.

1193. Chairman.—I understand that the Minister has announced his intention of spending a substantial amount on veterinary equipment in this country?— Yes, in the Veterinary College.

1194. Arising out of sub-head F. 1. is the enrolment in the agricultural schools up to capacity?—Yes, they are all full.

1195. Have any boys had to be turned away for want of accommodation?—Yes. There have been more applicants than we could accommodate.

1196. Is it the intention of the Department to increase the accommodation?— Yes, we would like to if we could.

1197. Sub-head F. 2 deals with places like Roscrea?—Mountbellew, in Galway; Copsewood, in Limerick; and Warrenstown, in Meath; these are the three schools for boys. In addition, there are nine schools for girls. There are twelve schools involved altogether.

1198. Under sub-head F (8)—Educational tours for agricultural instructors— you do not seem to spend much?—It is only once in every two or three years that a tour is arranged. It is not arranged annually, but we have to provide a token sub-head in case it might be necessary to arrange a tour for any purpose.

1199. Where do they go—to England or America?—Generally to some centres in Great Britain. Once or twice they went to the Continent.

1200. Chairman.—There is very valuable work being done at the MacDonald College in Canada. I was talking to Dr. Britain, who is principal of that, and he was saying that such parties as are envisaged under this sub-head are made very welcome, and they would be very glad to show them all the work that is being done there.

1201. Deputy McMenamin.—Arising out of sub-head I. 4.—Land reclamation, etc.—do you deal with that, or does the Land Commission attend to it?—This sub-head refers to small scale reclamations with which we deal. They would not extend over more than two or three acres.

1202. What kind of land does it apply to?—It would apply both to land that would need drainage and to moory land not needing drainage, but needing clearance of stones and scrub.

1203. Land that would go bad even if it had been previously cultivated. You would consider giving a grant for that?— Yes.

1204. Deputy Corry.—Does it apply to every vested holding?—It applies to all holdings in the congested districts.

1205. Chairman.—The procedure is that the small farmer who cannot finance the necessary improvements himself applies for a grant?—Yes. He gets a grant that is expended on work in the way of drainage, etc., the maximum grant being £5 per acre.

1206. Deputy McMenamin.—Does it apply only to the congested districts?— That is all.

Chairman.—It does not seem to be very widely availed of, although it seems to be a very good scheme.

1207. Deputy McMenamin.—Have you a special congested district of your own, or does this scheme merely apply strictly to the area we have known as the congested districts?—It applies to what is regarded as the statutory congested districts.

1208. And to no other areas?—Except one or two isolated places. There is a poor district in North-West Cavan to which the reclamation scheme was applied.

Deputy Smith.—What do you say, Mr. Chairman, that this scheme was not widely availed of?

Chairman.—I said that it seemed a good scheme, but a very large sum had not been spent upon it.

Deputy Smith.—I do not think that is the fault of the people. The money is not made available.

Chairman.—That is what I want to know. Is the Department getting more applications under this scheme than they have money to finance, or has the full amount granted been spent?—We could not usefully spend more money without having additional officers, because the work requires a good deal of supervision.

The farm has to be visited by somebody, such as the assistant agricultural overseer, to see whether it is suitable for reclamation or whether it is worth spending money on it at all. Then he has to advise on the work to be done, and when it is finished he has to report whether it has been properly done. It is one of the schemes that you could not usefully spend money on without having additional officers. The sums we have at the moment are sufficient for the number of permanent officers we have available to carry out the work.

1209. Deputy Smith.—North-west Cavan, I understand, is not the only district that is regarded as a congested district outside the statutory areas?—It is not regarded as a congested district, but by agreement with the county committee some of the special schemes that applied to the congested schemes are made applicable there.

1210. It is not the only area outside the statutory congested districts that is facilitated in this way?—There is also a district in West Cork and in Limerick.

1211. And a district in Longford?—Yes. They were dealt with in this particular way.

1212. Chairman.—In this connection—I do not know whether you would care to answer this question or not—it occurred to me, if we could get some of the minor relief scheme money, and have it expended by making grants analogous to these, for constructing flank drains on rushy or wet land, that there was in this scheme the framework of an arrangement by which such expenditure might be properly supervised. Does it seem so to you?—I think that question has been considered by the Commission or Committee which is sitting at the moment on the congested districts. There was a Committee dealing with land reclamation in these areas.

1213. That proposal is being considered? —Yes, it is.

Chairman.—In that event I shall not stress it further.

1214. Deputy Corry.—Could you not avail of the services of the inspectors of the local committees of agriculture in this matter?—In operating a scheme of this kind?

1215. Yes?—It would not be possible for them, in addition to their existing duties, to look after reclamation work.

1216. Deputy Corry.—I have my doubts. In regard to sub-head K. 2.—Contribution to Irish Agricultural Organisation Society—in what manner do you arrive at the amount of the grant?—The basis of the grant is that there is a fixed grant of £5,500. Then there is £1 for every pound by which the Society’s income exceeds the affiliation fees. There is a grant of 10/-for every £1 received in the way of private subscriptions, subject to an overriding maximum of £7,000.

1217. Have they an income out of the sale of milk tankards?—This is the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. You are referring to the Irish Wholesale Agricultural Society.

1218. They are different bodies?—They are two distinct bodies.

1219. Is it not the same body with two names?—That is not so. They have no connection of any kind in trade.

1220. Deputy McMenamin.—In regard to sub-head K. 3.—Grant to Bloodstock Breeders’ Association of Ireland—is this exclusively for bloodstock?—It really applies to horses of any kind.

1221. On that point, you are making a drive with regard to the Irish draught horse?—Yes.

1222. Is care being taken that nothing but the best types of Irish draught horse will be selected for stud purposes?—Yes. They are also subject to inspection before they will be entered in the Book.

