Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1940 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1939 - 1940

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 6adh Meitheamh, 1940.

Thursday, 6th June, 1940.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the Chair.

Seoirse Mag Craith (Ard-Reachtaire Cunntas agus Ciste), Mr. T. S. C. Dagg, and Mr. G. P. S. Hogan (Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 52—AGRICULTURE.

Mr. D. Twomey, called and examined.

909. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following note to Subhead G. 3.—Fertilisers Scheme:—

“32. With the object of enabling farmers to obtain certain artificial fertilisers at reduced prices, it was arranged that the members of the Irish Fertiliser Manufacturers’ Association should allow rebates on the prices ordinarily charged to retail merchants and co-operative societies and that the benefit of these reductions should be passed on by the retailers to their customers. On submission of certified statements of sales and auditors’ certificates, the rebates allowed were recouped to manufacturers, the authorised rates being 10/- per ton for superphosphate (including potassic superphosphate), semsol, and ground North African phosphate, and 5s. per ton for complete fertilisers (including sugar beet manure).

The expenditure in respect of the 1938-39 season amounted to approximately £85,000, of which £37,292 2s. 4d. was disbursed during the year under review.”

How did you arrive, Mr. Twomey, at the formula for “the prices ordinarily charged to retail merchants”?—Do you mean the price charged by the manufacturers to the retail merchants?

910. Yes?—We exercise no control over that price, but the manufacturers do, at the beginning of each season, issue price lists to which they adhere during a season. In fact, we made no arrangements with the manufacturers as to what the price level should be. Our scheme was, that whatever the price level was, there should be a rebate of 10/- per ton on super-phosphates off that price level. The Prices Commission exercise control over the prices charged by the manufacturers, and each season they go into their accounts very carefully.

911. Are you aware that the price of artificial manures was increased by 15/per ton between January and April of this year?—Yes.

912. Which more than absorbs the entire Government subsidy?—That is so. That was due entirely to higher freight costs. The freight costs on the raw material from North Africa have gone up from an average of 9/- per ton to 50/per ton.

913. Are you further aware that, in 20 years’ experience of trading in artificial manures, I have never paid the list prices for artificial manures until this year. The prices set out in the list to which you have referred have, in fact, never been charged so long as there was the competition of Continental manures on the market, and I, in fact, have never paid those list prices until this year. Was your attention directed to that?—We know, of course, that discounts are given, but we are really not concerned with that, because if, in addition to the discounts, there is a rebate given from State sources that does, by means of the competition between the retail merchants, get passed on to the farmers.

914. Are you aware that, in fact, what happened was that this year instead of getting a rebate from the manufacturer— that is a rebate below the list price in order to secure my custom, the rebate of the manufacturer was withheld, and I received the 10/- rebate from the Government—the net result of the Government rebate was to spare the manufacturer the necessity under which he hitherto laboured of giving me a rebate out of his own pocket?—Well, I do not know, but our information is that the margins of the manufacturers are very small. At all events, whatever way it was done, if the rebate was not there the price of manures would have been very much higher.

915. I note that the formula was that the rebate was to be allowed on “the prices ordinarily charged to retail merchants.” I understand that, in fact, you have been instructed to disburse this money on that understanding. I would be interested to know from the accounting officer how he arrived at the figure which is represented by the words “the prices ordinarily charged to retail merchants”. Until he had arrived at that figure he had no authority to disburse the bounty? —I do not agree with that at all. The prices ordinarily charged differ very considerably as between one district and another, and it would mean that if we were to make a rebate, in accordance with these variations, there would have to be a different rate for every town and village in the country. All that we can do in general is to pay the approved rate of rebate, of subsidy, to the manufacturers in the assurance that ordinary competition will ensure that the farmers will get the benefit of it.

916. Do you see the point that I am making: that, hitherto, the reduction in the price of artificial manures was got out of the manufacturers’ profits. This year no such reduction was forthcoming. We got the rebate of 10/- from the Government. If the words in the note of the Comptroller and Auditor-General are correct, my submission to you is that you were to allow the rebate on “the prices ordinarily charged to retail merchants,” but that, in fact, you allowed the rebate on prices in excess of those ordinarily charged to retail merchants?—We cannot take account of such things as trade discounts in operating a scheme of this kind, because trade discounts differ very greatly in accordance with the practice whether a merchant who is buying from a manufacturer pays cash on delivery, or pays cash within seven days or 21 days. We could not possibly go into such things as trade discounts. We do not know what trade discounts were allowed in the year which we are now discussing, or whether, in fact, similar discounts have since ceased to be paid to the retailers of manures. I do not think that is any concern of ours. It would be quite impossible for us to go into everything connected with trade discounts.

917. Have you observed whether, in fact, manufacturers have changed their trade discounts?—I am not aware of it.

918. But, if that were so, it would simply mean that the manufacturers were putting into their own pockets the full amount of the subsidy?—They would have a subsidy, for the discounts they gave in the past, of the 10/- granted by the Department.

919. Deputy Keyes.—If there was the flat arrangement of 10/- per ton, as set down here, what alteration should that make in the practice of trade discounts? Those trade discounts are given, I take it, because of the competition that exists between manufacturers. Why, therefore, should the introduction of this 10/- per ton Government subsidy interfere with what had been the existing practice as between manufacturers? As the note of the Comptroller and Auditor-General says, the rebate is only to be paid “on submission of certified statements of sales and auditors’ certificates”. Would it not be possible for the Department to see whether, in fact, manufacturers unfairly used the advantage of the State subsidy by not giving the usual discounts?—I think there could be no abuse of that kind, because the competition that had prevailed in the past would continue, and I think the State subsidy should continue as well.

Chairman.—As a Committee, we must confine ourselves to asking the accounting officer questions.

Deputy Keyes.—What I have said bears, I think, on the point that the Chairman has been dealing with for the last quarter of an hour.

920. Chairman.—Yes, but we must only ask the Accounting Officer questions. I should like to know from the Comptroller and Auditor-General where he got the words which appear in his note: “the prices ordinarily charged to retail merchants”.

Mr. McGrath.—We got them from the correspondence in the file that we drew in connection with this matter.

921. Chairman.—Were you aware of that restriction, Mr. Twomey: that the grant could only be made as a rebate “on the prices ordinarily charged to retail merchants”?

Mr. Twomey.—No. All that we are concerned with is this: we make these payments to the manufacturers on the understanding that they do, in fact, by means of a credit note or otherwise, pass on the benefit of the 10/- rebate to the retailers. We are aware that they are doing that: that they are passing on the 10/- benefit, and are showing it as a rebate off the sum that the retailer would have to pay if our scheme was not in operation. That is quite definite and clear, and that is all we are concerned with. I am not concerned in any way, and I think it is quite unfair to ask me to account for the difference in discounts between one year and another that manufacturers are allowing. It is no part of my business at all—the amount of the discounts that were allowed in the past. If they were big and ample, it is quite clear that the list prices of the manufacturers must have been high to allow for such discounts. Possibly their list prices are now cut so tight that there is no longer room for the discounts given in the past. I am only offering that as a possible explanation. I venture to say that as Accounting Officer I should not be asked questions about manufacturers’ discounts.

922. Chairman.—You will notice that the Comptroller and Auditor-General uses the words that the rebates were to be allowed “on the prices ordinarily charged to retail merchants”?—And that has been done and we are satisfied that the rebates have been allowed on the prices ordinarily charged to retail merchants.

923. How do you interpret the words “prices ordinarily charged”—it occurred to me that these words convey to one reading them “the prices charged over a period by manufacturers to retail merchants”? What is your meaning or interpretation of the words “ordinarily charged”?—My interpretation is that the amounts that would be shown in the account which the manufacturers would furnish to the merchants in accordance with the prices ruling at the time, and that on that account there would be a rebate of 10/- per ton.

924. So, in your opinion, if a merchant ordinarily charged the list price, less a discount of 10 per cent. and in this year charged the list price without any discount, it would be no concern of yours?— It is no concern of mine.

925. I am glad to hear that view. It is a view with which I disagree?—Our position is very clear in the matter.

926. Deputy O Briain.—In connection with those supplies of manures, does the Prices Commission function at all?—It does, and I do not think there is any commodity being sold to farmers at the present time which gets such attention from the Prices Commission as the price of artificial manures.

927. The Prices Commission would probably go into that point that the Chairman raised about the discount given by manufacturers to traders?—Oh, yes, because it is the net receipts they will take into account when dealing with manufacturers’ profits.

928. Chairman.—The next note is—

Subhead H—Grants to County Committees of Agriculture.

“33. The charge to this subhead comprises normal grants amounting to £88,789, special temporary grants totalling £5,000, and payments, amounting to £4,349 19s. 6d. for the purpose of supplementing Committee’s expenditure on the provision of lime for agricultural purposes.

The normal grant of £88,789 includes a sum of £72,910, equivalent to the proceeds of the agricultural rate of 2d. in the £ under the Agriculture Act, 1931, and extra grants, amounting to £15,879, equivalent to the amount of the income of Committees from rates in excess of the statutory minimum 2d. rate.

In addition to the foregoing, sums totalling £277 were paid to nine County Committees from funds derived from penalties imposed under the Corn Production Act, 1917.”

