Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1944 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1942 - 1943

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 30ú Samhain, 1944.

Thursday, 30th November, 1944.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the chair.

Mr. J. Maher (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. G. P. S. Hogan, and Mr. L. M. Fitzgerald (An Roinn Airgeadais), called and examined.

VOTE 65—EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.

Mr. J. P. Walshe called and examined.

484. Chairman.—Have any claims been brought to your attention under Subhead B.5—Repatriation and Maintenance of Destitute Irish Persons Abroad—which you have felt bound to reject, or have all claims been accepted from destitute persons abroad?—The position is that at the time we were estimating we thought we would have to repatriate a great many more people. We had about 20 people from Sweden and we thought that we would also have to maintain or repatriate about 30 persons from France, but in the end they found that they were able to manage their own cases, either through help from friends abroad or from friends here. We, however, have not turned down anybody.

485. You are satisfied that everybody marooned abroad and requiring assistance is being looked after?—To the best of our ability. Sometimes we find that a case has been brought very late to our notice and perhaps we were not able to do all we could have done if we had been informed earlier, but, taking all the circumstances into consideration, the very moment we are aware of a difficult case we do all we can immediately.

486. And I suppose that, in the new circumstances which have been created since a considerable part of Europe has been evacuated by the Germans, access to our nationals abroad is somewhat easier than it was?—It is somewhat easier, but it is still a little difficult.

487. Our representative has returned to Paris?—He has been there for quite a while.

488. And he can communicate with our people in France?—Practically all over France, yes.

VOTE 66—LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. J. P. Walshe called.

No question.

VOTE 30—AGRICULTURE.

Mr. D. Twomey called and examined.

Chairman.—There are several notes by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Note 17 reads:—

“Subhead G.G.—Fertilisers Subsidy.

“With a view to providing a supply of superphosphate for the 1942-’43 season, arrangements were made to supplement the phosphates available in County Clare by the importation of limited quantities, together with the pyrites needed for the treatment of both the native and imported phosphates, and payment of such subsidy as would enable the resultant superphosphate to be retailed at £15 per ton was authorised. Importation of the raw materials was handled by a member of the Irish Fertilisers Manufacturers’ Association and commenced in October, 1942. It was not possible to make a final payment of subsidy before the close of the financial year, and the expenditure charged to this subhead, comprising £200,000 in respect of 12,447 tons of phosphates and £123,441 16s. 5d. in respect of 7,732 tons of pyrites, accordingly represents payments on account.

I am informed that, by arrangement, the Department of Supplies checks the expenditure involved in the importation of phosphates and pyrites and the receipts from the sale of the resultant superphosphate, that that Department was consulted in regard to payments made on account at the time of importation of the raw materials, and that it will certify the final balance of subsidy payable.”

489. Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Maher.

Mr. Maher.—This subsidy, for which a Supplementary Estimate of £800,000 was passed by the Dáil in December, 1942, relates to the fertiliser year, which ended 30th June, 1943, and the sum of £323,441 16s. 5d. charged to the subhead is the amount paid on account in the financial year ended 31st March, 1943. The arrangement was that the Department of Supplies would certify the expenditure, but the Accounting Officer has informed us that this has been impossible. We have asked that the Accounting Officer should obtain from the company which acts on behalf of all the manufacturers a formal claim for the balance and that this claim should be certified by the company’s auditors. The Accounting Officer has recently informed us that this has been done.

490. Has the final payment been made, Mr. Twomey?—No, because there is an adjustment being made in respect of a subsequent year. We have not actually paid out that amount.

491. When do you anticipate that this account will be closed?—I expect it will be closed before the end of this financial year.

492. Are we to take this scheme as now terminated or is it continuing?—It is being continued. There is provision for it in this financial year also.

493. Deputy Cosgrave.—Are any tests made of the quality of the fertiliser— Yes, there is a regular analysis made of it.

494. The analysis must show a certain percentage?—Yes, a certain percentage of valuable ingredients.

495. Chairman.—Does the present situation satisfy the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Office?

Mr. Maher.—Yes.

496. Deputy Cogan.—Why was it found impossible for the Department of Industry and Commerce to check the accounts?

Mr. Twomey.—It was the Department of Supplies. What they furnished to us was a summary statement showing that, as a result of their examination of the accounts of the manufacturers, this sum was due. But they felt that the auditors of the manufacturers rather than the Department would be the proper persons actually to give the formal certificate. They did give us a statement showing the amount due and that amount was formally certified by the auditors.

497. Deputy Briscoe.—That means that the Department of Supplies are still watching the proceedings?—Yes.

498. Chairman.—From the situation did it appear that the manufacturers handling these fertilisers and phosphates were making rather more profit than had been anticipated on the transaction?—No, their profits are limited by the Department of Supplies to the normal profits in previous years and the Department of Supplies carried out a full examination of all the accounts of the manufacturer and satisfied themselves as a result of that examination, that the sum mentioned, £1,400 odd, was due as a final payment, but they intimated to us that they did not feel they were the proper body to give the formal certificate and it was to the auditors of the manufacturers that we looked for the formal certificate, which has been obtained.

499. Am I correct in saying that the arrangement was that, if these manufacturers who handled this product sustained a loss in the transaction, the Department of Agriculture was prepared to make it up?—Yes.

500. But what actually happened was that, when the manufacturers’ accounts came to be reviewed by the Department of Supplies, it was discovered that they had not only made the profit which was anticipated, but had made a large surplus profit; that the surplus profit was set off against whatever claims they were making against the Department of Agriculture and that it was the balance which the Department of Agriculture held itself out as being prepared to give them? —That is so, the surplus profits made by the manufacturers enabled us to reduce the amount of subsidy payable.

501. Am I right in saying that, in fact, the manufacturers made a surplus profit of £66,978 and that that was deducted from the amount of the subsidy which the Department was going to pay, leaving a payment due by the Department of £1,462?—Yes. We had no intention of paying anything beyond what the Department of Supplies would certify or inform us as being properly payable. We had no intention of paying that £66,000 odd to them.

502. Does it then emerge that, in fact, the Government paid practically no subsidy, but that the farmers really paid the full value of the manure coming from the manufacturers, that is £66,978 0s. 10d., the surplus profit?—That was only the final payment. We had made payments on account to the manufacturers.

503. These payments on account, taken together with what the manufacturers had actually collected from the consumers, left the manufacturers with £66,978 more than was anticipated. That was taken into consideration in adjusting the final payments?—Yes.

504. Deputy Briscoe.—There was a substantial amount paid by way of subsidy, something like £323,000?—Yes, that is right.

505. Chairman.—This large surplus profit was created by an incorrect estimate in connection with the payments on account. Is that the position?—That would not be correct. At the time when the subsidy scheme was put into operation the raw materials for the manufacture had not been imported at all and it was quite impossible to say what they would cost or what shipping freights would be. We acted on the principle of making payments on account to enable the importers to cover the cost of import, on the understanding that, at the end of the manufacturing season, the whole position would be examined by the Department of Supplies and that the amount of subsidy eventually paid would be only such as to allow the manufacturers to have their normal profit.

506. Deputy Briscoe.—Did you find that, in view of the experience, which was better than anticipated, there would be any possibility of making the anticipated amount of subsidy go further by getting more fertilisers in, or is any effort being made to use it up?—We had provision in that year in the Estimates passed by the Dáil for the importation of a very much larger quantity of phosphates, but they could not be shipped.

507. It was not a financial difficulty?— No, it was shipping facilities and other difficulties which limited the amount of fertiliser available, not the finances.

508. If shipping and materials had been available a much larger quantity of fertiliser would have been available to the farmers?—Nearly double. The Dáil provision would have provided for nearly double the quantity if we could have got them in.

“Subhead H.—Grants to County Committees of Agriculture.

“18. The charge to this subhead comprises normal grant amounting to £99,922, special temporary grant totalling £3,700, and payments amounting to £50,454 9s. 9d. for the purpose of supplementing committees’ expenditure on the provision of lime for agricultural purposes.

The normal grant of £99,922 includes a sum of £72,766, approximately equivalent to the proceeds of the agricultural rate of 2d. in the £ levied under the Agricultural Act, 1931, and extra grants, amounting to £27,156, equivalent to the amount of the income of committees from rates in excess of the statutory minimum 2d. rate.

In addition to the foregoing, a sum of £100 was paid to a committee from funds derived from penalties imposed under the Corn Production Act, 1917.”

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

Mr. Maher.—This paragraph shows how the total charge of £154,076 9s. 9d. is divided among the various grants. These come under four headings: normal grant, extra grant, special temporary grant, and lime subsidy grant. The Agriculture Act referred to has been amended by the Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1941. The payment of £100 referred to in the final sub-paragraph is in recoupment of a committee’s expenditure in connection with a cider orchard scheme.

510. Chairman.—Have you anything to add, Mr. Twomey?

Mr. Twomey.—No, except to say that the Corn Production Penalties Fund will be paid out entirely at the end of this financial year. It has been hanging fire since 1917—1918, but these moneys have now been given to the various counties to spend on approved schemes.

511. And the Corn Production Act Fund will go out of existence?—It is wound up.

“Subhead M.5.—Improvement of the Creamery Industry.

“19. The expenditure under this subhead totalled £2,132 1s. 2d., and receipts in connection with the disposal of creamery properties, which are brought to account as Exchequer extra receipts, amounted to £7,187 10s. 3d. The total Vote expenditure to 31st March, 1943, from moneys provided for the improvement of the creamery industry amounted to £1,197,847 5s. 6d. and receipts were £247,074 3s. 4d., leaving a net charge on public funds of £950,773 2s. 2d.”

512. Chairman.—I take it that that is the usual informative paragraph, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—Yes.

513. Is there anything you wish to add? —No, except that I understand that the usual statement of expenditure for the year to 31st March, 1943, and also the consolidated balance sheet have been sent to the Committee.*

514. Have you by you the figure representing the assets in the hands of the Dairy Disposals Board as a set-off against the net charge on the public funds of £950,773 2s. 2d.? Would I be correct in saying, looking at the balance sheet, dated 31st December, 1943, that a reasonable figure to take would be £89,564 11s. 3d., or should we include certain of your reserves in estimating the total assets of the Dairy Disposals Board against the net charge on the public funds of £950,773 2s. 2d.?—I do not think that the reserve fund for loss on realisation should be included, that is, £124,000, because that is money which will probably have to be expended and could hardly be regarded as an asset.