1223. Deputy Linehan.—Could you say if there has been any improvement in the position with regard to middle-weight and heavy-weight hunter stallions?— There has been increased provision made for the purchase of these horses, and we are putting out an increased number of hunter stallions.

1224. Chairman.—With regard to sub-head M. 3—Special Departmental Publications—have you ever given consideration to a scheme of securing better distribution of the Department’s leaflets? I find that they contain a mine of information, but I seldom, if ever, find them in the hands of a small farmer?—We take every opportunity of advertising our list of leaflets, and, for example, we advise all farmers through the Press—we have done it in the last day or two—to get, say, a copy of the leaflet on fluke, because there may be danger of fluke this year owing to the wet season through which we are passing. When any special occasion of that kind arises, we draw the attention of the public to the fact that there is a leaflet on the special subject which is pertinent at the time.

1225. You have a certain number of assistant agricultural overseers, who are principally concerned with your demonstration plots?—Yes.

1226. I was wondering if you could not establish some scheme amongst them to ensure that the more people who apply from their districts for leaflets, the greater credit they will get—to constitute them some kind of publicity agent for the leaflet?—There would be a danger there of wastage of supply.

1227. If you get a country man—and you know them as well as I do—to send a post-card asking for a leaflet and the leaflet is sent to him, he will read it. Seven out of ten of them may not get much permanent benefit from it, but if three out of ten do get permanent benefit from it, it is worth doing. What comes to a country house in an envelope and by way of reading matter will be read, and if the agricultural overseer would induce individuals in his area to write and ask for them I am convinced that their dissemination through the country would do good?—The local officers have supplies of most of the leaflets that would pertain to their areas, and they are free to hand copies of a leaflet to farmers as they go amongst them.

1228. Deputy McMenamin.—Take that leaflet on fluke. All the Committees have sheep dipping inspectors for every area. Could they not be used as the medium for distributing that leaflet to sheep owners? —Yes.

Deputy Corry.—Did you ever try using the national schools?—We do. We have distributed leaflets through the national schools on special occasious, but, normally, if we sent out a leaflet, say, on the feeding of pigs to the national schools for distribution to the pupils, there would be danger that the pupils would take them and drop them on the road home.

1229. Deputy Smith.—Did you ever use the vocational schools?—No.

Deputy Corry.—You could have a notice in the schools that the Department’s leaflets could be had on application and you could send a supply to the local schoolmaster and let him give them out. It would cost more than £1,000 a year, but the information is good. I think the present system is merely a waste of money.

1230. Chairman.—Do the country librarians make any effort to stock them? —They have them, but I do not know that they distribute them.

1231. They would have a very good method of distribution in the local distribution centres which they have?—We distribute them, of course, through the winter agricultural classes, or through the County Committees and the officers of these Committees.

Deputy Keyes.—I think the effect of sending them out in a widespread fashion, with the result that they will be scattered along the roads by the students, would bring the whole thing into ridicule. I think the method suggested by the Chairman of utilising the agricultural overseers and inspectors, together with the County Committees, is better. They will be able to get in touch with people who matter and who ought to be interested.

Deputy Corry.—If a notice were put up in the schools that the Department’s leaflets are to be had on application, it would meet the difficulty.

Deputy Smith.—I think the Department’s attitude is quite right. They draw the attention of the public to the fact that it is a dangerous year for fluke. Farmers never seem to concern themselves about things until the wolf is at the door, so to speak, and it is only when a year like this comes and they realise the danger of disease breaking out that they become very interested in the leaflet dealing with fluke. I am afraid that Deputy Keyes is right in saying that if you throw them out in a general way they might not take them too seriously.

1232. Chairman.—I feel that the most effective way of getting the leaflets home would be to ask the agricultural overseers to submit lists of persons to whom the leaflets on pig feeding might profitably be sent and post it to them. It means an additional expenditure—I do not know what the postage per pamphlet would be— but it would mean that the pamphlet would be read?—We will consider what means we could adopt to get the leaflets more widely read, and will take into account even the suggestion that something could be done in the schools in the way of hanging up a list so that the pupils could see it and ask for a particular leaflet if they felt their parents wanted it.

Deputy Keyes.—One wise man in a locality receiving Department leaflets of that kind, reading them and interpreting them and scattering his knowledge amongst his neighbours, would be more effective than sending them out to be thrown all over the roads.

Chairman.—If the agricultural overseer sent the names of six persons in a townland or barony who had the reputation of being local wise men, and they were peppered with pamphlets, it would be extremely useful, particularly if their neighbours came to know that they could get them, too.

1233. Deputy Smith.—With regard to sub-head M. 6.—Loans for Purchase of Heifers—I thought that scheme was wound up?—It is finished now; that is, the issues are finished.

1234. How do you stand regarding recovery?—The payments are being made regularly. There is very little difficulty in collecting the moneys under the heifer loan scheme.

1235. You will not have many bad debts?—We will lose very little money on it. The money is being paid regularly. It is one of the most satisfactory loan schemes we have had.

1236. Chairman.—Might I suggest that if a new loan scheme should be adumbrated, instead of bringing the man to the sale ring and saying to him: “If you buy a heifer, you will get a loan,” you lend the man a sum of money wherewith to buy the heifer, and let him buy it himself? If you bring him to the sale ring and make it a condition of getting the loan that he must buy a heifer, he will nearly always pay too much for it. If, however, you lend him money and send him out to buy it, he will be as stingy in spending the money and in driving his bargain as if the money were his own.

Deputy Corry.—How do you know he will buy the heifer at all?