Are you satisfied, Mr. Twomey, in connection with the first part of that paragraph, that there was any fraud in the distribution of this lime? I am informed that in certain parts of the country persons went to lime suppliers, got a barrel of lime to whitewash their houses, signed a receipt for two barrels which they alleged they were to use for agricultural purposes?—I think it is inevitable in connection with a scheme of this kind that there will always be irregularities. But we are taking every possible step to insure that the money will be properly expended. In addition to the check which we require the county committee officers to carry out while visiting the farms to ascertain whether the lime has been delivered and used for agricultural purposes, we appointed in the last two seasons lime supervisors. We appointed lime supervisors in addition to the county staff in each county to make checks to see that the money was properly expended.

929. Deputy Cole.—Were there any prosecutions or was the money withheld? —Yes; we withheld the grant from two county committees because of irregularities that were taking place. In one committee the whole grant was withheld, and in the case of another committee part of the grant.

930. Chairman.—Are you satisfied that no irregularities of the kind I have referred to can occur?—I am quite satisfied that they can occur and do occur. You cannot stop them.

931. Deputy O Briain.—Is it not the case that in any scheme that is put forward that certain people will commit irregularities?—Yes, and unless I myself go down and cart the lime out to the farmers and see that it is spread on the land, irregularities will occur. But, on the whole, we are satisfied that the lime is being applied for agricultural purposes.

932. Chairman.—Has it occurred to you that irregularities could be effectively stopped if the lime distributors were required to add a small portion of colouring matter to the lime?—That would not stop its being used for the purpose of making mortar.

933. Would it limit the abuse?—Not at all. A half stone of lime will whitewash most cottages, and if there is a half stone of lime taken away from a few barrels for the purpose of whitewashing the cottage, that is not a very serious thing.

934. You withdrew the grant from two county committees where there was some serious abuse—were there serious abuses? —There were, otherwise we would not have withdrawn the grant. The irregularities in those two counties were serious. But, generally speaking, we are satisfied that the whole of the lime is being applied to the land. I could not assure you nor anybody else that there are not cases where lime is being used for other purposes than the land.

935. Then you do not see that some additional measures should be taken to render abuses of this kind impossible and to have them put an end to?—We took steps, we ensure that every possible check is being applied to the sale of lime by the imekiln owners in connection with this subsidy, but there is not a scheme that we operate in which there is not some abuse. In connection with cattle improvement schemes aand horse breeding schemes you cannot stop abuses absolutely.

Deputy O’Rourke.—Well, you attack the abuses, anyway.

936. Deputy Cole.—It was widely known, I take it, through the other counties, that this grant had been withdrawn in two counties?—Yes, it was published in the Press.

937. Deputy Hughes.—What was the abuse in the case of those county committees from whom the grants were withdrawn?—That the lime was used for other purposes, building and whitewashing.

938. Chairman.—Were there not numbers of cases where lots of people believed that persons who got lime under this scheme resold it?—I do not know that there were any cases really of resale, but there were some cases where the limekiln owner, with the collusion of the farmer, claimed for lime which he had not supplied. I would like to assure you that, notwithstanding these abuses, on the whole the scheme has been operated very successfully and, generally speaking, it is free from abuse.

939. Deputy Cole.—I suppose you found some abuses in connection with the ordinary artificial manures?—I am not sure that we have in any case. There is a pretty good check on that, and we have not discovered anything there.

940. Deputy Hughes.—What percentage of the lime is caustic ground lime? I take it most of it is burnt lime?—Most of it is ordinarily burnt lime which is slacked when it gets to the farmers. Not more than 15 per cent. would be burnt caustic lime.

941. The burnt caustic lime would be much better?—I agree it would be easier for distributing.

942. And it would have quicker reactions on the soil, too?—Yes.

943. Deputy Cole.—Is there any check on the weight of the lime? Have you any given weight for a barrel of lime, or does the weight differ in different parts?—Yes; the weight of a barrel of lime differs in different parts of the country. When the county committees are submitting their schemes for approval to the Department they have to state the subsidy per barrel and the weight per barrel of the lime in that particular area.

944. Deputy O Briain.—This whole figure of £88,789 was not all expended on lime—that is the total grant?—That is right. In the year under review there was an expenditure of £4,350 on lime.

945. Deputy O Briain.—I had gathered from the Chairman’s statement that the whole figure of £88,000 odd was on lime.

Chairman.—That was due to the fact that the Deputy had not read the whole of note 33 by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Deputy Walsh.—I heard of cases of people getting seed, for instance, and reselling it.

Chairman.—I do not think we need press Mr. Twomey to deal with seed under this note. At the moment we are dealing with grants to the county committees of agriculture.

946. Deputy Hogan.—Perhaps it would be a good thing if Mr. Twomey would press the County Committees to keep very strict supervision over those grants. I know that he cannot go down to the country himself and watch those abuses. I am a member of a County Committee myself and I am satisfied that there are not many abuses. Members of the Committees in the various areas keep watch on the people who get the lime and, knowing the local people, they would be in a position to know who was trying to evade the regulations and so on. I am satisfied this is a good scheme, and I am satisfied that supervision in the case of the County Committee of which I am a member is very good. If more money could be provided for this purpose I am satisfied it would be money well used?—We have written to the County Committees of Agriculture asking them to have their own officers make checks so far as their time will permit. We realise that it would not be possible to get complete checks in that way, and in order to assist them we have appointed temporary lime supervisors to make checks during the lime distribution season.

947. Deputy Hughes.—Is the subsidy limited to the same amount of lime in every county?—No.

948. Supposing one county is using more than another, how does it work—in Carlow, I know, it is limited to four or five tons. In my opinion, that is a very poor subsidy if a man is using 20 or 30 tons of lime. If you have sour land you would need 20 or 30 or 40 tons of lime, for you would need two tons to the acre? —The County Committee approved of this scheme and it is they who are to decide what limit they will place. Naturally, when their funds are limited the limit will have to be on the low side.

Deputy Hughes.—Yes, I suppose they must cut their cloth according to the measure.

949. Chairman.—Paragraph 34, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report:—

Subhead M 5—Improvement of the Creamery Industry.

“34. Including the expenditure of £33,017 4s. 4d. in the current year, the total Vote expenditure to 31st March, 1939, from moneys provided for the improvement of the Creamery Industry amounts to £1,162,096 9s. 11d. Receipts amount to £213,665 13s. 7d., leaving a net charge on public funds of £948,430 16s. 4d.

The expenditure includes a payment of £1,718 8s. 0d. to the Newmarket Dairy Company (1932), Ltd., representing recoupment of the outlay incurred in supplying artificial manures at half price to the milk suppliers of certain creameries in County Kerry. It is not clear that expenditure of this nature falls within the ambit of the subhead and I have accordingly deemed it necessary to call attention to the matter.

The expenditure also includes a sum of £107 15s. 4d. paid, with the sanction of the Department of Finance, to a bank in order to yield an agreed dividend on a debt due by a creamery in process of liquidation, and thereby to release the guarantors of the debt from their liability.”

949a. Chairman.—The annual return* is furnished as usual?

Mr. Twomey.—Yes.

Chairman.—In regard to the second paragraph, do you wish to add anything, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—No.

950. Chairman.—Can you help us, Mr. Twomey, as to whether this sum for artificial manures came within the ambit of the subhead?

Mr. Twomey.—Yes, it came appropriately within the ambit of the subhead. I mean, the charge was assigned to that subhead after consultation with the Department of Finance.

951. Mr. Hogan.—We gave a direction to have this expenditure charged to subhead M 5, which provides for the improvement of the creamery industry. In our view, on the basis of the submission by the Department of Agriculture as to the purpose of this particular scheme and the understandings on which we sanctioned it, that was the appropriate subhead— Improvement of the Creamery Industry.

952. Chairman.—We have agreement between the Department of Finance and the Department of Agriculture. Can we bring the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor-General into line?

Mr. McGrath.—I should like to draw the attention of the Department of Finance to their own note of 19th December, 1938, on this matter. They close by saying: “I am to add that provision for this grant should be made in the pending Supplementary Estimate for Agriculture for the current financial year.” That was a condition, and we pointed out to the Accounting Officer that that condition was not carried out. We wrote on the 17th October, 1939, and drew attention to it in these words: “In view of the terms of the last paragraph of the Department of Finance’s letter of 19th December, 1938, information is requested as to the circumstances in which the Supplementary Estimate was not taken for the expenditure referred to above.” The Accounting Officer’s reply to that was: “The Department included this item in the draft Supplementary Estimate which was submitted to Finance on the 31st January, 1939, but in the discussions which followed Finance decided that the expenditure could be charged to M 5, under which there was sufficient saving.” I draw attention to the two ways in which the Department of Finance dealt with this matter.

953. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General will remember that the only person who cannot change his mind is the person who has no mind to change. Is the Comptroller and Auditor-General satisfied with the state of affairs arising out of the change of mind in the Department of Finance?

Mr. McGrath.—The wording of Part III of the Estimate is: “To provide funds for the improvement, reorganisation and extension of the creamery industry, by the purchase of creameries and associated businesses; the extinction of redundant creameries; the erection of creameries and the carrying on of creameries and associated business pending their reorganisation and sale.” I must point out that the grant was not made to the creameries.

Mr. Hogan.—In regard to the question of our change of mind to which the Chairman referred, of course our latest direction is our final direction, and that was given on the 14th February, 1939, to the effect that this expenditure should be charged against subhead M 5 of the Vote for Agriculture, and be met out of savings on the subhead. When the Department was giving the original instruction to include provision in the Supplementary Estimate we were not in a position to know that there would be savings on the subhead. It was when we came to study the exact terms of the draft Supplementary Estimate that we gave the direction of the 14th February that this item should be met out of savings on subhead M. 5. The question whether it was appropriate to subhead M 5 had already, in our view, been decided by the basis on which the scheme had been sanctioned, that is, that it was ancillary to the purpose of the improvement of the creamery industry in the Kenmare-Cahirciveen area.