515. I suppose the reserve for depreciation will not be regarded as an asset either, or might it?—I think it might.

516. Perhaps you will turn this matter over in your mind at your convenience and give us your estimate of what assets in the hands of the Dairy Disposals Board are deemed to be properly set-off against the net charge on the public funds of £950,773 2s. 2d.?—That would mean assigning a value to each premises, a thing we have never attempted to do.

517. That certainly would be far in excess of what I had in mind when I asked the question. I wonder if there is any figure from the balance sheet which would give the Committee a general picture as to what the true balance sheet position was, bearing in mind that charge of £950,773 2s. 2d. on the public funds? —We probably would make out an approximate composite figure. I can tell you offhand that the excess of liquid assets over bank overdrafts and sundry creditors is over £450,000 and that, in addition to that, we have the value of the premises held, which are very large in number. There are 127 premises, apart from the Condensed Milk Company at Limerick.

518. I have no doubt that in your office you will have some estimate of the total net assets of the Dairy Disposals Board even though it were not on a very precise basis?—Yes.

519. You may have noticed that there has been a good deal of talk generally about the reluctance of the Dairy Disposals Board to transfer creameries to co-operative societies, etc. I think the Committee would like to know, as of some date, what the assets of the Dairy Disposals Board are deemed by themselves to be worth as against the £950,773 2s. 2d.? —Very good, I think we will be able to do that, as long as we do not particularise the premises.*

520. Chairman.—I do not think the Committee would wish you to do anything that would mean embarking on a comprehensive research. We shall be satisfied to have a figure indicating the value of the surplus assets?—Very well, Mr. Chairman; I shall do that.

521. Deputy Briscoe.—The examination might disclose at least a paper profit resulting from the operations of the Dairy Disposals Board.

522. Chairman.—That is a matter, however, that we had better leave over until we hear from you?—Very good, sir.

“Subhead M. 11.—Disposal of Surplus Potatoes.

“20. A Supplementary Estimate for this service provided for the refund of certain transport costs to Monarchana Alcóil na hÉireann Teo., in connection with the disposal of surplus potatoes in Counties Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan and Louth. Arrangements were accordingly made whereby the company mentioned undertook to purchase surplus stocks of potatoes for use in its factories and to allow to individual growers the cost of transportation in excess of 6/- per ton, subject to a maximum of 14/- per ton. On this basis, sums totalling £355 10s. 11d. were allowed to growers in respect of approximately 1,900 tons of potatoes, and a like amount was paid over to the company and is charged to this subhead.”

523. Mr. Maher.—A special arrangement for the repayment of the cost of transport in excess of 6/- per ton was made because the surplus potatoes were a long distance from the factories. The paragraph is informative.

524. Chairman.—Are potatoes that show a tendency to rot in pits suitable for disposal to the alcohol company?—If not too far gone, they can utilise them.

525. Deputy Cosgrave.—Is that widely known?—It is, because the alcohol company have taken in this year potatoes from outside the Cooley district where farmers were apprehensive about decay setting in.

526. Is the decay bad?—It is, in some districts.

527. Chairman.—The Minister has directed the Carrickmacross factory to be opened temporarily?—That is so.

“Subhead N. 1.—Diseases of Animals (Ireland) Acts, 1894 to 1938.

“21. The expenditure charged to this subhead includes £12,299 13s. 10d. in connection with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 1941, the main item being £10,897 paid to the Department of Defence in respect of services rendered by that Department in dealing with the outbreak. Including £1,614 11s. 1d. charged to other subheads, and payments amounting to £587,498 8s. 11d. charged to the Vote in previous years, the total expenditure from the Vote for Agriculture up to 31st March, 1943, amounted to £601,412 13s. 10d.

As will be seen from the account, further sums, totalling £306 4s. 3d., were received in connection with the sale of carcases of non-diseased animals removed from infected premises and are brought to account as Appropriations in Aid. Including £39,681 0s. 3d. received in previous years, the net receipts to 31st March, 1943, from the sale of salvaged carcases amounted, therefore, to £39,987 4s. 6d.”

528. Mr. Maher.—The paragraph gives the total expenditure and receipts to date. We understand that some further payments to a local authority were made in the following financial year.

529. Chairman.—Has the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak account been closed?—Except a few small payments to local authorities. I think it is closed by this time.

530. And the approximately correct figure for the total charge would be the difference between £601,412 13s. 10d. and £39,987 4s. 6d.?—That is so.

“Subhead O.5.—Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Acts, 1933 to 1939, and Emergency Powers (Cereals) Order, 1942, etc.

“22. With the object of ensuring adequate supplies of spring seed wheat for the 1942 season, a scheme was devised under which each participating need merchant agreed to assemble a quota of home-grown wheat of spring varieties, and the Minister for Agriculture gave an undertaking that merchants would receive a price of 50/- per barrel for any stocks unsold at the end of the sowing season, subject to a maximum, in the case of any assembler, of 25 per cent. of his agreed quota or of the quantity assembled, whichever was the lower. Stocks of seed remaining on hands were, by direction of the Minister for Agriculture, sold for milling, and the prices received being less than 50/- per barrel, sums totalling £2,695 19s. 1d. became payable in respect of the undertaking referred to and are included in the expenditure charged to this subhead.”

531. Chairman.—That, I take it, is an informative paragraph?

Mr. Maher.—Yes.

532. Chairman.—There is no provision under that scheme, Mr. Twomey, for making a similar allowance to retail distributors of seed who have seed wheat lying on hands at the end of the sowing season?—I think we arranged for millers to take it from them without loss at much the same price as it would be taken from other seed merchants.

533. But the other seed merchants were required, were they not, to sell the wheat to the miller at the milling price and recover from the Department whatever difference there might be?—That is so, except that if the merchant has on hands dried seed wheat he gets the dried seed wheat price for it.

534. Was the retailer in the same position as the assembler?—Not in regard to a Government guarantee.

535. My recollection is that retailers paid the assemblers 55/- a barrel for seed wheat?—In that particular year, possibly, yes.

536. And subsequently they had to sell it to the millers for 50/-?—Yes.

537. Their remedy was against the miller—there was no use in applying to the Department?—No.

538. Had they applied to the miller would the Department have required the miller to pay an extra price?—No, except whatever price was ruling for dried seed wheat at the time.

539. In connection with the scheme under Subhead 0.5., are you satisfied that the seed assemblers did their part in assembling suitable varieties?—They did, in so far as I could get them to do so. In that particular year they assembled 93,000 barrels of spring seed wheat.

540. Was that the year in which it was deemed requisite to supplement our total supplies with Manitoba wheat?—No, that was in 1943-’44.

541. May we take it that the scheme under Subhead 0.5. is adequate to ensure that suitable types of wheat, such as Atle and Diamante, will be available in years to come?—Yes, and in very big quantities.

542. And the necessity for using Manitoba wheat is not likely to occur again? —There is sufficient seed wheat assembled, more than adequate for the needs in spring.

543. Is the Atle variety suitable for general use as a spring wheat?—Yes.

544. And special emphasis will be laid on the need for assembling that variety? —The bulk of the seed assembled is Atle.

545. Deputy Cosgrave.—I should like to know whether winter or spring wheat will bring the best results?—On rich heavy land winter wheat has been giving better yields, but on the lighter land spring wheat has done better.

546. Chairman.—Subject to the reservation that the land used for winter wheat shows no tendency to become waterlogged?—That is so.

“Subhead O.11.—Emergency Powers (Cereals) Order, 1941.

“23. As stated in my last report, the Emergency Powers (Cereals) Order, 1941 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 379 of 1941), made in August, 1941, for the purpose of regulating the disposal of the 1941 cereal crop, provided for the establishment by the Minister for Agriculture of a Cereals Distribution Committee. The charge to this subhead of £1,355 18s. 3d. relates to the expenses of the committee up to the end of August, 1942, when it ceased to function. A balance of £85 1s. 5d., representing net receipts in respect of fees payable at the rate of 6d. per ton by persons to whom grain was distributed through the committee, is included in the Appropriations in Aid.

The expenses of the committee to 31st March, 1943, amounted to £3,675 3s. 4d. while receipts from fees paid in respect of allocations of grain totalled £2,400 16s. 1d.”

547. Mr. Maher.—That summarises the total expenditure and receipts. The services of the committee were not required after August, 1942.

548. Chairman.—Has this committee been wound up, Mr. Twomey?—It has.

549. And it is no longer a charge on the funds?—No.

“Subhead O.12.—Emergency Powers (Tillage) Orders, 1939 to 1942.

“24. The Tillage Orders made by the Government under the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, required the occupiers of arable land to till a specified portion of their holdings and the Minister for Agriculture was empowered to enter on and take possession of those holdings whose occupiers failed to comply with the provisions of the Orders, and to cultivate such holdings or make conacre lettings.

The expenditure under this subhead includes £7,211 0s. 5d. in respect of the remuneration of additional outdoor staff. Travelling and miscellaneous expenses totalled £2,270 7s. 6d., and the balance of the expenditure, amounting to £3,114 18s. 6d., was incurred on the purchase of seeds and fencing materials, and on the cultivation, under contract, of lands which it was found impracticable to let in conacre.

In my last report I mentioned that the disposal of a balance of £946 16s. 8d., representing unappropriated receipts from conacre rents, was the subject of correspondence with the Department of Finance. The disposal of these receipts has since been regulated by Emergency Powers (No. 275) Order, 1943 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 177 of 1943), made on the 25th May, 1943. This Order provides that the proceeds of both conacre rents and sales of crops on holdings of which possession has been taken by the Minister for Agriculture in the years 1940 to 1943, inclusive, may be applied (a) towards defraying expenses incurred by the Minister in discharge of the powers conferred on him by the Tillage Orders; (b) towards paying debts due to a State authority by the occupiers of entered holdings, and (c) towards the payment of any rates due to a local authority by such occupiers. Following the making of this Order, certain accounting adjustments were effected in connection with the transactions relating to the tillage seasons 1940 to 1942, inclusive, and after providing for expenses incurred, sums totalling £2,441 0s. 6d. remained credited to a suspense account. The expenses recovered in respect of the tillage seasons mentioned amounted to £4,609 13s. 10d.; of this sum, £1,937 5s. 2d. was brought to account as Appropriations in Aid in the year 1941-’42, while the balance of £2,672 8s. 8d. is similarly appropriated in the year under review.”