Deputy Smith.—The reason I asked the question was that this money was made very easily available to those who applied. What surprises me is that the securities that were sought and offered were not, in fact, securities at all. The surprising thing to me is that practically all those loans are being recovered or are recoverable. If many of those people were to present themselves for a similar loan to any of the lending institutions we have, their applications would not be considered for a moment.

Chairman.—You are aware, of course, Deputy, that it is the policy of one considerable Party in this country to provide cheap loans for farmers.

Deputy Smith.—I am not taking about the cheapness of the loan at all. If you discuss this matter of loans, the matter of security will enter into the question of cheap loans.

Chairman.—The average good farmer pays back what he borrows.

Deputy Smith.—My point is that these people to whom the loans were made were, if you like, the very worst type of farmers, and the fact that the loans are recovered, or recoverable, should surely be an indication and a pointer to the people who have the responsibility of lending money that money should be made more easily available than it is.

Chairman.—I entirely agree.

Deputy Keyes.—I would not favour the suggestion the Chairman has made. I think it would lend itself to the menace of collusion.

Chairman.—Perhaps we had better postpone a full discussion of this matter. Mr. Twomey is a very prudent man. He considers every suggestion made but it does not follow that he accepts it.

1237. Mr. Corry.—With respect to sub-head M. 9.—Grant in respect of Additional Sugar Beet Loans in the Cooley area—was that money available at all?— There was a scheme prior to this for giving some assistance for the carriage of beet from the Cooley area and in case any circumstance arose which would make it absolutely essential to make some provision we put in a token vote, but there was no expenditure.

Deputy Corry.—It is rather strange, because rather a considerable sum of money was spent by the sugar company this year in transferring beet from the Cooley district. Money was made available by the company for a grant towards the transport of beet over long distances, and it was pretty well availed of.

Chairman.—The Deputy is shocked to discover that some concealed taxation exists.

Deputy Corry.—I was amazed to discover that there was money available which we did not get.

1238. Chairman.—With regard to sub-head O. 3.—Destructive Insects and Pests Acts and Black Scab in Potato Orders—I take it that, under that sub-head, something is being done in regard to mosaic disease?—Yes, there is a good deal of research work being done.

1239 Has anything been done to free the Golden Wonder variety of potato from this disease?—That variety is being done with others. Healthy stocks are being developed at Glasnevin and once they are developed there, they are taken to the country for extension plots. I think that is one variety that is being dealt with.

1240. I do not know if you are familiar with the variety?—I am.

1241. It is one of the finest table varieties?—It is very good.

1242. I have had a strange experience growing it myself. All the people to whom I gave seed have magnificent crops of potatoes, but I can get nothing but marbles?—It is one of the best table potatoes we have.

1243. I take it that mosaic disease is accountable for getting an undue proportion of small potatoes?—It is, with most of the old potatoes. Most of the old varieties are affected with mosaic.

1244. Is there anything you can do for mosaic disease?—Except to get healthy stock.

1245. Except you change the seed? —Yes. You have to begin with healthy stock.

1246. Chairman.—On sub-head O. 4.— Weeds and Agricultural Seeds (Ireland) Act—can you say if energetic measures are being taken to persuade people to cut their thistles? Can you bring any pressure to bear on the agricultural committees to get the regulations put into force?—An arrangement was made by which the Department of Justice agreed that the Civic Guards would report on cases and try to induce people to cut their weeds. In some districts that has been very successful, but in others it has not worked out so well.

1247. I hope you will not relax the pressure in that matter?—No, we are reviewing the whole position now.

1248. With regard to sub-head O. 6.— Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act—what does that relate to?—To the sampling of manures to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Acts in regard to guaranteed analysis.

1249. Deputy Keyes.—I see under sub-head O. 8.—Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935— that only £2 10s. 0d. was expended out of a voted sum of nearly £14,000. What is the explanation?—It is this: that Part II of the Act, under which the main expenditure was incurred, was not brought into operation until the next financial year.

1250. Chairman.—I take it that the expenditure under sub-head O. 9.—Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Acts, 1933 to 1935 —was principally on seed wheat?—Mainly in connection with advances to seed merchants.

1251. I have heard of some very extraordinary transactions carried out by seed merchants—buying what was supposed to be seed, then selling it to the millers and getting the guaranteed price for it?—We have that whole matter under review. There were some attempts made, but we have put a stop to them.

Deputy Corry.—I hope there will not be much mercy shown to those who did that.

1252. Chairman.—I would like to know on sub-head O. 14.—Tobacco Act, 1934— how the tobacco business is getting on?— Well, we have considerable difficulty in producing the type of tobacco that will suit manufacturers in this country. There is no increase in the area.

Deputy Corry.—The inducement to grow it is not sufficient, I think.

1253. Deputy Smith.—On sub-head O. 15.—Flax Act, 1936—what is the position regarding the area under flax?—The area is still inclined to go down. There is a standard price fixed which, at least, puts a bottom to the market. The price guaranteed for the current year is 9/6 per stone, but notwithstanding that the figures now available would indicate that the area under flax has declined as compared with last year.

1254. Is it very substantial as compared with, say, three or four years ago? —No, the decline is about normal. It looks as if the standard price of 9/6 per stone is not a sufficient inducement to increase the area, or even maintain it.

1255. Deputy McMenamin.—I read lately in the newspapers that the Northern Ireland Government were taking steps to set up a retting factory and to do something in connection with the provision of free seed. Have you considered that at all?—We have considered the whole question of chemical retting and so on, but the area that we grow at the present time would not permit of any large expenditure on a factory of the kind that the Deputy refers to.

1256. What about the provision of free seed?—Well, we do not think it necessary to provide free seed, but we do make arrangements to see that the flax seed imported into this country comes in under supervision, and is of the very highest quality.