954. Chairman.—Our difficulty Mr. Hogan, is that the words appearing in the original Book of Estimates are: “To provide funds for the improvement, reorganisation and extension of the creamery industry, by the purchase of creameries and associated businesses; the extinction of redundant creameries; the erection of creameries and the carrying on of creameries and associated businesses pending their reorganisation and sale”. The Comptroller and Auditor-General’s point appears to be that these latter words qualify the primary purpose of improvement and confine the steps that may be legitimately taken for the improvement of the industry to the “purchase of creameries and associated businesses; the extinction of redundant creameries; the erection of creameries and the carrying on of creameries and associated businesses pending their reorganisation and sale.” Can you bring the supply of manures to the farmers who brought milk to the creameries within any of these four limitations?

Mr. Hogan.—Yes, I think I can. Of course the important words are “improvement of the creamery industry”. If you look at the details you will see that they include the words “and the carrying on of creameries”. The money was provided for the purpose of carrying on the creameries in the North Kerry area. It was represented to the Department of Finance that the new creameries that had been erected in that area were in danger of financial collapse unless the milk suppliers were put in a position to secure fertilisers at reduced prices. We provided the Dairy Disposals Company with half the cost, the other half being recovered by the Dairy Disposal Company from the suppliers.

Chairman.—As far as I am concerned, I think these words of limitation are wide enough to bring in this scheme, but we can discuss that when we are deliberating on our report.

955. Deputy Hughes.—Outside this subhead, can the Department supply manures at half price to any group of farmers?

Mr. Twomey.—No, we have no funds for the purpose, other than the very limited scheme we operate in the congested districts, where we do supply manures at half price for demonstration purposes.

956. Deputy O Briain.—This district is, in fact, a congested area?—It is in South Kerry—the Cahirciveen district.

957. Deputy Hughes.—If it did not come within the ambit of this, you could not help them at all?—No.

958. Chairman.—As to the last paragraph, can you explain to us, Mr. Twomey, on what authority that payment was made?

Mr. Twomey.—Of course the payment was made with the sanction and authority of the Minister for Finance; but the reason for it was that this particular Society owed its bankers a sum of over £5,000, which was secured partly as a charge on the Society’s property and partly by means of a joint and several guarantee signed by individual members of the Society. When the necessity for liquidating the Society arose, in order to facilitate that operation being carried out the bank agreed to release the charge and the guarantee which it held on condition that it would eventually receive a dividend of 13/6 in the £. When the whole matter was being cleared up it was found that the residue available would not be sufficient to give the bank the dividend of 13/6 that was agreed to, and the Department then approached the Department of Finance for authority to pay out the balance of £107 odd and to charge it to this subhead.

959. Chairman.—Is there any precedent in your recollection for the release of individual guarantors from their liability out of State funds without express statutory authority?

Mr. Twomey.—I think it has happened previously where we had, in connection with the reorganisation of the dairying industry, to wind up redundant creameries, and where we have taken over the liabilities of societies and individual members of societies, and made a payment to the bank on that account.

960. Chairman.—Have you any comment to offer, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—No, I merely drew attention to the fact. The Department of Finance has considered it in detail. It is in connection with the Ballymacelligott Co-operative Dairy Society, which is now the property of the Dairy Disposal Company.

961. Chairman.—Can you tell us, Mr. Hogan, if there is any precedent for the Department of Finance accepting liability for individual citizens’ indebtedness to a bank?

Mr. Hogan.—I think that possibly is putting the question in a somewhat different form from the one in which it was considered. As we understood the position, this Co-operative Society was in liquidation and the Dairy Disposals Company were to be enabled to purchase the assets. These arrangements contemplated that the persons and bodies to whom the Society owed money should give a discharge. The bank was a creditor and was willing to accept a certain basis of composition—I think an average of 13/6 in the £. In order to enable that sum to be fully paid up, this extra sum of money had to be provided over and above what had originally been agreed to by us. We thought the whole purpose of the transaction would be vitiated if we had not made the additional sum available.

962. Chairman.—Are you satisfied that Dairy Society were transferring their assets to the Dairy Disposals Company under the reorganisation scheme they did in fact transfer all their assets, or is there any reason to believe that they sold for cash certain of their assets to other persons? Am I correct in believing that this Society sold the Kilduff Creamery Separating Station to the Lee Strand Co-operative Creamery for £1,227 and transferred to the Dairy Disposals Company only that part of their property which was unsaleable and bankrupt?

Mr. Twomey.—That was subsequent to the taking over by the Dairy Disposals Company.

963. Chairman.—The Dairy Disposals Company got the proceeds of that sale?— Yes.

964. Even with the proceeds of that sale, the Ballymacelligott Co-operative Dairy Society was insolvent when it passed into the hands of the Dairy Disposals Company —Yes.

965. Chairman.—Paragraph 35 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report is as follows:—

Subhead M 8—Expenses in connection with the provision of Butter for Winter requirements, etc.

“35. In paragraph 42 of my last report. I mentioned that allowances were paid to creameries and other registered concerns in respect of butter produced or acquired during the winter months. The period of production or acquisition was extended to 30th April, 1938, and payments amounting to £39,828 19s. 3d. are charged to this subhead in the present year.

Allowances were also paid on creamery butter and certain other dairy products produced during the period 1st May to 30th November, 1938, and on creamery butter produced during the period 1st to 9th December, 1938, and a sum of £150,399 15s. 7d. charged in this account relates to the expenditure incurred in respect of these allowances.

The balance of the charge to this subhead, £28,446 2s. 6d., represents allowances made to creameries and other concerns in respect of butter placed in and withdrawn from cold store under conditions prescribed by the Minister for Agriculture. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding the grant of the full rate of allowance to concerns using their own cold storage facilities.”

Chairman.—Can you give us the result of that correspondence?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes. I drew attention to the fact that those who have privately-owned cold stores received the same allowance as those who used public cold stores. The Accounting Officer replied in these terms:—

“No differentiation is possible because it could not be established that creameries and merchants are in a position to cold-store butter for a long period in their own premises at a cheaper rate than that charged by public cold stores.”

I think that was a fair answer. We thought that those with their own cold stores could do it cheaper, but the Department says that it could not be established that that was so. That is a reasonable answer.

966. Chairman.—I take it that this scheme was primarily designed to induce creameries to keep butter in cold store rather than put it on the market at an undesirable time.

Mr. Twomey.—Yes. It was really to make provision for winter consumption out of the peak summer production. We went into the matter on hearing from the Comptroller and Auditor-General and found that the costings of the small cold stores at the creameries were fully as high as the bigger cold stores in centres like Dublin, and that there would not be any fair case for offering a lower allowance in respect of creamery cold stores than in the case of public cold stores.

967. Deputy O Briain.—Have not all the creameries cold stores now?—Practically all.

968. Chairman.—Your primary purpose was to keep surplus butter off the summer market and retain it for consumption in the winter?—At as low a cost as possible.

969. Does the Department make any periodic tests of the butter in these cold stores with a view to ensuring that cold-stored butter of inferior quality does not appear on the market as Irish creamery butter?—We do. We check the butter actually held in stores and also make checks at the time of the issue of butter.

970. You remember that on one occasion I had to bring it to the Minister’s notice that cold store butter from one creamery was not in a satisfactory condition?— That is very exceptional. Generally speaking, it is in very good condition.

971. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General’s note continues:—

Subhead O. 9.—Agricultural Products (Regulation of Export) Acts, 1933 and 1935.

“36. The expenditure charged to this subhead includes £229,506 8s. 9d. in respect of the purchase, storage, and export of butter, and £173,947 8s. 1d. in respect of the purchase and export of eggs. The balance of the charge to the subhead, £62 19s. 10d., relates to expenditure in connection with the marking of cattle exported to Great Britain through the port of Greenore.

As noted in the account, the arrangements under which the Department purchased and exported butter and eggs to Germany terminated as from 31st December, 1938.

Accounts relating to the purchase and export of butter and eggs in the year ended 31st March, 1939, have been received and are under examination.”

Mr. McGrath.—These accounts have since been examined and have been laid on the Table of the Dáil.

972. Chairman.—You have no further comment to make on that paragraph, which, I take it, is informative?

973. Chairman.—The next paragraph reads:—

Subhead O 11—Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts, 1934 to 1936, etc.

“37. The expenditure under this subhead amounted to £320,527 14s. 5d., made up as follows:—

I would not like to pass from this without an assurance that the Roscrea Meat Factory has got its last penny from the Government.

Mr. McGrath.—We will come to it later on.

Mr. Twomey.—I would not like to say that this is all we will have about it.

974. Chairman.—Are they still parasites on the public?—No. What I mean is, one never knows what circumstances might arise again in which we might need to have old and uneconomic cows taken away.

Deputy O Briain.—Exactly.

Mr. Twomey.—At the moment the State has nothing whatever to do with the Roscrea Meat Company.

975. Chairman.—Then we can hope to see the end of it here?

Deputy O Briain.—Everybody would not agree with the Chairman’s views regarding the Roscrea Meat Factory.

Chairman.—Unfortunately that is only too true.

Deputy O Briain.—The majority of farmers who benefited would not agree with the Chairman.

976. Chairman.—Paragraph 38 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report continues:—

Compensation for Animals Slaughtered.