550. Mr. Maher.—That is for information only.

Chairman.—You have no further comment to make on that, Mr. Twomey?—No.

“Subhead P.—Appropriations in Aid. Receipts from threshing set licences.

“25. The Emergency Powers (Cereals) Order, 1942 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 305 of 1942), made in July, 1942, for the purpose of regulating the disposal of the 1942 cereal crop, included a provision requiring licensing in respect of portable threshing sets let for hire. A fee of 10/- was prescribed for the issue of each licence, and the receipts, which totalled £910 10s. 0d., were brought to account as Appropriations in Aid.”

551. Chairman.—That is an informative paragraph?

Mr. Maher.—Yes.

552. Chairman.—In connection with threshing licences, Mr. Twomey, does that bear on the question of how threshing sets were allocated?—No; it was to indicate that, if the owner of a threshing set did not keep his set in good order, we would withdraw the licence. It was a scheme to ensure that the threshing sets would be kept in reasonably good order.

553. It was in some way associated with the decision of the Department as to those who should receive the threshing sets which the Department were responsible for bringing into the country?—I do not think it had anything to do with that.

554. Deputy Cogan.—Were there many threshing sets rejected; sets for which licences were refused?—Not eventually. There were a number of owners who, after inspection of their sets, were warned that they should put their sets into order. Generally speaking, they complied. I do not think there was a single instance where a licence was eventually refused. Threshing mills were so scarce that, if they were reasonably fit for use, we allowed them to go on, but during the season they were inspected to ensure that they were, as far as possible, being maintained in good working order.

“Levy on the slaughter of cattle and sheep.

“26. 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 under review in respect of levy due but uncollected at the date mentioned was £1,538 8s. 9d., and the amount of levy outstanding at 31st March, 1943, was £9,643 7s. 3d. As noted in the account sums totalling £143 8s. 1d. were written off with the sanction of the Minister for Finance.”

555. Has that fund been wound up?— No, we are still collecting some money due to us on the foot of levy. The amount outstanding has been reduced to about £7,000 odd.

556. How long do you propose to go on collecting?—I think we are bound to go on as long as we can collect anything. Where the amount seems to be irrecoverable we get the authority of the Department of Finance for writing them off.

557. What is the Department of Finance view on keeping these accounts interminably open for the collection of small sums

Mr. Fitzgerald.—We feel, as Mr. Twomey does, that if we close this account too hurriedly we are setting a bad example. There are some agricultural loans out and it is encouraging default if we write off too promptly.

558. Is there any notional period after which the Department of Finance would advise the winding up of a fund, of recovering by draconian methods any balance that might be there? —Usually, when it is decided that amounts are irrecoverable, the Department concerned and the Department of Finance consult as to whether there is any value in proceeding any further; but there has been a steady dribbling in of funds, as Mr. Twomey points out, and an equally steady writing off where irrecoverable amounts are decided upon. We think that for some years yet we should keep on trying to recover these moneys.

559. Chairman.—Would the Comptroller and Auditor General give his view as to the expediency of keeping these accounts open for very protracted periods?

Mr. Maher. I think it is desirable, in view of what has taken place, to keep the account open. There has been a recovery of about £2,200 in the year 1943-44 and, if that rate of recovery continues, in two or three years the sum would disappear. Therefore, I think it desirable to keep the account open, certainly for the present.

560. I take it that, in principle, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Department of Finance and Mr. Twomey have agreed that it is desirable to wind up these funds sometime?—Yes.

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

“Receipts from fees for inspection of canned meat.

“27. Early in 1942 the British Ministry of Food, in renewing the agreement regarding the purchase of canned meat exported from this country, intimated that each can of meat should be labelled to the effect that it had been examined and passed by the Department of Agriculture. Arrangements were accordingly made for the exercise of a stricter control over manufacture, and in order to recover the cost involved, the exporters of canned meat, who held manufacturing licences under Section 34 of the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act, 1934, were required to pay a levy at the rate of 1/12th of a penny per 1 lb. can of meat exported in the six months ended 31st December, 1942. The receipts from this levy amounted to £6,366 12s. 1d. For the three months ended 31st March, 1943, the levy payable was 1/48th of a penny per 1 lb. can of meat exported, but fees at this rate were not collected until the ensuing financial year.”

Can you tell us, Mr. Twomey, under what powers the fee was levied?—It was by agreement with the canners.

562. If it was made under agreement with the canners, was the Department in a position to enforce the matter?—If a canner did not pay the levy and have his meat examined, he could not export it and could not trade. This levy was fixed at a meeting of the canners by agreement and it is to meet the expenses that we incur in setting up a little pathological branch in the Veterinary College, where we have two qualified officers employed constantly in examining the cans of meat coming from the different factories.

563. I gather from the fact that the levy was reduced from 1/12th of a penny to 1/48th of a penny that it was found that the first levy yielded an excessive income for the expenses involved?—That is so, and it will be adjusted from time to time to collect only just what we require for paying expenses. There has been a further adjustment since that date. The 1/48th was found to be insufficient and when we gave a financial statement to a meeting of the canners they agreed to increase the levy again to 1/24th of a penny. It is entirely a kind of voluntary arrangement with the canners under which they make this subscription towards the cost of carrying out the test.

564. Is this money taken in as an Appropriation in Aid to the general Vote? —Yes.

565. Is there a subhead for this pathological work carried on in the Veterinary College or is the amount carried on the Vote for the College?—It is part of the Veterinary College Vote.

566. Does that procedure meet with the approval of the Comptroller and Auditor General?—Yes.

567. Deputy Briscoe.—The canners pay a certain fee for animals slaughtered where there is a permanent veterinary officer present and that fee is fixed as a result of an Act of Parliament?—Yes.

568. Consequently, where there is an overage or an underage to the Department there is no adjustment with the firms so employing the veterinary officer? —No, because in all cases the fees paid would not recoup the Department for the expenses in full.

569. Would it not be better to stick to the one-twelfth of a penny, so that the Department would recoup an average, to offset the loss on the other items in connection with the veterinary research work?—When this new condition was imposed by the British Ministry of Food we had a meeting of all the canners and placed the position before them. They agreed to provide the cost of the service by means of a levy and it was agreed also at that meeting that not more than was required for this particular service would be collected.

570. I can see that, but here you have an industry which more or less gets a certificate from the State as to the standard of its products, which allows it to be received by the British Ministry of Food and on the basis of which they get paid. It is a guarantee. The levy should have been, in my opinion, a decision by the Department—if you like, from the arbitrary point of view—and fixed by bringing in a Bill to the Dáil as is done for other charges. That would mean that the State would obtain a benefit to equalise the benefit to be given to these canners; and where there is a surplus over and above the actual expenditure in which the Department is involved, would it not have been wiser to have considered using that surplus for further research and further subsidy to the Veterinary College?—I think the amounts we would have collected, if we had kept on one-twelfth of a penny per can, the surplus to be handed over to any fund (after deducting our own expenses under the Fresh Meat Acts) would have been so small that it would not have been worth while.

571. Still, if you reduced the charge to one-quarter of its original charge, then there should have been a very substantial saving if the original charge had been reduced only by 50 per cent.—to 1/24th. If their receipts were £6,000 in one year, certainly there would be £3,000 of a surplus, which is fairly substantial. I wonder if we would be permitted to suggest to Mr. Twomey that he might reconsider taking advantage of the situation for as long as it lasts and getting some benefit out of it as against the benefit the canners receive. It is well known that the Department now has the responsibility of certifying that these canned meats are of a certain standard of cleanliness and so on. Each of the canners has to do a certain amount of research work?—Yes, control work.

572. Deputy Briscoe.—I would suggest to the Committee that this should be reconsidered with a view to going back to 1/12th of a penny.

Chairman.—Of course, Mr. Twomey always considers any suggestion made to him. The Deputy will make the proposal he has in mind, no doubt, to the Committee, when we come to consider our final report. That does not preclude Mr. Twomey reconsidering the matter at any time he wishes to do so. At the moment we are merely getting information.

Deputy Briscoe.—I am relating this to Mr. Twomey’s admission that there are some canners getting service from the State on which the Department has a loss as against the case where the Department has the opportunity of recovering any portion of that loss.

573. Deputy M. E. Dockrell.—Is exactly the same investigation carried out on canned meat which is being sold in the home market? The paragraphs mentions “export”?—Yes. From each batch that a canner prepares one or two cans must be sent on to the Veterinary College. There is no distinction between the batches that may be used for export and those for the home market.

574. That includes the manufacture of canned meat not for export?—Yes.

575. Do they pay the levy on what is sold on the home market, too?—No, as a matter of fact, they only pay on the export. The quantity of canned meat sold in this country on the home market is very small and the levy is collected only on the exports.

576. Chairman.—You are satisfied that the manufacturers do not manufacture individual batches of which they submit no sample to you for sale on the home market?—We are satisfied. Our officers at the factories see that there is a sample from each batch sent on for holding. It is held for a fortnight before being bacteriologically examined.

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

“Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Acts, 1935 to 1941.

Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund.

“28. The income of the fund, which amounted to £159,032 6s. 9d., was derived mainly from the levies on butter stocks of 18/8 per cwt. and 28/per cwt., respectively, which accompanied equivalent increases in the price of creamery butter on 1st May, 1942, and 10th September, 1942. The receipts also include levy at the rate of 19/per cwt. payable by creameries on cheese in stock at the close of business on 16th September, 1942.