VOTE 53—FISHERIES.

Mr. D. Twomey called and further examined.

1257. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following note to sub-head F. 1.—Grants to Boards of Conservators and Local Authorities, etc.—

“A grant of £100 was made to a Board of Conservators towards the costs incurred in a prosecution for illegal fishing, in which a conviction obtained in a District Court was quashed by the High Court on the ground that the order made in the District Court was irregular.”

Mr. Maher.—The normal grants to these Boards are contributions towards salaries, wages and expenses—the wages of river bailiffs, and so on, but on account of its unusual nature the Comptroller and Auditor-General has thought it desirable to call the attention of the Dáil to this grant of £100.

1258. Chairman.—I take it that the Board of Conservators instituted the prosecution, obtained a conviction, and that subsequently the conviction was quashed by the High Court?

Mr. Twomey.—The prosecution was brought by the Board of Conservators in the discharge of their duty. They got a conviction in the District Court from which there was an appeal to the Circuit Court. The appeal was disallowed. The parties concerned then took the matter to the High Court, and, because a document which was before the Circuit Court and which purported to be a certified copy of the Order made by the District Justice was not properly made out—was not, in fact, a proper certified copy of the Order— the High Court quashed the whole proceedings with costs against the Board of Conservators. The Board of Conservators were in no way to blame. The proceedings were quashed on a matter outside their control.

1259. Deputy Corry.—Is it usual for the Department to bear the costs of these Board of Conservators in cases where they bring prosecutions?—No. It is never done, but in this case, for the reasons that I have explained, the Board of Conservators found themselves involved in high costs and with no funds to meet them.

1260. Chairman.—They brought the prosecution for the general protection of our fisheries. The failure to prosecute successfully was due not to the Board of Conservators but to an official of the Court.

1261. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following note to sub-head G. 3.—Advances for boats and gear—

“Including the advances charged in this account the total of advances for boats and gear to 31st March, 1937, amounted to £79,000. The half-yearly instalments of the annuities set up to repay these advances falling due to 31st March, 1937, amounted to £17,764 1s. 10d., whilst the sums collected by the Sea Fisheries Association from borrowers and transferred to the Department in payment of the annuity instalments amounted to £13,369 14s. 2d. The annuity instalments were, therefore, in arrear at 31st March, 1937, to the extent of £4,394 7s. 8d.”

1262. Have any arrears been collected since?—Yes. They are always being collected.

1263. Deputy McMenamin.—How does that figure of £4,000 odd compare with other years? Is that about the normal figure?—It has been about the same in the last few years.

1264. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following note to sub-head G. 4.—Advances for General Development:—

“As the existing arrangements for repayment of advances by the Sea Fisheries Association appear not to be applicable to advances made from this sub-head. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer on the matter. The total of advances for General Development to 31st March, 1937, was £1,103 12s. 6d.”

Mr. Maher.—This matter has now been adjusted. We have received copy of the sanction of the Department of Finance for the payment.

1265. Chairman.—And you are satisfied that it has been brought substantially within the sub-head?

Mr. Maher.—Yes.

1266. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has this note on “Fishery and Industrial Loans”:—

“As noted in the account, the Minister for Agriculture, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, has made conditional remissions during the year amounting to £10,015 18s. 6d., under Section 2 of the Fisheries (Revision of (Loans) Act, 1931, and has written off as irrecoverable under Section 4 of the Act, sums amounting to £345 18s. 8d. Repayments during the year, which are accounted for as Appropriations-in-Aid, amounted to £1,792 15s. 3d, and the balance outstanding on these loans at 31st March, 1937, was £28,960 19s. 9d., including arrears of £28,158 1s. 2d.”

1267. Are the loans on these accounts substantially satisfactory?—No. It is exceedingly difficult to get in any of this money. Some of these loans go back to the beginning of the present century.

1268. Deputy McMenamin.—A lot of the people who got them are dead?—Some of them.

1269. Chairman.—Are these loans in respect of boats?—Boats and gear.

1270. Is the inshore fishing showing any signs of vitality?—Not a great deal.

1271. Deputy O’Loghlen.—It is showing alarming signs of disappearing.

Chairman.—Largely for the want of a market in which to dispose of the fish.

Deputy O’Loghlen.—No. The position is that the fish are not there.

Deputy McMenamin.—I read in the newspapers recently that herrings were thrown back into the sea at Galway.

1272. Chairman.—I was rather thinking of wet fish?—The inshore fishermen fish for herring and mackerel.

1273. But what about wet fish—sole, plaice, turbot, and so on?—The places where these fish can be got in quantity are, to a large extent, outside the range of inshore fishermen. The banks are too far away. It takes big boats and expensive equipment to engage in that type of fishing.

1274. Do the inshore fishermen depend on fishing for herring and mackerel?— Yes, and on line fishing, and on a certain amount of trawling in sheltered places. They are not able to go away to the banks where normally flat fish are caught.

1275. Chairman.—You tell us that herrings and mackerel are no longer coming to the shores of this country?—It has always been a seasonal thing so far as herrings and mackerel are concerned. There have been good and bad seasons. It was anticipated that this past year would be a good season but the fish did not come near our coast.

1276. Deputy O’Loghlen.—Has the Department of Fisheries devoted any attention into an investigation as to what is the cause of the disappearance of the fish from places like Galway and Clare—has there been any inquiry made into that matter?—It has been under investigation by the Department’s experts but the reasons are mysterious just like the reason why mackerel will not shoal off our coast and shoal off other coasts.

1277. If you take fish such as cod, haddock and whiting which at one time provided a staple industry for fishermen in Galway and Clare and has now practically disappeared, have you any idea as to why it has disappeared? At one time that was a regular industry and there was no variation at all about it. The fishermen had the same quantity of fish from October to March each year?— Yes, that was the case.