“38. As stated in my last report, the acquisition of cattle under the scheme for the elimination of old and uneconomic cows ceased on 25th March, 1938. The expenditure £5,040, under this heading relates to the purchase of animals acquired prior to that date.”

That is an informative paragraph. The next paragraph reads:—

Purchase of Beef for distribution to recipients of Unemployment Assistance, Outdoor Relief or Home Assistance.

“39. The expenditure charged under this heading, amounting to £2,033 2s. 6d., represents payments made to victuallers of outstanding claims for beef supplied under the statutory scheme which was administered by the Department of Agriculture and ceased to operate on 6th December, 1936.”

Can you tell us if all the claims and counter-claims for the purchase of beef for distribution amongst recipients of Unemployment Assistance and Home Assistance are now disposed of?—No. There is about £1,000 still involved. Claims to that amount have not been finally settled.

977. May we expect that in the course of the current financial year these accounts will be finally closed?—We think that possibly they might. The exact amount outstanding is £1,166, and I think we are in a position to make payments in respect of £1,000. Probably the balance, £166, would remain to be written off in one form or another.

978. Chairman.—I take it that the Committee agrees that this provision means that small items of this kind should be disposed of in one way or another so that this subhead can be closed and not dragged on from one financial year to another, indefinitely.

979. Deputy Walsh.—Is it not true that a judgment of the High Court affected payment of claims under this subhead?—Yes, it was really in connection with the collection of levies. There was a decision in the Circuit Court and it was reversed in the High Court.

980. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor’s Report continues:—

Purchase of Cattle for Export.

“40. As in the case of butter and eggs, the export trade with Germany in cattle ceased to be operated by the Department as from 31st December, 1938.

The accounts of this trade for the year ended 31st March, 1939, have been received and are at present under examination.”

Mr. McGrath.—The accounts have been examined and, I think, have been laid on the Table of the Dáil since May 29th this year.

981.—Chairman.—Have you them with you?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

982. Chairman.—Am I correct in saying that the loss on this scheme over the entire period from February 7th, 1935, to 16th December, 1938, amounted to £14,933?

Mr. Twomey.—It was a profit. There was a loss this year of £15,000, but that is countered by a profit of £30,000 and leaves a net profit of £14,933.

983. Can you tell the Committee if over this entire period there was a profit and how many cattle were exported under the scheme?—77,864.

984. Was there debited to the account at the time profit and loss was cast at any period the cost of the work of the Department’s inspectors or buyers?—Yes. All administrative expenses were charged up, including buyers’ commission and the administrative expenses of the Department itself. Where an officer was engaged whole time his whole salary was charged, and if part time part of the salary was charged.

985. It is to be noted that in arriving at a profit of £14,933 no credit was taken by the Department of Agriculture for bounty on the cattle which would be payable to private individuals if they were exporting?—That is so.

986. So that there is an additional saving to the State by the saving of bounty that would otherwise be paid?— Yes.

987. And the bounty on 77,864 cattle would amount to a considerable sum?— It would. During portion of this time there was no bounty payable. In earlier years there would be a heavy bounty, but in the last two years there was no bounty on any cattle.

988. The effect of the scheme was that farmers sold cattle and, in fact, got as high price from the Government as from others?—Yes, they got the market price.

989. Deputy Hughes.—Otherwise they would not sell. How many buyers were there?—Three.

990. What was the commission?—1/6 per head.

991. Chairman.—I observe in your note that you say that had full credit been taken for the full bounty over the whole period the total profit, instead of being £14,933, would be £49,807?—Yes.

992. Approximately 13/- a beast?—Yes.

993. Deputy Hughes.—What was the average number bought in the market and shipped weekly?—The average was 200.

994. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

Compensation for extension of Roscrea Meat Factory and cessation of cattle supplies to the Factory.

“41. The expenditure £21,388, under this heading, relates to payments made to the Company mentioned in previous reports. It includes sums of £4,500 and £16,888 representing, respectively, the balance of compensation, fixed at £15,500, in respect of expenditure on the extension of the Company’s factory, and the amount of compensation payable for the cessation of cattle supplies.”

To which of these causes of complaint by the Roscrea Meat Factory does the figure of £16,888 apply?—That is the sum in respect of the cessation of cattle supplies.

995. So that our failure to give the Roscrea Meat Factory cattle for nothing involved us in the payment of a penalty of £16,888?—The agreement with the Company was for the supply of cattle for a period of four years. In fact, we ceased to supply before three years were finished, and the Company were then entitled— under the terms of the agreement—to compensation on a basis which had been included in the agreement.

996. That would yield to them a sum of £16,888??—Yes.

997. Deputy O Briain.—Was a Supplementary Estimate submitted to the Dáil about this whole question?—Yes.

998. Deputy O Briain.—The Chairman was not there?

Chairman.—I had left for Australia ten minutes before the Estimate was introduced. It was introduced by special leave of the House immediately after my departure.

999. Note 41 by the Comptroller and Auditor-General continues:—

“The Company became liable for the redemption of the Debentures, £16,000, issued to the Minister as security for the original loan advanced, and this amount has been received and is credited to appropriations in aid in this account.”

Has the Department any contact with this Company at all now?—Except that they are registered for export purposes under the Fresh Meat Act and we carry out veterinary inspection at their premises as we do in the case of other firms.

1000. Are all the premises in the possession of this Company—including the extension in respect of which they received substantial compensation in full use?— Yes.

1001. So that we compensated them for premises which are now profitably employed in their own business?—These premises were not, in effect, required for their own purposes, but we requested them to erect them. The scheme came into being in July, 1935, but by November, 1935, it became evident that very large numbers of cows were being offered and that the Company would not be capable of absorbing them except over a period which would be far too long for persons wishing to dispose of old and uneconomic cows. It was we who put forward proposals to extend the factory and to increase the number of cows from an average of 900 to an average of 1,500. They proceeded to put up these additional buildings and we made a new agreement with the Company in respect of the supply of the additional number of cows. In fact, before the additional building was even finished, the supply of cows began to dry up and we then had to make this arrangement with the Company to compensate them for the extension we asked them to put up and for which we could not supply them with cattle, and also in respect of the cessation of the supply of cattle under the original agreement.

1002. All these entire premises are now profitably occupied or, at least, in full working operation?—I would not say that the existing premises would be at all justified by the business that the Company is now carrying on.

1003. In your judgment, they are in excess of requirements?—They are far in excess of what the Company would require, in our regard, for their normal business.

1004. There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

Subhead O 17—Losses.

“42. The charge to this subhead represents the contribution made, under general average adjustment, towards the cost of salvage of a vessel which ran aground in September, 1937, when carrying cattle to Germany.”

I take it that the vessel was fully insured in so far as our liability for it was concerned?—Yes, but in these cases, where vessels go aground and there is salvage, every person having cargo on board has to pay a certain proportion of the salvage cost, in accordance with the usual marine terms, and our proportion amounted to £281.

1005. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

Subhead P.—Appropriations in Aid.

Repayments of Sums advanced to Seed Merchants.

“43. Repayments of advances to seed merchants under the scheme of credit for seed wheat, referred to in previous reports, amounted during the year under review to £316 16s. 8d. The balance outstanding at 31st March, 1939, was £366 9s. 6d.”

Is that account all right, in your opinion, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—We merely give you that information. The Accounting officer may pass an opinion as to the possibility of settling up the balance.

1006. Chairman.—Is that balance recoverable, Mr. Twomey?

Mr. Twomey.—We think it is.

1007. Has any of it come in since this note was made?—Yes; the amount is down now to £247.

1008. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

Contributions by Importers in respect of the staining of imported seed wheat.

44. In order that cheap imported seed wheat might be readily identified and its sale as Irish wheat be thereby prevented, permits issued on or after 21st October, 1938, to import such wheat were subject to the condition that it should be stained. It was arranged that staining would be done by officers of the Department on payment by importers of a contribution at the rate of 6d. per barrel. The amount contributed during the year under this head was £2,260 15s. 5d.”

1009. Deputy Hughes.—Where a merchant has a surplus of stained wheat, how does he dispose of it? He cannot sell it to the miller?—We have arranged that the millers will take over the stained seed.

1010. At the market price?—Yes.

1011. That was not done last year. Is it only this year it is being done?—Yes.

1012. Chairman.—I take it that it is done under specific licence from you?— Yes.

Deputy Hughes.—It would reflect on the price of seed the following year, if merchants had it left on their hands.

1013. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

Levy under the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts, 1934 to 1936.

45. As stated in previous reports, the provisions of the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts relating to the collection of levy in respect of cattle and sheep slaughtered for human consumption ceased to be in force as from 1st August, 1936. The amount collected in the year in respect of levy due but uncollected at the date mentioned was £6,276 16s. 2d., and the amount of levy outstanding at 31st March, 1939, was £35,813 4s. 5d.”

In what condition are these two accounts now?

Mr. Twomey.—The amount outstanding now is £24,000 and sums are being paid regularly. In a good many cases they are being paid on foot of instalment orders and in other cases by voluntary instalment arrangements made with the Department.

1014. Chairman.—There is a further note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

Licence Tax on butter exported to Belgium.

“46. I observed that a sum of £2,598 5s. 6d. was paid to the Newmarket Dairy Company (1932), Ltd., in respect of licence tax on a quantity of butter exported to Belgium and subsequently re-exported to the United Kingdom. I have inquired regarding the circumstances in which this expenditure, which has been charged to a suspense account, was incurred, and also how it is proposed to clear the charge against the suspense account.”

Can you give us any further information, as a result of your inquiry?