Payments were made solely to the Butter Marketing Committee, and comprised £2,357 under Section 41 (6) of the 1935 Act for administrative expenses and £2 3s. 7d. for statutory bounty at the nominal rate of 1d. per cwt. on exports of creamery butter in March and April, 1942. The export of creamery butter ceased after April, 1942. As will be seen from the account, the balance in the fund accumulated, by 31st March, 1943, to £194,181 6s. 8d. Emergency Powers (No. 270) Order, 1943 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 122 of 1943), made by the Government on 9th April, 1943, extended the scope of Section 41 (6) of the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Act, 1935, to permit the payment from the fund of allowances on butter or any milk product, and, as stated in paragraph 81 of this report, payment of certain allowances in respect of butter produced during the year 1942-43 has been made from the fund in the succeeding financial year.”

578. Chairman.—I take it, Mr. Maher, that the substantial part of that note is really contained in paragraph 81.

Mr. Maher.—That is so. I suggest that the Committee might defer the consideration of the last paragraph until they come to deal with that particular Vote.

579. Chairman.—I take it that the first paragraph is purely informative.

Mr. Maher.—Yes. The particulars will be found in page 98 of the Accounts which give the table of the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund itself.

580. Chairman.—I take it, Mr. Twomey, that it would be convenient for you if we were to adjourn the consideration of the last part of that paragraph until we come to paragraph 81.

Mr. Twomey.—It arises more properly there I think.

581. Chairman.—I would ask Deputies to bear the last part of that paragraph in mind when we come to paragraph 81. If there is no other question we can now turn to the Vote itself. On Subhead F.1. —Agricultural Schools and Farms—do you still experience an excess of applications for admission to the agricultural colleges over and above the accommodation available?—We do, a very considerable excess.

582. When are you going to provide the necessary accommodation?—We have proposals before the Department of Finance for an extension of the existing schools, but it will not be possible, I am afraid, to carry out extensions until the emergency is over because of the scarcity of building materials.

583. Would you consider as an alternative or as a subsidiary to that plan building other schools in new centres?—There is a new school to be opened in Wexford next year in Johnstown Castle which was gifted to the nation. It will accommodate a considerable number of boys. I think there would probably be a need for new schools in centres other than that. We have plans for a considerable extension of residential agricultural schools for boys as soon as circumstances permit.

584. And you do not intend to forget the province of Connaught, I hope, when you are examining those plans?—No, we will take the whole country.

585. The farmers in Connaught are men with very small holdings, but nevertheless they are industrious and anxious to acquire one of these schools?—We have one school already in Athenry, of course.

586. I think that if you examine the question you will find that there is room for two or three more schools. Provision should be made for boys to reside in colleges within a reasonable distance of their homes?—I agree that the present accommodation is entirely inadequate to meet the demand.

587. On Subhead F.3.—Veterinary College—do your plans include the construction of a new Veterinary College?—It is under way. It is actually under consideration at the moment.

588. Are you extending the present building?—We are developing the existing premises and adding new premises.

589. Deputy Cosgrave.—Out at Ballsbridge?—Yes. We have got some additional ground from Trinity College, the authorities of which own the adjoining Botanical Gardens. They have given us some ground for the extension.

590. Chairman.—Is it intended in this development to provide a really first-class modern college?—It will, I think, be a first-class college. The laboratories and the college generally will be first-class when the buildings are finished. There is a comprehensive plan which has been approved.

591. Deputy Briscoe.—Is it also in tended to increase the accommodation for the manufacture and sale of vaccines?— We have proposals under consideration at the moment for that purpose.

592. In the same place?—Thorndale, at Drumcondra, has proved to be much too small for present needs in regard to the production of vaccines. We have proposals at present under consideration for the erection of a new research station.

593. Is it being considered in a serious way that whatever decision is reached the production and the sale of these vaccines will be possible in as big a manner as required?—Yes, it will meet the full demand.

594. Chairman.—On Subhead K.4., how long is it proposed to continue to pay grants in respect of the development of the manufacture of milk powder?—As a matter of fact we have not paid anything recently. The question is as to whether it is necessary to pay a further subsidy under present circumstances is under examination.

595. When is it intended then to convert that sum of £1,200 which provides the Minister for Finance with scope for adding taxation into a token Vote of £5? —Probably before the end of this financial year we will get it settled.

596. As a taxpayer I would urge that course upon you at the earliest possible moment. On Subhead M.3., do you find that the demand for the publications of the Department is increasing?—Yes. There is a considerable demand for the leaflets and other publications.

597. Have you recently published a bound volume incorporating the more recent leaflets—No, there has been no bound volume issued recently.

598. Will you consider having a bound volume published soon?—Yes, as soon as cloth and paper are available for binding.

599. It is an invaluable thing to have all these leaflets assembled in a convenient form?—It is very convenient.

600. Deputy Cosgrave.—On M.10.— Temporary Scheme in connection with Farm Improvements—does that scheme only relate to houses or would it include the improvement of, say, a roadway or laneway into a farmer’s place?—It includes farm laneways, the surface of the farmyard, the floors of houses and such things as the plastering of the walls of houses, but it does not apply to the actual building of houses.

601. It is not confined to particular counties or areas. I take it that it is open to the whole country?—It is.

602. Is there any limit as regards a man’s valuation?—We had a limit, but there is no limit now.

603. Deputy Cogan.—There is a limit, I think, to the amount?—Yes, £100 is the maximum grant.

604. Deputy Cosgrave.—And the applicant has to do the work himself?—Yes.

605. Chairman.—Are we to take it that the merit of a proposal, quite divorced from the financial circumstances of the applicant, is the test? Would you give a grant to a man who is notoriously well off?—For a long time we had the condition that the applicant should be a bona fide farmer who derived his living mainly from farming, but in the current year as long as the land is used for agricultural purposes we have removed that condition.

606. And there is no means test at all? —No.

607. So that if I applied for a grant of £100 to put a new floor in the barn I have a reasonable prospect of getting it?—Yes, so long as it is an agricultural holding.

608. This is the first time that I ever had a chance of getting anything of this kind.

Deputy Briscoe.—Do you call yourself notoriously well off?

Chairman.—There is a distinction.

Mr. Twomey.—I should say that preference is given to persons who derive their living mainly from farming. If there were more applicants than the grants available then the persons who derived their living from farming would get the first preference.

609. —Chairman.—I was going to say that I hope that observation was not made in reference to me. It is a pity the official report cannot record “laughter.” If it did, remarks made in a jocular mood around the table would look very different from the way they do in black and white. May I ask under Subhead 0.8., does the area under flax still continue to increase? —Yes, it is up to about 30,000 acres, but I think it will become static at that.

610. Does the 30,000 acres represent an area which qualifies us for the highest price which the British Government are prepared’ to offer?—Yes, anything about 25,000 acres qualifies.

611. Deputy Cogan.—Does that area include he area grown under contract for Irish Ropes, Ltd.?—Yes.

612. Deputy Cosgrave.—When do you think the area will become static?—It does not look as if there will be any expansion into new districts, and in the old flax-growing districts the farmers will not undertake more than a moderate acreage because there is a great deal of labour involved.

613. Chairman.—Is there a sufficient number of automatic flax pickers in the area, or have we been driven back to pulling by hand?—It is mainly hand pulling. The area grown is generally an acre or two acres and the majority of the people prefer to pull by hand. They think that they collect the flax better by pulling by hand.

614. Would you agree with that view? —No. Where the fields are big and the land is level the mechanical puller does just as well. It leaves very little flax in the ground. We have only ten of them in the country.

615. They are not suitable then for small fields?—Not for small fields or hilly ground.

616. Are you satisfied that the automatic flax picker is being used in every place where it might with advantage be used?—We think it is.

617. On the Appropriations in Aid there is one matter I want to raise. It relates to the allocation of threshing sets which the Government have succeeded in importing in recent years. I am asking the question because it came to my notice recently that a threshing set was allocated to a man who had no motor tractor. We had the situation in which one man had a motor tractor and his neighbour had a threshing set. The man with the tractor had no threshing set, and the man with the threshing set had no tractor. Ultimately, the two men had to come together which they, fortunately, did, Otherwise, we could have an idle tractor and an idle threshing set in the same neighbourhood?—Recommendations are made by local committees and, generally speaking, they satisfy themselves that the man has power or can secure it. In some cases, it is true that the selected applicant had not power but he was in a position to hire or get it from a neighbour. The cases in which that happened were very rare.

618. Chairman.—Do you not think that it would be prudent to insert some condition requiring the local authorities who are distributing those sets to satisfy themselves that persons getting them have power available?—Or are in a position to obtain it.

619. Do you not think there should be a prior condition that the applicant satisfy the local authority that either he has power or is in a position to command it?— That would be only right, but I think that that is done in most cases.

620. I know of one case in which it was not done and the man was obliged to go out looking for power. I think that he had to pay a fancy price for it in order to justify his retention of the threshing set? —Sometimes, it happened that an applicant had good prospects of getting a new tractor, and because the full number was not imported, he was disappointed. There have been a few cases of that kind in which a man was selected for allocation of a threshing set on the prospect of getting a tractor at an early date, some difficulty arising in regard to it later.

Chairman.—Perhaps you will look into the matter so that no dilemma such as that to which I have referred will arise again.

621. Deputy Cosgrave.—Are you satisfied that these committees are working satisfactorily?—On the whole, they are working very well. There were complaints that co-operative societies were entirely over-looked and we were obliged to make a slight adjustment in the allocation so as to give a threshing mill or two to co-operative societies. On the whole, the committees did their work very well.

622. Individuals are free to buy tractors if they can get them?—Yes, but so far as tractors are imported, they are allocated by the Minister.

623. Chairman.—Is due regard had to the efficiency of the person to whom these threshing sets are allocated? If there are two parties whose merits are identical, save that one had experience in operating a threshing set and the other had not, would preference be given to the experienced operator as against the novice?—I should not like to say that that always happens in the case of the local committee.

624. Do you not think that it is of some importance owing to the emergency that due regard should be had to that factor and that the only available threshing set in a given area should not be in the hands of an amateur learning his business at the expense of the farmers for whom he is threshing?—Generally, the man who is prepared to put down some capital for a threshing mill hires some person who has experience, if he has not experience himself. He does not often follow the mill himself. Oftentimes, he is a farmer with a bit of money and he employs a staff—and a good staff—to go around with the mill. He does not go himself.