1278. That industry has now practically disappeared?—Yes, it seems to have disappeared.

1279. Chairman.—This matter of the fish shoaling along our coasts seems to present a formidable problem. We now come to the various sub-heads. Take sub-head E—International Council for the Study of the Sea. Have these learned bodies ever advanced any theory to explain why fish desert the coast in that way or is it still quite mysterious? —I think it is inexplicable. They have never been able to discover the reason for it.

1280. Are they still making investigations into that question?—Yes.

1281. Deputy O’Loghlen.—Has the Department ever been struck by the fact that the opening of intensive steam-trawling has any effect on the disappearance of the fish? Does the one affect the other?—In fact, at present, there is little steam-trawling around our shores by either foreign or inshore steam-trawlers because the fish are not there. The trawlers do not come. They go away to the North Sea.

1282. Chairman.—Deputy O’Loghlen is suggesting that when the fish were here intensive trawling was going on and that this led to the disappearance of the fish. Do you think there is any connection between intensive trawling and the subsequent disappearance of the fish? What is your view on that?

Deputy O’Loghlen.—That is not exactly my point. If you go to Galway they will tell you a different story. What I had in mind was this, that during the war years 1914-1918, when steam-trawling was abandoned, the inshore fishermen were unable to take their catches into their boats. They had to tow the catches behind their boats. There was no steam-trawling at that time. When the steam-trawling began again the fish disappeared.

Mr. Twomey.—Those years were good years for mackerel and herring fishing for some unexplained reason, but the disappearance of mackerel would have nothing to do with steam trawling.

Deputy O’Loghlen.—I am talking about haddock, whiting and cod.

Chairman.—If the reason for this disappearance of the fish from our coasts is still a mystery to these scientific bodies that have been investigating the problem, I take it that the Public Accounts Committee cannot clear the matter up.

1283. Chairman.—We came now to sub-head E. 3—Sea Fisheries Protection. Would it be indelicate to suggest that when a second protection ship was put into operation for the protection of the fisheries the fish were attracted to other waters?

Deputy O’Loghlen.—I do not think the fish have disappeared to the extent that Mr. Twomey suggests.

Chairman.—It could not be due to the second ship?

Deputy O’Loghlen.—The second protection ship is necessary.

1284. Chairman.—The next sub-head that calls for comment would be F. 2— Fish Hatcheries. I do not see any reference on the footnotes to fish hatcheries. Why do you not put more trout into the streams?—We give grants to the local fishery associations for the purchase of ova and so on in order to put trout into their streams. A good deal of work has been done by the local fishery associations to improve the rivers.

When in Canada I was told a good deal about their hatcheries. I was told that at one time they would take the trout fry and place them in the river in a large way in one spot. These were destroyed by the pike, whereas it was found later that if they went along the river banks and threw a few fry from a bucket into the river, doing that all along the river banks, it was found that you were going a much better way about stocking the river. They found that a great deal more of the fish survived. When they were thrown in together in a few places in large quantities they were destroyed by the pike. Have you given any consideration to that matter, Mr. Twomey?—I think the fish hatcheries and the local associations work under good conditions. At one time they did allow the trout fry to get into the main river. They never allow the trout fry now to get into the main river. They place the fry in likely spots along the sides of a small tributary to the main river, and the fry remain there for a period before they reach the main river.

1285. Deputy McMenamin.—To whom would one apply for trout fry? Would you supply them to any individual who made application?—They are made available for any of these associations.

1286. Deputy Smith.—If an individual applies, would they be given him?—No, we prefer to deal with an association. A fishery association is formed for the purpuse of introducing fry into a river. The association helps then to preserve the river.

1287. Chairman.—Any local association applying for trout fry would receive favourable consideration?—Yes.

1288. Now, with regard to the Sea Fisheries Association, I notice in sub-head G. 2 that you gave them only half the grant-in-aid for general development this year. The grant-in-aid was £10,000, and you only gave them £5,000?—There were certain activities in which the Sea Fisheries Association proposed to engage, and these were not afterwards engaged in.

1289. Deputy Corry.—I notice under sub-head G. I that the cost of the administration of this body was £10,000, and they only spent £5,000 in all.

Chairman.—I do not think that is correct. The Sea Fisheries Association have revenues other than those provided by the grant-in-aid.

Mr. Twomey.—No, except the subscriptions of the members.

1290. Chairman.—They have certain administrative jobs to do besides spending that £10,000?—Oh, yes, they have a great deal of work to do one way or another.

1291. Deputy Corry.—In sub-head G. 4. there was voted £4,000 for general development. Only £830 was spent.

Chairman.—What is actually being done for general development?—The Estimate included provision for the cost of erecting a purification plant for mussels and that was not then proceeded with. That is going on now.

1292. Is there any truth in the allegation that the Government is going to take over oyster beds?—No, I have not heard any proposal of that sort.

1293. Are you satisfied that the oyster beds are properly worked?—No, a lot of the beds would want to be renewed and they are being renewed with the aid of some grants from the Sea Fisheries Association.

Chairman.—Well, I have eaten oysters all around the world and I find that the best oysters in the world are to be had in oyster beds being laid down in the West Galway.

1295. Were these oysters indigenous to Galway?—I would say they were to Killary Harbour. The best oysters in the west are Killary Harbour oysters and I think they were brought from Killary to some of the beds along the south coast of Galway.

1296. Are they indigenous or were they planted there?—Originally they were planted there.

1297. I ask that because it would be a disaster in planting new oyster beds if they were changed?—When renewing beds account is taken of the best kind suited to each district.