Mr. McGrath.—I have not yet received any reply to my inquiry. Perhaps the Accounting Officer would deal with it now.

Mr. Twomey.—Before replying to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, we have to make arrangements with the Department of Finance as to the subhead to which this amount is to be charged. It may be that the question of introducing a Supplementary Estimate will also arise.

1015. Chairman.—What were the circumstances under which you sent butter to Belgium and brought it back to Great Britain?

Mr. Twomey.—The butter was despatched to the Belgian market towards the close of the winter and information available at the time would go to show that there was a very good market for the quantity of butter which was sent, but in that particular year the Belgian butter manufacturing season was very much earlier than usual—as there was good weather in the spring—and when the home supply of Belgian butter came on the market the price dropped very considerably. It was found then that we could get a better net price by sending it to Great Britain than by selling it in Belgium at the price obtaining there, so we decided to reduce our loss by transferring the butter to the British market.

1016. Deputy Hughes.—Had you sold butter in previous years there?—Yes, the trade had been quite good.

1017. At any time, was it sold at the open market price?—Yes.

1018. You never got a contract price at all, before you sold?—No.

1019. Chairman.—I do not know whether you have the figures before you or not but you will correct me if I am wrong. As I understand the situation, we shipped butter to Belgium which cost £3,922 and we paid the Belgian Government charges—in the form of customs charges and licence—to the extent of £3,040, making a total cost of the butter on the Belgian market £6,963; then we brought that butter back from Belgium and paid duty on its entering England. The charges in duty amounted to £840, leaving the butter costing us £7,803 in London. For that butter we got a net sum in London of £2,029, with the result that we lost £5,700 on the transaction?— That is the position, Mr. Chairman.

1020. Would it not have been more economic to bring the butter outside the port of Rotterdam and dump it into the sea, or sell it as axle grease in Brussels?— No; we looked into it very carefully and found that we would save money by bringing it to Great Britain, that is, we reduced our loss by sending it to Great Britain.

1021. Were we not able to recover from the Belgian Government the amount of customs tax and licence fees when this butter was re-exported?—No. We made every effort, but the Belgian Government refused to make a refund. We continued making representations until, in the end, the Department of External Affairs advised us that it was futile to continue making them.

1022. Can you recall what price was available in Brussels for this butter at the time it was re-exported? I think it was something in the region of 54/-?—I have not the particulars and would not like to give an approximate figure.

1023. Possibly the price of 54/- occurs to me because I understand you had sold part of this consignment in Belgium before you transferred the butter referred to in this note, but it may be that the price fell below that before you transferred this butter?—The price dropped very considerably, owing to the manufacturing season in Belgium being earlier than was anticipated.

1024. Chairman.—I think you will agree with me that it is astonishing to ose £5,700 on butter which originally cost £3,922?

Deputy O Briain.—How many tons were there?—The quantity under review is 585 cwt. transferred to Great Britain.

1025. Chairman.—Is it not extraordinary to lose £5,700 on butter that cost £3,922?—We were sending produce to many markets at the time and while we were losing in some we were making a profit in others. On the whole of our butter export transactions we made considerable profit.

1026. Deputy Hughes.—Was there no possibility of securing an offer from the Belgian Government or from any other country, even before sending the butter to Belgium?—No. In the circumstances prevailing at the time, we had to send the butter to Belgium and depend on our agent there to sell at the best price obtainable from week to week.

1027. Deputy Cole.—If this war had not taken place, would you have stopped these “white elephant” schemes?—They have been stopped long ago.

1028. Chairman.—When the butter was in Belgium, its cost stood at £6,900. Did you hope to get the £3,000 duty and licence fee back when you brought the butter to England?—We thought we would have got it.

1029. And it was because of that, that you thought it would be economic? I take it that, if you knew you would not have got the fees back, you would not have attempted to bring the butter out?— We were counting on getting back the licence tax but, even if we did not, we knew it would have paid us to take it back.

1030. Chairman.—That, of course, could have been cleared up before you moved the butter but, in fact, it cost £840 to bring the butter back to London, leaving the butter costing you £4,800 in London—even supposing you got back the Belgian customs and licence charges. You sold the butter at 70/- in London and you would have a loss of over £2,000 even if you got back the Belgian tax. Could you not have sold the butter in Belgium at a price which would have involved you in a loss of less than £2,000?—I doubt if we could at the time. I doubt if we could sell it at a better price at the time and we could not have held it indefinitely.

1031. Deputy Hughes.—Have exports in the past to the Belgian market shown a profit as compared with the British price?—The Belgian market was more advantageous having regard to the very great duty we had to pay in Britain.

1032. How long had you been selling to them?—For about three years. It was never as satisfactory as the German market.

1033. Chairman.—How much butter was involved in this transfer back to London?—585 cwts.

1034. The Comptroller and Auditor-General mentions in his note that part of this loss is charged to a suspense account. Why have you retained it in a suspense account? What do you propose ultimately to do with it?—We will approach the Department of Finance with a view to having it charged to one of the regular subheads. In all probability it will be necessary to introduce a Supplementary Estimate to cover the transaction.

1035. Chairman.—If that course is adopted I do not know that there is any further question we have to ask about it. It can be more profitably dealt with in another place.

1036. Note 47 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report states:—

Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Acts, 1935 and 1938.

Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund.

“47. Levy was collected throughout the year on bulk cream, cheese, and condensed milk sold on the home market and, from 1st May, 1938, on home sales of creamery butter. In addition, levy became payable, under certain conditions, on butter held in stock on 10th December, 1938, and on butter imported during limited periods in the months of February and March, 1939. As will be seen from the account, the receipts from levies amounted to £136,533 18s. 5d. Bounties amounting to £196,823 2s. 2d. were paid at the prescribed rates on exports of creamery butter and cheese.

The Butter Stocks (Levy) Order, 1938 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 331 of 1938) provided that levy at the rate of 9s. per cwt. should be paid on all butter held by or on behalf of every registered proprietor and butter trader anywhere on 10th December, 1938. It appeared to me that the terms of the Order referred to had not been fully complied with, and I am accordingly in communication with the Accounting Officer on the matter. I have also inquired regarding the circumstances in which levy was not collected on 54 cwts. of butter imported at a time when a levy rate of 26s. per cwt. was in force.”

In regard to the first part of the second paragraph what has the result of the correspondence been?

Mr. McGrath.—In examining this matter, we found that certain returns indicated that individuals who held large quantities of butter had not paid this levy. We drew the attention of the Accounting Officer to the matter.

1037. Chairman.—Have you any comment to make, Mr. Twomey?—Yes. I think we furnished on the 22nd April last a quite satisfactory explanation of the point raised.

Mr. McGrath.—The Audit Office has to look at it in this way. If a regulation is made under which a levy is payable by butter traders, we must see that all butter traders pay that levy. We find that certain traders did not pay the levy and we drew the attention of the Accounting Officer to that. These traders had rather large quantities of butter under their control.

1038. Chairman.—What is the Accounting Officer’s explanation of the failure to collect the levy from these merchants?—I am not aware of any trader who had a large quantity of butter under his control from whom a levy was not collected. We did not, of course, collect the levy from all the retail shopkeepers. It would have been impossible to collect a levy on every 28 or 26 lbs. in the possession of retailers.

Mr. McGrath.—I am not talking about retailers who had only 26 or 28 lbs. I am referring to retailers who had large quantities and I am only asking the reason why you did not carry out the terms of that Order, particularly as the Order was issued by your own Department. The Order laid down that certain sums were payable to Government funds, and I want to know why these sums were not as a matter of fact paid in.

1039. Chairman.—I have a case before me in which a merchant had stored with the Merchant Warehousing Company 140 cwts. of creamery butter on which no levy was collected. I have another case in which a merchant had 65 boxes of butter in the same warehouse. There is another case in which a merchant had 45 cwts. of creamery butter and 469 cwts. of non-creamery butter with the Dublin Pure Ice and Cold Storage Company. I find instances of two other merchants who had in the same cold storage 133 cwts. and 128 cwts. of non-creamery butter. In none of these cases was the levy collected. Again, with the Cork Warehousing Company a merchant had 92 cwts. of creamery butter. Another with the same Company had 36 cwts. and 56 lbs. of creamery butter and 14 cwts. of non-creamery butter. In none of these cases was a levy collected?—The position is that we served a Return Notice under Section 4 of the Dairy Produce Act of 1931 on all registered proprietors, and on all such butter traders as were known to the Department, requiring them to furnish returns of all stocks of butter held at the close of business on the 9th December, 1938, on their own premises or elsewhere. Then we issued demands for the levy in accordance with Section 4 of the Dairy Produce Act. The returns of butter in cold storage furnished by registered proprietors were checked against the returns of butter held in cold storage furnished by Public Cold Stores. Where butter was held in private cold store, the quantity was checked by an inspector of the Department. We could not have taken any further steps to collect all possible information with regard to the butter which was held at the time, and we took every reasonable step to ensure that the levy was paid.

1040. Chairman.—Surely if the butter was in the cold stores and you asked the cold stores to give you a return of all the butter they held for individuals, you would have got all the information the Comptroller and Auditor-General now has?

1041. Deputy Hughes.—Did the Comptroller and Auditor-General get this information from the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

Mr Twomey.—I am not aware that we made such a return to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

1042. Chairman.—In any case, I take it that you accept the facts contained in this return that this butter was held in cold storage?—I should like to know the source of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s information because, as far as I am aware, there was only one particular case, that of a merchant in Limerick——

Mr. McGrath.—Perhaps if I showed the Accounting Officer the document I have been reading from it would assist him.