625. Deputy Cosgrave.—Preference is given to people who are prepared to hire the sets?—It is a condition that they must hire them.

VOTE 31—FISHERIES.

Mr. Twomey further examined.

626. Chairman.—Paragraph 29 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General deals with Subhead G.3. (Advances for Boats and Gear) of this Vote and is as follows:—

“Including the advances charged in this account, the total of advances for boats and gear to 31st March, 1943, amounted to £137,500. The half-yearly instalments of the annuities set up to repay these advances falling due to 31st March, 1943, amounted to £70,878 19s. 10d., and this sum, including £17,031 19s. 5d. repaid in the year under review, having been collected by the Sea Fisheries Association from borrowers and transferred to the Department, there were no arrears of annuity instalments at 31st March, 1943.”

Mr. Maher.—I have nothing to add to that paragraph. The instalments have been paid up to date.

627. Chairman.—Am I right in saying that this is an epoch-making event?

Mr. Twomey.—Fishermen always pay their debts when they are well off. That was our experience. It was only when they had a long period of bad years that there was any trouble with fishermen.

628. Chairman.—This is the first time for a long period that business was good enough to permit of the old arrears being collected?—There are old loans still outstanding. These are advances made by the Sea Fisheries Association.

629. It is a matter for congratulation by the Association and the fishermen that all the instalments are paid up to date? —It is, but the fishermen always did pay in good years.

630. Deputy Briscoe.—Is there not a new policy in operation by the Sea Fisheries Association as contrasted with that adopted by your Department, with the Department of Finance in the background? In former times, where a fisherman had the misfortune to go out in rough weather and lose his gear, which he had bought with assistance from the Department, that ended the matter. He owed the money and had no means of repaying it. The Sea Fisheries Association adopted a more businesslike attitude and helped the fisherman who had lost his gear.

Deputy Brady.—His gear is insured.

Deputy Briscoe.—A different attitude is adopted now. Decent fishermen who lost their boats or gear formerly were immediately placed in the bad books with the Department of Finance, marked in red, because they had not the means to work in order to pay their loans.

Chairman.—Without making odious comparisons, may we confine ourselves to rejoicing at the success of the modern method, with all instalments paid up and everything in the garden lovely.

Deputy Briscoe.—It is not the first time that this has occurred. The tomato growers who got loans for the building of houses were equally good because, again, a businesslike attitude was adopted and not the strict red tape Civil Service approach.

Mr. Twomey.—I never knew old borrowers to be treated harshly. They were treated very leniently.

631. Deputy Briscoe.—They did not get new loans wherewith to carry on?—If they were marks for new loans, they got them.

Deputy Briscoe.—A fisherman was never a mark for a new loan if he had not a boat.

632. Chairman.—Paragraph 30 deals with Subhead G.4. (Advances for General Development) and states:—

“No advances were made to the Sea Fisheries Association for general development during the year under review. The total advances made to the association amounted, at 31st March, 1943, to £2,522 14s. 3d. As stated in previous reports, this amount is repayable over a period of 20 years by half-yearly instalments, covering principal and interest. Sums totalling £176 17s. 1d. were repaid during the year and are included in the Appropriations in Aid.”

That is a purely informative paragraph?

Mr. Maher.—Yes.

633. Chairman.—Paragraph 31 of the report deals with fishery loans and states:—

“Repayments of fishery loans, which are accounted for as Appropriations in Aid, amounted to £17 7s., and the balance outstanding on these loans to 31st March, 1943, was £20,116 13s. 10d., including arrears of £20,079 3s. 6d. There were no remissions during the year under the Fisheries (Revision of Loans) Act, 1931.”

How are those loans coming along?

Mr. Twomey.—Very badly.

634. Deputy Briscoe.—Has not the time been reached when they should be written off. Some of those loans go back to 1931. Is it not ridiculous to carry them forward from year to year when it is obvious that some of them will never be recovered.

Deputy Dockrell.—Are those loans uncollectable?—Most of them will be irrecoverable.

635. Deputy Briscoe.—Some of them are 20 years old?—They were all contracted prior to 1931. Since 1931, when the Sea Fisheries Association took up matters, no loan of this kind has been made.

636. Have you ever made a request to the Department of Finance for sanction to wipe those off?—No—for two good reasons. We have a number of agricultural loans of one sort or another outstanding and if we were to remit these fishery loans it would have a very bad effect on the collection of those other loans and, perhaps, on the collection of all Government loans. Moreover, the present time, when the fishing industry is doing well, would be a very bad time, from the point of view of the public, to write off those fishery loans.

637. Is it not quite clear that the people concerned are different from the present fishermen? Some of them are not alive?—In that event, the loans would have been written off.

638. Would it not be advisable to transfer the whole matter to the Sea Fisheries Association and let them deal with it? They are in direct contact with the fishermen actively engaged in the industry and they would know whether an old borrower was actively engaged in fishing now and whether the money could be recovered.

639. Chairman.—Have you considered the possibility of transferring those loans to the Sea Fisheries Association?—No, and I do not think that the Association would at all relish such a legacy from us.

640. Deputy Dockrell.—Are you in touch with the Association as to the character and so forth of the people who owe this money? Have you got the views of the Association as to whether, in certain cases, the money is collectable?—We know fairly well the circumstances of each borrower, partly through information from our own officers and partly through information from officers of the Sea Fisheries Association. If circumstances arise which make it absolutely clear that the loan cannot be paid, we get authority to write it off.

Chairman.—Deputy Brady, and I as a former representative of Donegal, know that many of those borrowers are old and seasoned friends of ours.

Deputy Briscoe.—I do not agree with what Mr. Twomey says that if those loans were written off it would have a bad effect on other loans. The experience of the Department regarding the heifer loan scheme and the tomato house scheme was very good.

641. Chairman.—We have heard Mr. Twomey’s view. Perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald, of the Department of Finance, would give us his view as to the writing off of those loans of their transfer to the Sea Fisheries Association.

Mr. Fitzgerald.—I feel that the Sea Fisheries Association would not welcome a present of that kind. On the question of writing off the loans, Mr. Twomey’s argument appeals very strongly to us— that this is not the time to write them off. Admittedly, we shall shortly reach a time when they will have to be dealt with but, from a psychological point of view, the present time is not suitable.

642. Deputy Briscoe.—Is there any statute of limitations in operation in your Department?—I should like to get notice of that question.

Chairman.—We have the views of the Department of Finance and the Accounting Officer and we can consider those views when the time comes to prepare our report.

643. Chairman.—With regard to Subhead E.4.—Whale Fisheries Act—do we take any part in the control of whale fisheries, or do we have to bear a portion of the cost?

Mr. Twomey.—We do not take any part at the present moment. At one time, we had an officer on board each ship in the whaling seas but, owing to the outbreak of the present emergency, that has been terminated.

644. But we did make a payment under a subhead of this year?—Well, yes, but I think that that was as a result of a balance due in respect of three temporary Sea Fisheries Association officers who were employed in the years from 1939 to 1940.

645. Quite; I understand, but is the service being carried on by anybody now or is it being discontinued during the war?—I think it is still being carried on by countries in which whalers are registered.

646. Deputy Briscoe.—With regard to Subhead F.4.—Scientific Investigations, etc., and Expenditure on the Purchase of Scientific Apparatus—does your Department, Mr. Twomey, come into this question of diseases in certain fish resulting from the Poulaphouca scheme?—No, Deputy Briscoe, that was a public health matter.

647. Yes, but I thought that your Department would have something to do with it, seeing that it has to do with an important industry in this country?—It was primarily a matter for the Department of Public Health.

648. Chairman.—Was there not a question of piscine disease there?—Yes, I understand there was.

649. Was not that a matter for your Department?—I would not say so. The answer of our Department in that matter was that it was essentially a question of public health and one for the medical authorities.

650. Has the question of the disease in fish, and its possible effect on human beings, as a result of infection, been examined into?—Yes, but it is understood that the infection in this case is caused from the droppings of gulls and cormorants. It is very injurious to fish, but I understand that the infection does not affect human beings.

651. Is it likely that fish, such as trout, would be destroyed as a result of this?— Yes. As a matter of fact the trout have been dying by thousands.

652. Is there any danger of that disease spreading from there?—There may be some danger that the gulls or cormorants would carry the disease elsewhere.

653. And nothing can be done about it? —Well, there is a proposal, I understand, to shoot all the cormorants and gulls in the Poulaphouca area.

654. And the matter is under review by your Department?—I understand that it is under consideration by the Department of Public Health.

655. Deputy Briscoe.—Does not the fact that trout in the streams in the Poulaphouca area are dying in thousands, as you have admitted, concern the Department, since your Department is concerned with the general matter of fisheries?—Yes.

656. Is it not a fact that trout which show the first symptoms of this disease, and whose normal growth is an oz. per year per fish have now a normal growth of a 1b. per year; and do not you think that your Department should take some lively interest in the matter?—Well, actually, the cause of the disease has only been recently established.

657. Is it not also a fact that, while some people thought that these symptoms were due to the excess feeding of the trout in that district, the trout in the River Liffey are now very vitally affected?

658. Chairman.—Surely the Department of Fisheries would interest itself in the matter?—Yes, we are, but this is a parasitic disease, like fluke which exhibits alternation of generation. On the question of the alternative host it was thought at one time that the host might be foxes or even human beings, and only recently has it been established that the alternative hosts are birds.

659. Deputy Briscoe.—Is it thought that fish affected by this are unfit for human consumption?—No. It was thought at one time that it might lead to such a disease in human beings as tape-worm, but that has been disproved.

660. Deputy Cosgrave.—Is this peculiar to Poulaphouca—Yes, so far.

661. Deputy Dockrell.—I understood that if the fish were properly cooked, it would be safe for human consumption, but not otherwise?—It is safe because it has been definitely established that the particular parasite concerned is not harmful to animals which eat fish cooked.

Deputy Briscoe.—At any rate, I should like to see the Department of Fisheries being more active in the matter.