1298. When renewing any of these oyster beds the old type is put back?— Yes.

The Committee adjourned at 1 o’clock until 3 p.m.

VOTE 70—EXPORT BOUNTIES AND SUBSIDIES.

Mr. Twomey further examined.

1299. Paragraphs 97 and 98 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“97. As in the previous year, all the expenditure borne on this Vote was administered by the Department of Agriculture, with the exception of bounties and subsidies on industrial products, which were administered by the Department of Industry and Commerce.

During the course of the year, bounty ceased to be paid on exports of agricultural products to the United States of America, as the Government of that country impose a countervailing duty equivalent to the amount of any bounty given.

Details of the expenditure, and my comments thereon, appear in the following paragraphs.

Sub-head A—Bounties and Subsidies on Exports of Industrial Products.

98. These bounties were continued on the same conditions as in previous years. The total amount paid in the year was £60,376 13s. 7d., of which £1,106 16s. 11d. was in respect of the subsidy of 6d. per ton, in addition to bounty, on exports of macadam and gravel.”

Chairman.—Have you any observations to make on that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—That paragraph appears because there was a slight departure from the ordinary system of bounties. The matter was discussed on a previous occasion.

Chairman.—I will refer members of the Committee to Appendix 20 of the Report on the Accounts for the year 1935-36, page 198. (Appendix 20 read.) Of course, Mr. Twomey knows nothing about this transaction. It is purely a matter for the Department of Industry and Commerce. I think we might ask Mr. Leydon to let us know what the position is in regard to this bounty, if it is a permanent, a recurring charge, or otherwise.

Mr. Maher.—I know it is in the accounts that we are preparing for the year ended March last.

Chairman.—It is rather unusual to have an individual firm receiving a special benefit of 6d. per ton, in addition to bounty.

1300. Paragraph 99 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“Sub-head B.—Bounties and Subsidies on Exports of Fishery Products.

“99. The payments under this heading related to the following:—

The rates of bounty authorised were as follows:—

Lobsters, 75 per cent, of the British import duty paid.

Other Shell Fish—

Periwinkles and Mussels, 100 per cent. of the British import duty paid;

Escallops, 50 per cent, of the British import duty paid.

Fresh Water Eels, 50 per cent, of the British import duty paid.

No bounty was payable on mackerel exported during the year; the payments under that heading refer to exports

prior to 1st April, 1936.

Chairman.—Is that a purely informative paragraph?

Mr. Maher.—It is purely informative.

1301. Paragraph 100 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“Sub-head C.—Bounties and Subsidies on Exports of Dairy Produce.

“100. The payments under this sub-head totalled £718,691 2s. 0d., made up as follows:—

The authorised rates of subsidy on exports of creamery butter represented the sums necessary with bounty payable from the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund, to bring the average price received by exporters up to the net return obtainable on the home market, provided the average rate on all exports over the season did not exceed 27s. per cwt. Subsidy calculated on the same basis was also payable on exports of other items of dairy produce.

The average rates paid on all exports of creamery and non-creamery butter during the season 1936-37 were 25s. per cwt. and 19s. 9d. per cwt., respectively.”

Chairman.—Are we to understand from that, that the Government, having fixed an internal price for butter, then gave the exporter the difference between the price realised in Great Britain, plus the amount payable from the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund and the internal price fixed by the Minister? Is that the position, Mr. Twomey?—That is right, to equalise the export price and the home price which was fixed, so that the net return to the creamery from export would be the same as if they had sold on the home market.

1302. The Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund was static and the other fluctuated with the market in Great Britain?—The stabilisation subsidy would vary from month to month.

1303. But it was not liable to a variation governed by current prices in Great Britain?—Sometimes, yes.

1304. What I do not quite understand is this. You are dealing with the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund and there is also an undertaking on the part of the Exchequer to provide the difference between the home price and the price realised in Great Britain?—Yes.

1305. Now, it does seem apparent that the Exchequer could be substantially relieved by raising the subsidy from the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund. Is not that so?—Yes, by using the whole of it.

1306. Is there any policy laid down regarding the administrators of the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund as to what bounty they should pay from time to time?—No, other than that the fund must be kept solvent; that is, that the total outgoings from it must not exceed what the levy amounts to. But both the subsidy payable out of the State funds and the bounty payable out of the Stabilisation Fund might vary from month to month.

1307. And has it, in fact, been the case that when the bounty required to recoup the creameries from these two sources has tended to grow less, all the saving accrued to the benefit of the Exchequer and none to the levy?—No, that is not the case. I think the saving would accrue to each. We had a saving both on the export subsidy from State sources as well as on the levy fund.

1308. Has the levy on butter sold within Eire been reduced?—It has.

1309. I cannot remember the price of butter having come down?—The levy has been reduced and the subsidy payable out of the Stabilisation Fund has also been reduced.

1310. The price of butter has not come down?—No, the price of butter has kept at the same level.

1311. Deputy McMenamin.—Has the average price in Great Britain risen?—It has varied a good deal. It was high this time 12 months, for example, and then it has fallen very considerably during this summer. During the year under review the net returns to creameries varied from 106 shillings in April and May to as high as 129 shillings in January, February and March.

1312. If the levy has been reduced, who is getting the benefit of the reduction?— The creameries are, in so far as there is less being collected from them. There is also less being paid out to them from that particular fund.

1313. But the price is still a fixed price whether they sell on the home or the British market?—It is.

1314. Are the creameries earning very much more?—They are paying more to the farmers for milk. Instead of paying an average of less than 5d. a gallon, they are paying in or about 5½d. to 5¾d. per gallon.

1315. Chairman.—I seem to remember an occasion when I was told it would cost £2,000,000 to provide the farmers with 5d. a gallon, never mind 5¾d.