(Document submitted to Accounting Officer.)

Mr. Twomey.—I have copies of all these.

1043. Chairman.—Would you look at the list, on the next page, of the merchants described in the return?—This list is a copy of a list which I have here myself. It is only a list of the butter held in cold stores at the close of business on the 9th December, 1938.

1044. I understand that no levy has been collected on any of that butter?— That is not so at all. There is some misapprehension somewhere. That sheet you have in front of you is a record of the butter held in cold stores at the close of business on the 9th December, 1938. It was furnished to the Department in compliance with the Return Order issued by the Minister. There is one case of a merchant in Limerick where a levy was not collected——

1045. Chairman.—Do you tell me that a levy was collected from all the merchants named in that list?—Yes, as far as I know. There was a question raised by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in respect to one particular trader. There was a slight discrepancy in that case—a difference between 85 cwts. and 87 cwts. 70 lbs. That discrepancy was afterwards accounted for.

Mr. McGrath.—I just want to have this put on record. The names of the merchants, which I can give, can be blanked out on the record. Was a levy collected from Mr. A, North Circular Road, Dublin, on 65 cwts. of butter?—Naturally I have not those particulars.

I want it on record. Was a levy collected from Mr. B., Moore Street, on 140 cwts. of butter?—I could not possibly, Mr. Chairman, be expected to know the particulars in each particular case.

1046. Chairman.—I think the best course for you to adopt, if you would be kind enough to help us, would be to bespeak a copy of the list from the Comptroller and Auditor-General and let the Committee have a memorandum* at your convenience showing whether levy was paid on the butter referred to in the list?—As far as I am aware, the levy has been paid on the butter referred to in that list.

1047. Chairman.—We fully appreciate that it would be difficult for you to carry the details of every individual case in your head but if you would be kind enough to let the Committee have a memorandum it would be of assistance?

Mr. McGrath.—I think I should say that I think the Accounting Officer has in mind registered butter traders. I am not contending that registered butter traders have not paid. I am contending that there is a list here which shows the names of individuals who have not paid the butter levy. There may be a technical difference.

Mr. Twomey.—Do you mean the list in front of you?

Mr. McGrath.—The list with which I was supplied on 2nd November, 1939, contained the names of a number of people who, I understand, did not pay the levy on the butter mentioned.

1048. Deputy Walsh.—That are not registered?

Mr. McGrath.—That is the point. According to the Minister’s Order all holders of butter were to pay a levy on that date, without exception. I am afraid there is a technical difference between us.

Mr. Twomey.—I think that the best thing to do would be to allow me to prepare a memorandum for the information of the Public Accounts Committee.

1049. Chairman.—That will be quite acceptable to us, Mr. Twomey. You have noted, perhaps, that the Comptroller and Auditor-General adverts to the possibility that the Department of Agriculture may have distinguished between registered butter dealers and merchants who had butter in their control, he taking the view that the order applied to all persons who had butter in their control for sale?—We served a notice not alone on all registered traders but on any trader known to the Department as holding any substantial quantity of butter.

1050. And I take it that, had you been advised by a public cold store company that a merchant, whether registered or not, had 140 cwts. of butter in his possession, which he intended to sell thereafter, you would have required him to pay a levy on that butter?—Yes, certainly.

1051. Well, I propose to pass from that matter now on the understanding that Mr. Twomey will give us whatever information he may be able to give us as a result of his enquiries.

1052. The last part of the second paragraph of Note 47 is as follows:—

“I have also inquired regarding the circumstances in which levy was not collected on 54 cwts. of butter imported at a time when a levy rate of 26s. per cwt. was in force.”

Would you care to elaborate on that, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—I am quite satisfied with the answer of the Accounting Officer in connection with that butter—that it was afterwards sent out as ships stores.

1053. And so you are satisfied that it was not leviable butter?—According to the Minister’s order, it was, but I think that the Accounting Officer is entitled to say that, in spirit, so to speak, it was not leviable butter.

1054. The last paragraph of Note 47 is as follows:—

“The payments made from the Fund under Section 41 (6) of the 1935 Act include recoupment to the Vote for Export Bounties and Subsidies of a sum of £1,101 16s. 7d. charged to that Vote in 1936-37. As stated in paragraph 102 of this report, the amount represents the loss incurred on the sale on the home market of a quantity of butter originally purchased for export. £1,624 was paid to the Butter Marketing Committee established for the purpose of regulating the export of butter to the United Kingdom, and the balance of the expenditure under Section 41 (6), £1,129 17s. 1d., was paid to the Dairy Disposal Company Ltd., in recoupment of the loss of that amount incurred on the sale of 12,949 cwts. of butter imported during the months of February, March and April, 1937.”

Do you wish to add anything to that, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—No, it is purely informative.

1055. Chairman.—We now come to the subheads. I am sure, Mr. Twomey, that considering the anxiety that you yourself must have in connection with these Bounty Funds, you will appreciate the necessity that the Committee feels to inquire into that?

Mr. Twomey.—I quite appreciate that and am prepared to give all the information that we have.

1056. With regard to subhead M 2, Veterinary Research, are you satisfied, Mr. Twomey, that the money provided for veterinary research is being spent to the best advantage?—Such money as we have got is being spent to the best advantage. Possibly, we could spend a great deal more if the money were available, but that is another question.

1057. Agreed; but in so far as the money that is available is concerned, do you think that sufficient attention is being paid to such questions as sterility, not due to contagious abortion, and also to streptococcal infection, which is responsible for so much of the mammitis in cattle?—Yes, investigations are going on constantly with regard to these diseases with a view to finding a way to deal with them, and then, apart from our own research station, there are veterinary research stations all over the world in which similar investigations are being carried out.

1058. Has any investigation been taking place at our station into the efficacy of the Prontosil group of drugs in the cure of streptococcal infection?—No. It would only be chasing shadows to attempt to carry out tests of all the proprietory quack remedies that are being advertised and attempted to be sold in this country.

1059. I can assure you, Mr. Twomey, that the Prontosil group of drugs are anything but quack remedies. They are the fruits of the research work of some of the most scientific men in the world, and are in universal use in connection with human ailments. As a matter of fact, I raised this matter last year and I was wondering whether, as a result of that matter having been raised here, any work had been done in that connection?—There is straightforward research and investigation being carried out into any of the diseases that are of economic importance, so to speak, here.

1060. Well, I think you will agree that streptococcal mammitis in cattle is a serious matter?—Yes, undoubtedly it is of economic importance, but I do not think we could divert the energies of our research station, which is very small and has a very small staff, to testing the claims that are beng made for all these various remedies.

1061. I was not adverting to these remedies which you evidently have in mind, Mr. Twomey, but to the Prontosil and Sulphanilamide group of drugs, to which reference has already been made. I raised that matter last year, and Mr. Sean O Broin, Assistant Secretary to the Department of Agriculture, who was giving evidence then, informed me that the results, to date, are somewhat conflicting. He said*:

“The results to date are somewhat conflicting, but it may be taken as correct that Sulphanilamide in large and repeated doses reduces the number of streptococci agalactiæ—the common causal agent of bovine mastitis—with a corresponding improvement in the clinical condition of the udder which is often most striking, but complete permanent cure does not follow.”

May I suggest that, inasmuch as these results have been obtained, this line of investigation should be pursued in this country where this disease affects so many of our best cows?—I had understood, Mr. Chairman, that you were referring to some of these patent remedies that are being so widely advertised here at present and in respect of which we have been receiving must urgent demands from the proprietors to carry out tests. We have declined to give import licences for some of these remedies on the ground that farmers would only be wasting their money by purchasing them. As I say, we have had demands from the proprietors of some of these remedies to try out the remedies officially and make an official pronouncement on them. We are refusing to do so. I was not aware, however, that you were referring to the use of a known drug, and you may take it that the research and investigation into the use and effect of that drug is being continued.

Chairman.—I am glad to hear that. Far from asking you to pursue inquiries into the various patent and quack nostrums, I have often drawn attention to the fact that the Department should protest in certain cases where such advertisements would be grossly misleading.

1062. Deputy Walsh.—Under subhead E 3 there is an item for subscriptions to international and other research organisations. Does that mean that we get any information as to investigations that are being carried out in other countries?—Yes. There are a good many of these organisations, such as National Institute of Agriculture at Rome. We get their publications and statistical information, which is very useful to us here.

1063. Chairman.—With regard to subhead F 1, Agricultural Schools and Farms: considering the amount of money available, are you of opinion that it would be possible to multiply the number of agricultural schools at present in operation, or do you think it necessary, Mr. Twomey?—Well, the existing agricultural schools are now full each year, and in all probability we could easily get pupils for additional schools if we had them—that is, the residential schools.

1064. Do you think it would be possible, out of the provision at present being made, to increase the number of schools? —No, it would require the provision of additional assistance.

1065. Every school requires some State assistance?—Yes.

1066. Have you considered the possibility of establishing in this country an agricultural school to which parents, who could afford to pay an economic fee, might send their children? I mean a school that would pay for itself?—We have never considered that.

1067. Well, is it not reasonable that, since there are many of us who can afford to pay for our sons to be trained as doctors, engineers, architects, and so on, some of us should also be able to pay an economic fee for our sons to be taught agriculture? Evidently, the despised farmer must be assumed to be a poverty-stricken person, who is unable to pay for secondary education. I think that there must be a great number of people who, if they had the opportunity to give their children a scientific agricultural education, would be glad to give them that education and pay for it, just as in the case of doctors, engineers, and so on?—The difficulty is, it appears to me, that there is no such case.