662. Chairman.—I think it is a fact that this disease has manifested itself in other countries, such as England, and that it is not particularly confined to rivers, but chiefly to reservoirs?—Yes, that is so.

663. It seems to me, therefore, that it is more particularly confined to reservoirs and not to rivers?—Yes, it would appear to be a question of the movement of water. The matter is under review, but in view of the necessity for creating dams and so forth, it is difficult to see what can be done.

664. Deputy Briscoe.—In the case of Roundwood, it has been known that a certain chemical is put into the water from time to time to destroy parasites, but which affects the water and certain fish. I do not know whether that can be done in the case of the Poulaphouca scheme or whether it can be considered, but I do understand that in Roundwood they have never had such an experience as this?—No, I do not think so. There has never been that experience in the case of Roundwood.

665. Chairman.—Well, may we take it, Mr. Twomey, that your Department is considering this matter carefully?—That is so, Mr. Chairman, and the cause has been established, but up to recently we did not know the cause.

666. Deputy Breslin.—With regard to Subhead G.3.—Advances for Boats and Gear—I understand that these are only given to members of the Association and not to fishermen who own their own boats?—I think they must be owners of their own boats.

667. Would it not be better to help out all the fishermen during such an emergency as this, since most of these fishermen would be prepared to pay cash for any purchases they might make? This has been put up several times, but nothing has been done about it. Would it not be better to do something of that kind?—I think that the difficulty is that they have not enough gear even for the members of their own Association.

668. It seems to me that they should have enough to supply these people. They always seem to have enough to supply their own members, at any rate. I agree that there is an emergency at the moment, but should not something be done during the emergency to help these people? In normal times fishermen can go into the open market and buy their own gear and nets, but during the emergency they cannot do so, and I think that some help should be extended to them.

669. Chairman.—Is this restricted to the members of the Sea Fisheries Association?—No, some private owners also get nets and gear for repairing.

670. And I presume that it is on a quota basis?—Yes, a very small quota.

671. And if Deputy Breslin’s suggestion were favourably considered it would mean that the needs of the Sea Fisheries Association members would be impinged upon in order to supply other people for whom there was no allocation?—The Sea Fisheries Association are subject to the same restrictions as any commercial importer.

VOTE 68—AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SUBSIDIES.

Mr. D. Twomey further examined.

“Subhead A.—Subsidies, Allowances, etc. for Dairy Produce.

“81. Provision was made under this subhead for subsidies on exports of dairy produce and, in addition, for the payment of production and cold storage allowances formerly chargeable to a subhead of the Vote for Agriculture. The expenditure includes £12,442 10s. 6d. in respect of the balance of allowances payable on creamery butter and cheese produced and creamery butter cold stored, and balances of subsidy amounting to £627 1s. 8d. on butter and cheese exported in the year ended 31st March, 1942. Allowances for the production and cold storage of creamery butter in the year under review totalled £438,492 6s. 3d. and £44,207 15s. 1d., respectively, and subsiidies amounting to £4,128 8s. 7d were paid on exports of creamery and non-creamery butter.

In September, 1942, the price of milk supplied to creameries was increased from 7d. to 9d. per gallon, and the Vote provision being insufficient to meet the new commitments involved, it was agreed, in consultation with the Department of Finance, that the provision should remain unaltered and that any excess expenditure might be met from the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund. Emergency Powers (No. 270) Order, 1943 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 122 of 1943), made by the Government on 9th April, 1943, extended the purposes for which the fund might be used and enabled effect to be given to the arrangement referred to. I am informed that payments amounting to £87,278 9s. 3d. were made out of the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund in 1943-44 for allowances accruing in respect of the year 1942-43, and that while this amount represented the excess expenditure on the dairy produce programme for the year 1942-43, many items did not mature for payment in that financial year. As the procedure mentioned appears to have involved the postponement of payment of certain claims which had matured in the year under review. I have communicated with the Accounting Officer on the matter.

I am also in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding the rate of allowance paid to creameries and merchants for the cold storage of creamery butter.”

672. Chairman.—Is there anything that you care to add to that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—Yes. The position, briefly, was that a sum of £500,000 was originally provided in Vote 68 for the service of the year ending March, 1943, for subsidies and allowances on dairy produce. When the price of milk was increased in September, 1942, it was realised that the Vote provision was insufficient to meet the claims which would fall due before the 31st March following. The normal practice when this position was known would be to obtain additional money by a Supplementary Estimate as there was no indication in the original Estimate that money for this service would be provided from any other source. The money available in the Stabilisation Fund, however, was more than sufficient to meet the deficiency on the Vote, but the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Acts limited the purposes for which the fund’s moneys might be used and these purposes did not include the payment of allowances on butter or other milk products. By the Emergency Powers Order, which was made in the following financial year, the Act was amended to include the words “allowances on butter or any milk product,” but the Order made no reference to any financial provision or payment. Following the making of the Order on 9th April, 1943, the postponed payments were charged against the fund and, consequently, are not included in any Vote Appropriation Account. As the original provision for this service was made in the Estimate passed by the Dáil and was for the service of the year, a doubt exists as to whether, when the Estimate was unable to bear the full charge, the further money required within the year may be borne by the fund without further reference to the Dáil. We consider that the procedure adopted is contrary to practice and is undesirable in so far as it vitiates control over expenditure of public money as exercised by the Dáil.

673. Chairman.—Would I be correct in saying, Mr. Maher, that the procedure, envisaged by you in the matter referred to there, of studiously paying within the financial year any sum that accrued due during the financial year was the principle that induced the Department of Finance to apply to this Committee for an excess Vote in the current year?

Mr. Maher.—In that case, the Department of Finance actually paid the money and charged it against the Vote and then sought authority from this Committee for an excess Vote, but in this case the money was not paid from the Vote nor from any excess Vote. In my view, it should have been paid from the Vote in view of the express stipulation in the Audit Act which says that the Appropriation Account shall include sums which may actually come in course of payment within the period. These sums came in course of payment in the period.

674. Deputy Cosgrave.—Had the Emergency Powers Order any effect in this matter?

Chairman.—That is the point that the Comptroller and Auditor General questions, whether the effect of the Emergency Powers Order was to regularise these payments. Perhaps. Mr. Twomey would give us his views on the matter.

Mr. Twomey.—Firstly, as regards payment within the period referred to in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, very few of these claims were matured for payment on the 31st March. It is not at all unusual where claims are ready, or nearly ready, for payment in March to postpone them to the next financial year. You will appreciate, I am sure, that the end of March is a very busy time in the Accounts Branch of the Department and if payment had been made by the Department to the creameries and others concerned in these particular cases within the period, it would have taken a considerable amount of investigation to check up on the claims. We would have to check all the quantities of butter that were in cold store at the end of the period. We would also have to check upon the production cost or production allowance. That would have taken a considerable time. These claims were not matured for payment at the end of the year. There were very few which it was possible to pay in April and it was only in May and June that the bulk of the claims were paid. As regards the postponement of the payment, there was really nothing in it. It was quite a normal carry over from one financial year to another.

675. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor General stated that these claims had matured and accrued for payment in the financial year?—They had not matured; they were not ready for payment.

676. Deputy Briscoe.—Does Mr. Maher admit that a claim made on a Department within a certain financial year does not become a liability of that Department until the Department has in fact passed that claim and agrees that it is due?

Mr. Maher.—We asked Mr. Twomey for information on this matter, and in his reply he states:—

“While actually many items had not matured for payment in that financial year ….”

The assumption is that others did. Our information is that some of them were ready for payment. That is clear from the letter from the Department of Finance in the previous December. The letter states:—

“The Minister notes that it is now estimated that the expenditure from public funds in respect of dairy produce allowances and charges will amount to £565,000 in the current financial year.”

It seems clear from that that in December, four months before the close of the financial year, it was the opinion of the Department of Finance and the Department of Agriculture that claims in excess of the Vote provision would have to be met.

Mr. Twomey.—There is no doubt about that. We are not contesting that at all. What I am saying is that whether these moneys were paid from the Stabilisation Fund or paid from the Vote, they could not have been paid within the financial year 1942/43 in any event.

677. Chairman.—The net point that I should like to have cleared up is whether in fact your letter of the 21st January, 1944, addressed to the Comptroller and Auditor General in which you state:—

“While actually many items had not matured for payment in that financial year …”

implied that certain payments had matured?—I inquired into that. There might have been a few that might have been ready for payment in the last fortnight of March.

678. Chairman.—Would you go so far as to say that any claims had in fact matured?—I would say claims had matured but they were probably very few. They actually had not reached the Accounts Branch of the Department. They might be in the Branch or Section and might have been dealt with in so far as all the checks had been applied but they had not reached the Accounts Branch of my Department.

679. Chairman.—That is the vital point that definitely requires to be cleared up.

Mr. Maher.—The impression left on the Audit Office was that the claims were there and that they had matured.

680. Deputy Briscoe.—What is meant by “matured”?

Mr. Maher.—Ready for payment, i.e., passed for payment. I understood that they were ready for payment. I should like to say that frequently—I do not say it was done in the present instance, a claim might be left there at the end of March for further examination.

681. Deputy Briscoe.—If a claim comes into the Department in January and the Department examines it, does it mean that the claim is ready for payment the moment it is checked?

682. Mr. Maher.—I do not know in this particular case——

Deputy Briscoe.—I am talking generally.

683. Mr. Maher.—Generally if a claim comes in and there is a long interval between the examination of the claim and its payment——

684. Deputy Briscoe.—The Secretary of the Department would not consider it due for payment until it was agreed to?

Mr. Maher.—Until it was examined and passed as ready for payment.

685. Deputy Briscoe.—Take it from the ordinary layman’s point of view. If I am the manager of a creamery and I send in a claim to the Department does it rank for payment within the financial year in which it was received or does it not rank for payment until after the Department has agreed to its payment?

Mr. Maher.—When it is examined and the Department is satisfied that it is right, it has matured.

686. Deputy Briscoe.—It could happen that claims come in in January or February and that the Department concerned does not examine them or agree to them until the following May?