Deputy Smith.—What is the point?

Chairman.—They are now getting 5¾d.

Deputy Smith.—Does that make the statement more true?

Chairman.—It throws a flood of illumination on the subject.

Deputy Smith.—I cannot see it. Where are they getting 5¾d. for their milk, Mr. Twomey?—There are some creameries in the south that have been paying 5½d. to 5¾d.

1316. Deputy Smith.—I should like to be living in that area. When I hear things like that I am inclined to rub my eyes, because in our place I do not believe they are getting 5d. at all. You are talking of the average place.

1317. Deputy McMenamin.—Mr. Twomey, you are referring to the year 1936-37?—Yes. In that year they did not pay as high as what I am speaking of now. In that year I doubt if creameries paid more than 5¼d. to 5½d.

1318. Deputy Smith.—I am talking of any time inside the last four or five years. I do not think that in our county they are paying 5d. at all; it is 4½d. or 4¾d.?— There are creameries paying as low as 4¾d., but larger creameries with a big milk supply and lower costs are paying 5½d. and 5¾d.

1319. Paragraph 100 continues:—

“The purchase of creamery butter for the continental trade was financed from sub-head O. 10 of the Vote for Agriculture, and is referred to in paragraph 44 of this report. As in previous years, the net receipts from the sale of the butter were brought up to the purchase price by means of bounty paid from the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund and subsidy paid from this Vote, the payments made from sub-head C amounting to £21,781 0s. 10d. I observed that £1,168 6s. 10d. of this sum related to the sale of approximately 4,000 cwts. of butter on the home market, and I have inquired into the circumstances in which this expenditure was borne on the Vote for Export Bounties and Subsidies.

This account includes payments amounting to £5,184 12s. 8d. in respect of claims relating to the official scheme in operation during the previous year.”

1320. Chairman.—Did you get any information on that?

Mr. Maher.—Yes, the information of the Audit Office was that that sum of £1,168 6s. 10d. should not have been charged to that Vote and since the report was written the Accounting Officer has informed us that in view of the emergency which led to the diversion of the butter in question to the home market the Minister is prepared to regard the diversion as an approved scheme for the marketing of butter under the Price Stabilisation Act, 1935, and to direct the recoupment out of the Dairy Produce Price Stabilisation Fund of the sum wrongly debited to the Vote for Export Bounties and Subsidies. I take it that in the next year the adjustment will be made.

1321. Mr. Twomey.—That adjustment is being made. In the spring of 1937, Mr. Chairman, there was a serious shortage of butter on the home market and, to meet that, the Dairy Disposal Company were instructed to draw from stocks stored for export purposes and then, in settling the company’s account for bounties and subsidies, that quantity of butter was inadvertently taken into account and bounty and subsidy paid on it. That, of course, should not have been done but the matter is being adjusted now by recouping the Vote for Export Bounties and Subsidies out of the Price Stabilisation Fund from a sub-head dealing with a special scheme.

1322. Chairman.—I take it that that meets the requirements of the Audit Office.

Mr. Twomey.—Before you leave that paragraph, Mr. Chairman. You asked me this morning, in relation to paragraph 44, what was the price obtained for the butter exported.

1323. Chairman.—The average price.

Mr. Twomey.—Yes, £5 1s. 10d. was the average price obtained on the export market and the cost of the butter here purchased at home, including expenses, was £7 6s. 5d. and the difference between these two had to be made good to the Dairy Disposal Company out of bounty and subsidy.

1324. Chairman.—£7?

Mr. Twomey.—£7 6s. 5d.

1325. Chairman.—There was a loss of 45/- a cwt.?—Roughly, yes, and that was made good to the Dairy Disposal Company out of bounty and subsidy.

1326. That butter went to Germany?— Germany, yes.

1327. How did that market compare with the British market at that period? —There was less subsidy to be paid to bring the price up to the fixed price. I have not the precise amount.

1328. At that time the German market was actually paying more than the British market?—It was, yes.

1329. Did this butter form part of the trade agreement with Germany?—It did.

1330. And were there any currency or exchange restrictions annexed to the transaction?—There were. We could only send out butter to the extent that exchange was made available by the German authorities.

1331. And did they make exchange available for butter?—They did.

1332. It was not a barter transaction?—No.

1333. Was the exchange that was provided in any way tied up with any other transaction we had with Germany at that time?—It was not. This was independent. We got German currency for this butter representing the amount of the price to us in sterling currency.

1334. And, of course, that German currency was exchangeable by us into any currency into which we wanted to exchange it?—It was.

1335. Chairman.—In regard to sub-head D—Bounties and Subsidies on Exports of Pigs and Pig Products—there is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

“Sub-head D—Bounties and Subsidies on Exports of Pigs and Pig Products.

“101. The payments amounted to £543,904 0s. 4d., viz.:—

The rates of bounty authorised were:—

Live pigs.

Live pigs exported over the land frontier into Northern Ireland:—

From 21st May, 1934:—

10 per cent. ad valorem.

Live pigs shipped direct to Great Britain with quota certificates:—

From 10th February, 1936, to 14th March, 1937:—

25 per cent. ad valorem.

From 15th March, 1937:—

30 per cent, ad valorem.

Live pigs shipped direct to Great Britain without quota certificates, and live pigs exported via Northern Ireland to Great Britain with or without quota certificates:—

From 10th February, 1936, to 14th March, 1937:—

20 per cent. ad valorem.

From 15th March, 1937:—

25 per cent. ad valorem.

Live pigs exported to countries other than Great Britain or Northern Ireland:—

From 10th February, 1936, to 14th March, 1937:—

20 per cent. ad valorem.