1068. Deputy Walsh.—Is not the difficulty to induce them to go to agricultural schools?

1069. Chairman.—I should be glad if Mr. Twomey would give us his views on that. What do you think, Mr. Twomey? —I think it would be very difficult to establish such a school and fill it up so as to be sure you could run it entirely from the fees.

Deputy Walsh.—My experience, taking, for instance the scholarships scheme under the county councils, is that the agricultural scholarships are not availed of.

Deputy O’Rourke.—There is not much competition for them at any rate.

Deputy Hughes.—Do you not give them a preference?

Deputy Walsh.—Yes.

Deputy O’Rourke.—The trouble is that the majority go in with the idea of getting a job and not with the idea, as the Chairman seems to think, of becoming more efficient farmers.

1070. Chairman.—Well, Mr. Twomey, you cannot increase the provision of schools beyond the limits of the money you have to account for. Suppose, however, that you were in a position to establish a school that would pay for itself. There are a number of fellows who get a primary education and a great many of them intend to become farmers on a moderately large scale: would there not be a number of these fellows who would be anxious to go to a good secondary school with an agricultural bias, instead of going to colleges like Castleknock, Blackrock, Rockwell, and so on.

1071. Deputy O Briain.—Are there not such colleges under private direction? For instance, you have the Salesian Fathers?

Deputy Hughes.—Yes, there are such colleges. There is one in Meath.

Mr. Twomey.—Yes.

Deputy O Briain.—There is one at Warrenstown, County Meath.

1072. Chairman.—Have these colleges vacancies, or is further accommodation required?

Mr. Twomey.—They are filled mainly through the help of the county committee scholarships. The number of pupils who are full fee-paying pupils is very small.

1073. That would then suggest that there really is not a demand for the kind of school I have in mind?—I am afraid there is not.

1074. Deputy O Briain.—Does not the Cistercian College in Roscrea provide for agricultural education? Have not they a branch of their secondary school that provides that type of education?—That is so. They have what they call an agricultural class in the college where boys may elect to follow an agricultural course instead of doing, say, an intermediate examination course.

1075. Chairman. Has it ever occurred to you that these colleges rather direct the minds of boys to the future of getting jobs rather than to the future of becoming practical farmers on the land?—It is not the colleges which do that. The curriculum of the colleges run by the Department is designed to give boys a thoroughly good grounding in practical work as well as some class-room work, to enable them to go back home to work their own farms. I do not think you can say that the curriculum of the colleges is in any way at fault, if, in fact, boys do come there with the intention of looking for posts.

Deputy O Briain.—It is hard to blame them. There is only work for one in the farm.

1076. Chairman.—Have you adduced any statistics to show the number of graduates from the Department’s schools who have become farmers and the number who have entered jobs?—Full 75 per cent. have returned home.

1077. Really?—To work in some capacity. I do not say that they always stay on the farm but, at all events, they have not qualified for posts.

1078. Of those who took the highest qualifications that the school was in a position to grant, how many went to jobs and how many to work on the land?—Of those who went back home? Of the 75 per cent.?

1079. You said that some of the pupils did not qualify for posts. Presumably, some of them did not have the highest certificate that the school was in a position to give. Of those who took all that the school was in a position to offer, how many went back to the land? What percentage went back to the land and what percentage went to jobs?—Something like three-fourths would go back because the jobs are not there. More would have taken jobs if they were available.

1080. Deputy Hogan.—One hundred per cent. would have taken jobs if they could get them?—They probably would. The percentage that went back home could not get jobs.

1081. Deputy O’Rourke.—The men who go back home are still on the look-out for jobs?—They are always willing to take a job if they can get it. So far as I know, there is no farmer’s son, except an only son, and very well-to-do, who is not prepared to go out and do even temporary work.

Deputy O Briain.—That is right.

1082. Deputy Hogan.—In connection with that matter, Mr. Chairman, would you permit me to ask one question? I am a member of a vocational committee in the County Offaly. We provided there a couple of rural schools, vocational schools, and in one case—probably in two cases— we failed to be able to provide a teacher who was qualified to teach rural science. It appears that there is a great shortage in that direction and that men are not available. In one case we could not provide a suitable type of teacher at all to teach rural subjects?

1083. Chairman.—Has any complaint of that kind reached you, Mr. Twomey, that suitable persons are not available for the position of teachers of rural science? —I think that is true. It is mainly due to the fact that so many vocational committees were providing for that type of instruction all at the one time and the number of persons who were trained in agricultural and natural sciences was, naturally, related to the number of posts that had been normally available in the past. Then, suddenly, the vocational committees created a new demand and for a period of years there have not been men to meet that demand. I think the position is improving considerably.

1084. Deputy Hogan.—I only mentioned that when I heard you say that three-fourths of the people who got education in agricultural subjects returned home?— But they are not fully qualified as teachers.

1085. They would not be fully qualified but they should be better qualified than people who had got no training in that direction, if they got a special course?— I do not think that a boy who had spent, say, a year, at the Athenry Agricultural School would be certified as sufficiently qualified to carry out instruction under your committee.

Deputy O’Rourke.—Not at all.

Mr. Twomey.—They require, generally speaking, a university standard of education for that kind of thing.

1086. Deputy O Briain.—Subhead F 2 covers the agricultural college in Glasnevin, does it not?—It does in so far as there is provision there for the receipt of rent from it, but we have no control over the Albert Agricultural College. It appears in our Estimates because we receive a rent in respect of it. It is only leased to the university.

1087. Chairman.—In regard to subhead F 7, have you ever considered the desirability, Mr. Twomey, of availing of the scientific resources of University College, Dublin, or any of the universities in Ireland to assist in the pathological investigation of bovine and animal diseases?—They have not been specifically asked to do it.

1088. Would you consider the desirability of making special grants, studentships—you know what I mean—postgraduate scholarships or something of that kind, for the investigation of specific endemic diseases amongst live stock in this country?—I think that probably that would be best done by giving scholarships to veterinary research stations elsewhere.

1089. Has that scheme ever occurred to the Department in connection with these research grants and veterinary grants?— We have more than once thought of the advisability of providing research studentships for our veterinary students but there is the expense involved and we are spending quite a big sum of money on the veterinary college as it is. We feel rather cautious about proposing additional expenditure.

1090. You, who have unique experience in live stock in this country, would sympathise with us who see farmers with five and six head of cattle going to the bull month after month and remaining barren, sometimes for two years, for no explicable reason. I can assure you that that problem is acute and disastrous in rural Ireland at the present time as is the problem of mastitis amongst the very heaviest milking cows?—It is common to all countries in which cattle-raising and dairying are important parts of the agricultural industry and whilst our provision here for veterinary research is modest, there are other countries that have made very big provision and they do not seem to be making any more progress. We think that although our research station is a small one it is a very efficient one.

1091. Has your attention been directed in connection with this matter to the research that has been proceeding in Australia for the abolition of maggots in sheep?—Yes.

1092. That correspondence has been brought to your attention?—It has, yes.

1093. Deputy Walsh.—In connection with subhead F 8—Educational Tours for Agricultural Instructors—it seems to be a very small sum that it provided there? —It is a token. It is only occasionally that these tours are arranged and if they are actually arranged we approach Finance for a bigger sum under that subhead.

1094. Deputy Cole.—Under subhead G 1, is your Department attending to cheese production? Is not the import of cheese prohibited? You cannot bring in cheese except under licence. In fact, you cannot bring it in at all. Are you making provision for small farmers making cheese?—The manufacture of cheese at farmhouses in this country is practically non-existent. Whatever cheese is being made is made at cheese factories attached to creameries.

Deputy Cole.—But in Scotland many farmers are making cheese?

Deputy O’Rourke.—There have been classes held throughout the country, but they do not take to it.

1095. Chairman.—You are aware, Mr. Twomey, that very excellent cheese is being turned out in Sligo by private producers?—I am and also in a few other places—in Wexford and in Dublin—some very fine cream farm cheese is being made, but it is the exception.

1096. It is the exception, but I think it is true to say that from the cheese connoisseur’s point of view, the quality of cheese turned out by these small enterprises is superior to the mass-production cheese of the creamery?—It is not the same type at all. It is an entirely different type of cheese.

1097. Is the creamery cheese pasteurised cheese?—No; the creamery cheese is mainly cheddar, whereas what they make at these small farmhouses are cream cheeses.

1098. They have also made some splendid cheshires and cheddars and continental cheeses in Sligo?—Yes.

1099. Deputy O Riain.—That is a kind of factory, is it not?

Chairman.—They are not associated with a creamery, Deputy.

Deputy O Briain.—It is a factory?

Chairman.—Virtually.

1100. Deputy O Briain.—But Deputy Cole’s point appears to refer to home-made cheese. Do you think there is any future for that, Mr. Twomey?—There used to be a good deal of instruction in the making of home farm cheeses and it never made any progress.

Deputy O’Rourke.—It was taught, all right. I know some girls who were taught to make cheese, but they did not seem to practise it afterwards.

1101. Deputy O Briain.—Would there be a market for cheese that would be manufactured in that way? Would there be a market at home or an export market? Probably that would have a bearing on the situation?—The export market for cheese is not very good.

1102. Chairman.—The plain fact is that the Irish are not a cheese-eating people?— No.

1103. Deputy O Briain.—In connection with subhead I 4—do you intend to expand these reclamation schemes in connection with congested and semi-congested areas?—Yes.