687. Mr. Maher.—If we saw that they were deliberately held over we would inquire into the matter.

688. Deputy Briscoe.—I agree that it would be wrong to hold them over deliberately as it would be making a fool of the Dáil. It would be like trying to evade the payment of income-tax for a particular year but I want to be clear on this matter. Would you agree that until claims have been passed for payment. they are not matured for payment?

Mr. Maher.—Yes.

689. Chairman.—I take it, Mr. Twomey, that it is agreed that if due vigilance were exercised by the Department some at least of these claims would have matured in the financial year?—There is a possibility of that.

690. Forgive me again if I seem to be somewhat pedantic but it is vital that the Committee should know whether in your judgment they actually did or did not mature?—I should not like to say that it was due to any remissness on the part of our officers. I think possibly the checking and the examination of the claims were going on all the time and many of the claims that came in in respect of butter production in the months of February and March could not in any circumstances have been got ready for payment in March.

691. Some of them could have?—Yes.

692. Chairman.—Mr. Hogan, was your attention directed to the matter and in the judgment of the Department of Finance, did some of the claims mature during the financial year in question?

Mr. Hogan.—On the question of fact, what the Accounting Officer has said is a matter of record. We do not know anything about that but I think that there is some, I shall not say confusion, but room for misunderstanding as to what exactly happened in this case. After the decision was taken to increase the return to suppliers of milk to creameries somebody had to pay. It had been decided earlier that a sum of £500,000 would be granted for the Supply Services of the year to meet the cost of subsidies and allowances and it was decided that that sum would not be exceeded. That was the amount earmarked by the Dáil out of revenue towards meeting the cost of these increased prices for the suppliers of milk. The only source from which the balance could come was from the consumer and that was drawn off from the consumer’s pocket either directly across the counter or through the levy on stocks of butter in hands at the date of the increase in the price of butter. There was a levy drawn off and paid under statutory arrangement into the fund. The treatment of that levy was really tantamount to arranging a channel through which one part of the consumer’s contribution towards the increased price passed to the milk suppliers. It was the procedure adopted to enable that portion of the cost to the consumers to be brought to its proper objective. When in December. 1942, the matter was under review and it was decided that this levy should be made available it was expected that the Government Order would have been made before the 31st March. It was expected in the ordinary course that any claims which, in the words of the Comptroller and Auditor General, matured for payment, would in fact have been paid. That did not happen.

693. Chairman.—Do I understand you to say that claims matured for payment were not paid?—No. I say it was anticipated that any claims which, in the ordinary course, would have matured for payment out of the fund—legal authority to use the fund for that purpose having previously been secured—would have been cleared. There were alternative possibilities. The first was that the Order would have been made before 31st March, and payments made thereunder before that date. The second possibility was that the Order would have been made before the close of the financial year but that none the less payments would not have been made under the Order until after 31st March. There was a third possibility, which actually happened, that both the Order and the payments were made after 31st March. I should like to be clear in regard to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s position—whether he would accept the first and second of those as not open to challenge; whether it is only the third he objects to, that both the legal authority and the payment were subsequent to the year of account?

Mr. Maher.—I am not accepting the validity of the Emergency Powers Order for these payments.

Mr. Hogan.—I see.

694. Chairman.—For the moment, Mr. Hogan, as a preliminary canter, we are confining ourselves to what the situation was at midnight on 31st March.

Mr. Hogan.—Well, I want to make it clear, if I have not done so already, that at no time was there any conscious decision taken to avoid an excess by postponing payments to the following year. The decision, which was a matter of policy, was that £500,000 and only £500,000 would be earmarked out of revenue to meet the cost of this service.

695. Chairman.—Had you any notice at midnight on 31st March that there were accounts matured in the Department for payment which had not been paid?

Mr. Twomey.—No. We had no notice to that effect.

696. Chairman.—Were you fixed with notice or were you aware that at midnight on 31st March accounts had matured in your Department which had not been paid?—I am aware now from enquiries I have made that there was no deliberate holding back of accounts. There were accounts that were probably matured for payment in the dairy produce section which, if they had been sent to the Accounts Branch, could have been paid. They were not in fact sent to the Accounts Branch.

697. But you are telling the Committee that, as a matter of fact, there were accounts in the Department which had matured for payment, but which some officer had not sent to the Accounts Branch for discharge?—It is possible that there were some, but there was no deliberate holding back of accounts.

698. But the fact is that they were there?—Probably, a very small number.

699. Would I be correct in saying, inasmuch as you are satisfied that those accounts were there, having matured, that if the officers of your Department had exercised due dilligence they should have been sent to the Accounts Branch for discharge?—Probably if they had not been too busy with other work they could have sent them to the Accounts Branch.

700. Did not that create a situation at midnight on 31st March when your proper course as Accounting Officer was to admit the existence of those charges, to require them to be paid before midnight, and to bring the matter to the notice of this Committee for an excess Vote?—But there is nothing at all unusual in claims going over from one financial year to the other.

701. Matured claims?—I doubt if there is a subhead in my Department or in any other Department under which there are not claims which could properly be regarded as falling due in one financial year but which go over and get paid in another.

702. I would be glad if you would give us your comment on that view, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—That is not so. Any claim matured and not paid would be the subject of comment by the auditor.

Mr. Twomey.—I am quite certain that, when the last day of the year falls, there are moneys due by my Department that might have been paid out of the previous financial year if everything had been ready.

Mr. Maher.—But when they are not ready for payment it is quite proper to carry them over. That is quite usual.

Mr. Twomey.—That is what I say.

Mr. Maher.—But they are not matured for payment.

Mr. Twomey.—In the sense that those claims, a very limited number of them, were probably in the section and could have been got ready for payment and could have been submitted to the Accounts Branch, they might have been regarded as matured, but they actually were not matured in so far as the section dealing with them had not sent them down to the Accounts Branch certified as correct for payment.

Mr. Maher.—The position, as I understand it, was that at no stage from December, 1942, was it the intention to pay all the claims from the Vote, because your provision was £499,900 and you actually paid all that sum with the exception of £1 17s. 11d. Therefore, in regard to anything in excess of that £1 17s 11d., at no stage during the month of March was it the intention, whether the claims were mature or not, to pay it from the Vote?—We knew, as far back as December, that the £500,000 provided by the Vote would not be adequate to meet all the claims that would be submitted in connection with the dairy produce scheme in respect of that year, but we knew equally that there was no prospect of settling all those claims before 31st March. We never had them settled. Take, for example, claims in respect of butter production in the month of February and in March itself. We would not even have received them from the creameries in the month of March. Even in regard to those that we did receive, say, in January and February, with the best will in the world and with all the industry in the world they could not have been got ready for payment before the end of March. It was inevitable in any event, no matter where the moneys were derived from, that there would be a considerable volume of payment to be made after 1st April. There was no escape from that. That is why I say that there are, under this subhead and other subheads in my Department when it comes to the 31st March, claims that cannot be settled just because they are not entirely ready.

703. Chairman.—Of course we must differentiate clearly between anticipated claims and matured claims. You might well foresee that claims would mature in the coming financial year in respect of services rendered in the current financial year, but that would be a very different cup of tea from a claim which arose from services in the current financial year and matured for payment in the current year? —I do not regard a claim as matured for payment until it has reached the Accounts Branch of my Department.

704. And if officers of your Department fail to show due diligence in passing to the Accounts Branch a claim which had been initialled by every executive officer of your Department whose concern it was, would that lack of diligence on the part of your officers make the claim immature? —I should say so. It had not reached the Accounts Branch and from that point of view was not matured.

705. Therefore, if an officer of your Department desired to make a mature claim immature he could do so by simply holding it on his desk and refusing to allow a messenger to carry it to the Accounts Branch?—That is so. It may happen that an officer, for one reason or another—either because he was out for a few days ill or something far more urgent turned up which he had to attend to— might have lying on his desk a claim which should have been dealt with by him and sent to the Accounts Branch.

706. But suppose the claim had been dealt with by every executive officer whose duty it was, and there remained nothing to be done but to send it upstairs to the Accounts Branch, could anything be more urgent in the duties of an officer of your Department than to secure the dispatch of that account to the Accounts Branch before the end of the financial year in respect of which it had accrued due?—I do not think any of those claims had reached the stage where the only thing which was involved was the carrying of them by the messenger from the section to the Accounts Branch. The position would have been that there were probably a certain number of claims which—if the officers dealing with them had, in the week or fortnight preceding the end of March, devoted special attention to them, and had all the reports from our out-door inspectors and other information that would have enabled them to certify the claims—it may have been possible to make mature by completing and certifying and sending them to the Accounts Branch. When I ask the officers why they did not do it, in all probability they say that they were switched on to some other urgent work. It is nothing unusual to have a claim held over. In fact, generally speaking there is such a rush in Departments to get claims settled up in the last fortnight of March that it is quite possible that the Accounts Branch might get overwhelmed if we were to rush every claim in the last fortnight.

Mr. Maher.—In your reply you say:

“It was implied in the arrangements above referred to that the excess expenditure in 1942-43 should be cleared from the fund.”

The assumption there is that there was excess expenditure?—That reply of mine is in January, 1944. That decision was taken not in January, 1944, but in December, 1942.

707. But the implication, having written that in January, 1944, nine months after the close of the financial year, is that excess expenditure existed which was not cleared from the Vote?—We knew that. We knew that expenditure over £500,000 could not be cleared from the Vote.

Mr. Maher.—You say “in 1942-43”. You specified the year.

708. Chairman.—The words you employed are “excess expenditure in 1942-43”. You do not refer to claims anticipated in 1942-43, but to “excess expenditure in 1942-43.” That surely would suggest that at that time you were aware or believed that there existed matured claims which represented excess expenditure in 1942-43?—I do not admit that implication at all. It is entirely wrong. We are not dealing here with implications; we are dealing with facts.

709. Chairman.—But you will understand, if a term is employed in a considered’ reply to the Comptroller and Auditor General, that until we have your amplification of it we will naturally be influenced by the precise words you use. “Excess expenditure in 1942-43” I think implies the existence of matured claims unless you explain that the words are not to be interpreted in accordance with their strict literal meaning?—Well, excess expenditure was represented on the programme, that is the dairy produce programme for 1942-43. If you read the beginning of that note you will see that it said:—

“the £87,000 mentioned represented the excess expenditure on the programme for the year 1942-43”.