Is that a purely informative paragraph? Did we fill our quota for live pigs, Mr. Twomey?—In that particular year we did practically fill it. In subsequent years we have not.

1336. Why do you not fill it in subsequent years. Is it because of the scarcity of pigs?—It is partly the scarcity of pigs and partly that the exporters of live pigs were not able to compete with the home bacon factories. Having regard to the price being paid by the home bacon factories, there was not a margin for the exporters of live pigs.

1337. The home bacon factories, of course, are operating this price stabilisation scheme under the Pigs and Bacon Acts?—Yes.

1338. Has your attention been directed to the fact that the destruction of the market for live pigs has ruined the live pig trade, to the great detriment of the small farmer?—We have had complaints regarding the difficulty in carrying on the live pig trade.

1339. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on sub-head E—Bounties and Subsidies on Exports of Calfskins:—

“The expenditure borne on this sub-head amounted to £81,171 and related to the payment of bounty at 10/- per skin in respect of exports during the period 1st April to 30th May, 1936.”

Did we actually export 162,000 skins in two months?

Mr. Twomey.—Yes, I think we did.

1340. Chairman.—That was a great holocaust. According to this note, Mr. Maher, in the month of April and May of 1936 we exported 162,000 skins. That is just two months.

Mr. Twomey.—There was a limited period fixed for export, Mr. Chairman, and those calves may have been slaughtered in March or thereabouts but the export would have taken place during April and May. They kept the calfskins until told to ship them.

1341. Deputy McMenamin.—Would they keep?—Salted, yes.

1342. Chairman.—That scheme has been wound up?—It has, yes.

1343. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on sub-head F—Bounties and Subsidies on Exports of Eggs and Poultry:—

“103. The payments totalled £505,344 13s. 5d., viz.:—

The following were the maximum rates of bounty payable:—

Eggs (not in shell).

Frozen liquid eggs or frozen liquid whites or yolks of eggs:—

From 1st April, 1936:—

17s. 6d. per cent.

Live Poultry.

Turkeys.

From 1st April, 1936, to 6th December, 1936:—

Equivalent of the British import duty.

From 7th December, 1936:—

Equivalent of the British import duty or 3d. per lb., whichever was the less.

Other Poultry.

From 1st April, 1936:—

Equivalent of the British import duty.

Other rates of bounty paid in respect of exports on and after 1st April, 1936, were:—

Eggs (in shell) exported under bond, 1s. per great hundred.

Eggs (in shell) exported to the Isle of Man. Maximum rate for each grade less 1s. per great hundred.

Dead Poultry exported under bond, 2d. per lb.”

I take it that that paragraph is informative.

Mr. Maher.—Informative, yes, Mr. Chairman.

1344. Chairman.—In regard to sub-head G—Bounties and Subsidies on Exports of Potatoes and other Agricultural Products, and Expenditure on Trial Consignments to External Markets —there is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

“104. The expenditure under this sub-head amounted to £68,688 19s. 7d., made up as follows:—

The payments to exporters of cattle, horses, sheep and lambs, and mutton and lamb related to the discharge of claims in respect of exports in previous years. Bounty was not payable on exports made in the year under review.

In the case of potatoes, dead rabbits, beef and veal, and offals of sheep and lambs, the following rates of bounty were sanctioned:—

Potatoes (Main Crop).

Exports from Scheduled Districts.

To the United Kingdom:—

New and Early Potatoes exported to the United Kingdom.

Where did these trial consignments go, or were there any trial consignments sent to external markets during the period of this Appropriation Account?

Mr. Twomey.—I think not in this period, no.

1345. Has any trial consignment since been made?—No, not since.

1346. Deputy Walsh.—The amount given on sheep and lambs seems very small.

Chairman.—You observe, Deputy, that in the note it says that the payments to persons in respect of sheep and lambs is in discharge of claims in respect of exports of previous years, which would suggest that they were the tail-end, closing transactions. Is that correct, Mr. Twomey?—That is correct, Mr. Chairman. It is clearing up arrears.

1347. Chairman.—We will turn now to the Vote itself. In fact, we have had each of the sub-heads in the notes, but we will just go through them formally. I see there is a huge surplus to be surrendered—£196,978 15s. I know, Mr. Twomey, that it is extremely difficult to forecast with any degree of accuracy the amount you will actually require for this service, but I think you will agree with me that the creation of large surpluses of that kind, for which Budget provision was made, constitutes a standing temptation to other Departments to spend money that they would not otherwise dream of asking for, when there are available surpluses to be entrenched upon without the imposition of additional taxation. Can you follow what I am getting at?—I do, yes. I think the surplus in that case was due to changes made during the year. Some of the bounties were dropped during the year. That could not have been anticipated at the beginning.

1348. Chairman.—I see. There is a note by Mr. McElligott at the end here, saying that the provision required under the several sub-heads could not be accurately estimated.

Mr. Twomey.—Yes.

Chairman.—But it is a matter of the most urgent importance that some attempt should be made to do so with greater accuracy than has been shown in the past.

VOTE 4—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL.

Mr. J. Maher called and examined.

1349. Chairman.—In regard to sub-head F—Incidental Expenses—the expenditure of 3/2 calls, I think, for criticism.

Mr. Maher.—We have no travelling expenses under the national insurance office. Since the abolition of the societies, all the work is centralised in the Unified Society in Dublin, and that provision is simply in case local investigation would be required.

1350. Chairman.—Why did you spend 3/2 in sub-head F?—That is for bringing parcels backwards and forwards to the sub-office in O’Connell Street.

1351. Chairman.—Tram fares?—Not necessarily tram fares. It is really for carrying parcels. Tram fares would come under travelling expenses.

The Committee adjourned at 3.45 p.m.

*See Appendix XII.