1104. Do you intend to go any further? I think this scheme has been a great success?—Yes.

Deputy O Briain.—I suppose that is not a proper question to put at all, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman.—It is a useful question.

1105. Deputy O Riain.—In regard to subhead K 2—has the Department any control over how that grant is spent? Does the Department just give the grant and then the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society spend it on general organisation work—co-operative work?—Yes, generally, on the development of cooperation.

1106. In regard to subhead K 4—is there any prospect of any development in regard to the manufacture of milk powder? I suppose it all depends on the market?—It depends, yes. The export market is a limited one. There are three creameries making milk powder in this country and the market is limited.

1107. Chairman.—With regard to subhead M 6, in respect of loans for the purchase of heifers, it is your intention, I understand, in the current financial year substantially to expand the operation of that purchase scheme?—The Agricultural Credit Corporation are operating the scheme at the moment in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and provision has been made for the issue of loans by the Corporation at 5 per cent. interest instead of at their usual rate.

1108. Chairman.—Subhead N 2 deals with the Bovine Tuberculosis Order, 1926. What is the grant payable to a person who notifies a County Committee of Agriculture that he has a tubercular beast which he wishes to have destroyed?—It depends on the value assessed on the animal by the local authority’s veterinary surgeon.

1109. It is a percentage of its true value if it found diseased?—Yes. If, for example, an animal were found on slaughter to be free from tuberculosis, the full value of the animal as estimated before slaughter will be paid, but if it is affected with tuberculosis, only a proportion is paid.

1110. I do not think many people realise that, and if that were made more manifest to the public greater advantage would be taken of the scheme because many people feel that if they allow a beast to be slaughtered they will only get a few shillings for it, even though it is proved after examination not to be tubercular?—Even if it is tubercular, they are generally paid £3.

1111. They get something approximating to the market value, if, through faulty diagnosis, it was slaughtered when not, in fact, tubercular?—That is so.

1112. Deputy Cole.—That does not apply only to cows?—To all bovines.

1113. Chairman.—Is it open to an animal owner to have an independent opinion at the autopsy to determine whether in fact a beast was suffering from tuberculosis or not, or must he accept the verdict of the Department’s veterinary surgeon?—The local authority’s veterinary surgeon.

1114. He is the final judge?—Yes.

1115. There is no appeal from his diagnosis?—No.

1116. On subhead O 16, are you satisfied that sufficiently energetic measures are being taken to enforce the Noxious Weeds Act?—At the moment we depend on the Civic Guards to report cases where weeds are not being cut.

Deputy O’Rourke.—You are very foolish if you think the Guards do it.

1117. Chairman.—Could warble fly inspectors not have added to their exiguous duties the reporting to the authorities of the existence of noxious weeds?—I do not know that they would do it any more efficiently than the Civic Guards.

1118. Particularly at present, the Civic Guards are burdened with an immense number of duties connected with defence, and it will certainly be the position that there will be no enforcement of the Act at all this year, unless some steps are taken to fill the gap created by the inability of the Guards to attend to it this year.

Deputy O’Rourke.—They would not do it this year nor any year, and there is no use in pretending that they would.

1119. Chairman.—May I suggest that unless special steps are taken this year to invoke the assistance of the warble fly inspectors or somebody else, great ground will be lost by the toleration of noxious weeds?—You cannot enforce an Act like this without having a special staff because it is not just a question of reporting that a man has weeds on his land, because somebody has to go back inside ten days or a fortnight to see whether he has cut them, and it takes repeated visits to ensure that the weeds are cut.

Chairman.—If the warble fly inspector were travelling around a district, he ought to be able to do it without any serious difficulty. I will undertake to locate any thistle in Ireland in July, and if the warble fly inspectors would secure the elimination of thistles, I should be quite content.

1120. Deputy O Briain.—In former years, was it not the practice of the Department to send out weeds inspectors?— We had a special staff for the purpose.

1121. You dropped it?—As a measure of economy.

Deputy O Briain.—The Guards could do it if they were so minded, even with their present voluminous duties. One or two Guards from each station could cover a lot of country.

1122. Chairman.—I have reason to believe that the Guards will be virtually relieved of all these duties this year for more important work of an urgent character and, therefore, you might lose a good deal of ground if there was a wide reinfestation with thistles and noxious weeds of the kind?—We will look into the matter.

1123. Chairman.—I mention warble fly inspectors because recently we had occasion to dispose of one whose total functions during the year were to call on two neighbouring publicans. I must say to the eternal credit of the local authority of which Deputy O’Rourke is chairman, his services were dispensed with.

VOTE 53—FISHERIES.

Mr. Twomey further examined.

1124. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

Subhead G 3—Advances for Boats and Gear.

“48. Including the advances charged in this account, the total of advances for boats and gear to 31st March, 1939, amounted to £95,500. The half-yearly instalments of the annuities set up to repay these advances falling due to 31st March, 1939, amounted to £32,074 18s. 4d., while the sums collected by the Sea Fisheries Association from borrowers and transferred to the Department in payment of the annuity instalments amounted to £22,636 2s. 0d. The annuity instalments were, therefore, in arrear at 31st March, 1939, to the extent of £9,438 16s. 4d.”

Is this situation improving or deteriorating?—During last year, it did not improve.

1125. Deputy O Briain.—Has that not been going on for years?—It has.

1126. When was it started—1914 or 1915?—The position was fairly good during the European War from 1914 to 1919, and up to 1920, but since then it has been deteriorating again owing to the fact that the fishing industry has not been remunerative.

1127. Chairman.—I suppose we may expect that under the special conditions now obtaining the industry may again become remunerative?—The position has been improving somewhat in recent months.

1128. Deputy O Briain.—Do you, in fact, hope to collect any of this £9,000? Is it being collected through the Sea Fisheries Association?—Some of it, but some is being collected direct by the Department.

1129. Deputy O Briain.—I think we made a suggestion last year about the writing off of balances?

Chairman.—I think we are not making the precise distinction we should make. The figures here relate to Sea Fisheries Association transactions, which are independent of the old fisheries loans which date back to dates long pre-war. However, we all understand the difficulties and we must hope that the situation will improve.

1130. There is a further note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

Subhead G 4—Advances for General Development.

“49. No advances were made from this subhead during the year under review.

The total of advances made to the Sea Fisheries Association for general development amounted, at 31st March, 1939, to £1,264 14s. 1d. It was decided, with the sanction of the Department of Finance, to regard £173 12s. 6d. of this amount, with accrued interest thereon, as chargeable against the Grant-in-Aid for the purposes of general development, and a sum of £216 8s. 0d. was accordingly paid to the Sea Fisheries Association from subhead G 2, a like amount being repaid by the Association and brought to account as appropriations in aid.

The balance, £1,091 1s. 7d., of the advances, is repayable over a period of twenty years by half-yearly instalments covering principal and interest. A sum of £167 13s. 0d. was repaid during the year and is included in the appropriations in aid.”

I take it that that is an informative paragraph?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

1131. Chairman.—The last note is:—

Fishery Loans.

“50. 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 £743 8s. 5d. under Section 2 of the Fisheries (Revision of Loans) Act, 1931. Repayments during the year, which are accounted for as appropriations in aid, amounted to £761 3s. 3d., and the balance outstanding on these loans at 31st March, 1939, was £21,994 1s. 8d., including arrears of £21,776 15s. 0d.”

Are these the old fisheries loans?

Mr. McGrath.—These are the old ones.

1132. Chairman.—With regard to subhead F 4, dealing with scientific investigations, I am informed by those who know that the elimination of one active pike from a trout river is the equivalent of the introduction of a thousand fry. Would the inland fisheries division consider the promotion of pike-catching contests throughout the country with a view to protecting trout in our rivers?—I think that something like that is being done by local associations.

1133. Very probably, but I think it would be of immense assistance if the inland fisheries division would promote or encourage local associations in this respect. Oddly enough, we find that when the otters increase on our local river, they feed more on pike than on trout because the pike are slower to move, with the result that the trout population has shot up.

VOTE 70—EXPORT BOUNTIES AND SUBSIDIES.

Mr. Twomey further examined.

1134. Chairman.—May I assume that each of these notes by the Comptroller and Auditor-General is of an informative character, or is there any question to which you specifically refer in any of them?

Mr. McGrath.—They are all informative.

Chairman.—I do not propose to read them all. I will call them one by one and if any member wishes to comment at any point he may do so.

The notes called were those set out at paragraphs 94 to 102 inclusive.

1135. Has there been any recovery in the exports of dead poultry for the English market?—There has been a considerable improvement in recent months.

Mr. Twomey.—Mr. McGrath called out the names of some people who had not paid the butter levy. I got a note of only two names—two Dublin firms. It would help me in my investigations if I had the names which Mr. McGrath mentioned.

1136. Chairman.—Mr. McGrath mentioned the names of some merchants in whose regard he was particularly anxious to know whether the butter levy was paid or not. Can you, Mr. McGrath, recall those names.

Mr. McGrath.—I referred to the butter held in public cold stores on the 9th December.

Mr. Twomey.—You had names on that list and you said that levies had not been paid by those people. I should like to get those names.

Mr. McGrath.—You said you had a list.

Mr. Twomey.—I have the complete list but I should like to have the names mentioned by you of those who had not paid.

Mr. McGrath.—To make the thing short, I said that no levy had been collected on butter “on the above list,” with the exception of the butter held by one person in Limerick. That is my information.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1.20 p.m.

*Appendix XII.

*Appendix XIII.

*Appendix XII of the Report of the Commitee of Public Accounts, 29th February,