710. The note goes on to say:

“While actually many items did not mature for payment in that financial year, it was implied’ in the arrangements above referred to that the excess expenditure in 1942-43 should be cleared from the fund and not brought forward to the liability against the Vote”.

Is it an unreasonable interpretation of that passage to say that while many items had not matured some items had matured, and that those items, which constituted excess expenditure in 1942-43, should be cleared from the fund and’ not brought forward to the liability against the Vote?—I think I have said, Mr. Chairman, that I agree there may have been some items that could have been got ready for payment.

711. Would you go so far as to say that they should have been got ready for payment?—Probably they should have been got ready for payment if the officers had not been too busy or something else had not distracted their attention, but in fact they were not finally got ready and they did not reach the Accounts Branch. I do not regard them as having matured for payment until they reached the Accounts Branch.

712. And inasmuch as they did not reach the Accounts Branch your information to the Committee is that, if so, it was due to emergency work thrust upon the officers who would have otherwise sent them to the Accounts Branch, and that the delay in reaching that Branch was due to emergency work—I would say so, yes.

713. Mr. Maher.—While our main objection to what has been done was that the payments were not charged in the appropriation account proper, I should say, in the first place, that the Appropriation Act says that the provision of money is for the service of the year. Turning to the appropriation account itself, in the certificate the auditor is asked to state that that account is correct in his opinion. He cannot give that certificate because the amount charged’ is not the actual charge. Following that, we communicated again with Mr. Twomey and said:

“In view of the terms of the Appropriation Act that the amount provided therein for agricultural produce subsidies is ‘for the service of the year’, we desire to be informed whether the opinion of the Law Officers was obtained on the legality of providing additional sums for this service by means of Emergency Powers Order without reference to Dáil Eireann”.

Mr. Twomey has replied that the specific opinion of the Attorney General on the point in question was not sought by the Department although he was made generally aware of the purpose of the Order proposed to be made by the Government. Arising out of that, the view which we took was that an Emergency Powers Order for the provision of money to be expended is not sufficient authority. An Emergency Powers Order, naturally, has the force of the Act under which it is made and is equivalent to the Act in certain respects but as regards the provision of money it has not the force of an Act passed directly by the Oireachtas because, in my opinion—and it is on this matter that I was seeking the opinion of the law adviser—it would be contrary to the terms of the Constitution. On the question of the provision of money the Constitution is very definite. Article 17 (2) states:—

“Dáil Éireann shall not pass any vote or resolution, and no law shall be enacted, for the appropriation of revenue or other public moneys unless the purpose of the appropriation shall have been recommended to Dáil Eireann by a message from the Government signed by the Taoiseach”.

That was not done in this case.

Deputy Cosgrave.—Have you consulted the Attorney General?

Mr. Maher.—No, because the practice would be to ask the Accounting Officer who is responsible for the payments to do so.

714. Chairman.—Have you any further comment on that matter?

Mr. Maher.—I got that reply from Mr. Twomey on 28th November—only two days ago. I have not had time to ask him to get the Attorney General’s opinion.

715. Chairman.—In regard to the matter now mentioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General, had that aspect of the problem been brought to your attention, Mr. Twomey?

Mr. Twomey.—I do not think so, Mr. Chairman. I did not appreciate that that aspect of it would be likely to arise—in other words, that an Emergency Powers Order made for changing the purpose of the stabilisation fund or the purpose for which the moneys of the stabilisation fund would be used was irregular or illegal.

Mr. Maher.—It is an enabling Order. It does not say the Minister shall do anything; it merely enables him to do something.

Mr. Twomey.—I appreciate that.

716. Chairman.—Mr. Hogan, had that aspect of this question been directed to your attention?

Mr. Hogan.—That is, the question whether, notwithstanding the passage from the Constitution which the Comptroller and Auditor General has mentioned, the Emergency Powers Order referred to might be illegal?

717. Chairman.—In the light of the passage?

Mr. Hogan.—The First Amendment of the Constitution Act specifically says that nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to invalidate any law enacted for the purpose of a war emergency. That is the effect of the First Amendment of the Constitution—nothing shall be invoked to invalidate anything done under the Emergency Powers Act, 1939. Of course, I am not the Law Officer. I am only bringing the point to your attention.

718. Chairman.—Has this matter been directed to your attention before now, or is it just now that the constitutional question has been presented to you?

Mr. Hogan.—We did consider—I should say not very deeply—whether an Order of this kind’ was within the purpose of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, and we were satisfied that the Law Officer would give the necessary advice to the Government on that, but, on the question whether it was contrary to the financial clauses of the Constitution, that was not considered.

Mr. Maher.—There is another clause in the Constitution with which you are also familiar—Section 28—which says:

“The Government shall prepare Estimates of the Receipts and Estimates of the Expenditure of the State for each financial year, and shall present them to Dáil Eireann for consideration”.

My view is that this Emergency Powers Order enables money to be spent in supplementing a provision of Dáil Eireann without the additional money coming before Dáil Eireann for its consideration under that Article.

719. Chairman.—Is it not clear that in the situation in which we now find ourselves the Committee would need to have laid before it the opinion of the Attorney General on this question?

Mr. Maher.—That is what I asked for.

720. Chairman.—It is manifest that we cannot now get the opinion of the Attorney General.

Mr. Maher.—Not immediately, but we can ask the Department of Finance or the Accounting Officer to obtain it.

721. Chairman.—Deputy Briscoe wishes to raise a point.

Deputy Briscoe.—It is quite clear from the note of the Comptroller and Auditor General that this method of making moneys available for a particular fund arose out of consultation between the Accounting Officer of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Finance because it says here:—

“… the Vote provision being insufficient to meet the new commitments involved it was agreed, in consultation with the Department of Finance, that the provision should remain unaltered and that any excess expenditure might be met from the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund”.

Mr. Hogan.—I think, subject to anything Mr. Twomey wishes to say, the decision was one of policy that not more than £500,000 was to be spent out of voted moneys in that year.

722. Chairman.—I do not think that is quite the point Deputy Briscoe is on.

Deputy Briscoe.—My point is that the moment the Accounting Officer of the Department of Agriculture found that he was going to be faced with claims in excess of the amount provided by Vote, he consulted with the Department of Finance and it was by agreement with the Department. It says so here. Mr. Hogan says no.

723. Chairman.—I do not think Mr. Hogan took your point.

Deputy Briscoe.—It was agreed, when both Departments saw that claims would mature at some stage in excess of the half-million pound’s provided that the provision of half-million pounds would remain unaltered and that any excess expenditure might be met from the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund.

Mr. Hogan.—The decision that £500,000 and only £500,000 should be expended from the Vote was taken as a matter of policy and our sanction was to enable the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund to be drawn upon legally to meet claims in excess of £500,000. There was no question specifically at any time of avoiding an excess on the Vote. We were concerned with making machinery available to enable the levy to be used for the purpose described earlier.

724. Deputy Briscoe.—I am not raising that point. The question whether these moneys were paid within the financial year or not does not arise at the moment. What we are concerned with at this particular moment is, is it permissible for the Department of Finance to sanction extra public moneys to come into a Department to meet something that has been voted’ in the Dáil when the Vote was not sufficient to meet the liability incurred under the particular subhead? In principle, the point that I have in mind is the second stage.

Mr. Hogan.—I should like, if I may, to say one word on the postponement issue before we finally pass from that.

Chairman.—Mr. Hogan, would you reserve that comment and I will afford you an opportunity of putting it on record in a moment?

725. Deputy Briscoe.—We are forgetting the postponement issue altogether for the moment. The question I want to get clear on and the question the Committee wants to get clear on is: if you want extra money over the amount actually estimated and voted, can you establish this precedent now to raid some other fund by Emergency Powers Order and so liquidate the excess expenditure which normally, if this had’ not been raised first of all from the point of view of a postponement issue, might never have come before the Committee or the Dáil at all, because there is no note on the Estimate itself that there is an extra revenue into that account from other source by way of appropriation or whatever it might be. It is on that point that I want to make it clear that it is definitely stated in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s note that this procedure was agreed to by the Department of Finance.

Mr. Hogan.—Undoubtedly we agreed that the Minister for Agriculture should submit a proposal to the Government that the law be amended to enable the levy to be earmarked not for export subsidies alone, as was formerly the case, but, in addition, for the purpose of paying home production allowances and cold-storage charges. That was a matter of changing the law. We agreed that steps to that end might be taken.

726. Deputy Briscoe.—And you agreed that the Emergency Order was sufficient, and gives the Department of Agriculture authority to use moneys which otherwise are not mentioned in the Emergency Powers Order?

Mr. Hogan.—An Order made under the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, has the force of law. An Order made thereunder is presented to both Houses and is subject to annulment. There is no question of concealment from the Oireachtas of the fact that an Order has been made.

727. Chairman.—Was it not customary if such Order had been made and the law had been amended that to this Estimate when it was presented to Dáil Eireann there would be appended a note stating that in addition to the £499,900 here provided, provision was also being made from the Dairy Produce Stabilisation) Fund?

Mr. Hogan.—I think that is a very fair point. Of course, in relation to the year of account, 1942-43, there could not have been any such note because it was not known until December.

728. Chairman.—Was there any such Note in subsequent years?

Mr. Hogan.—No, Sir, but I would draw your attention to this, that, for a number of years, rightly or wrongly, the Export Subsidies Vote and the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund ran side by side. The Appropriation Act of the year, of course, provided’ moneys; supply was granted for the service of export bounties and subsidies, while at the same time the proceeds of levies in the fund were being utilised to pay export bounties. I do not say whether it was correct, but am merely pointing to it as relevant to the circumstances which we are discussing now, that throughout these earlier years neither in the Estimates submitted to the Dáil nor in the Appropriation Account, was any note made of the fact that the fund was bearing charges similar to those borne on the Vote.

729. Chairman.—We may take it as the Department of Finance view that it would have been proper in regard to the Agricultural Produce Subsidies Estimate, in the light of the circumstances now that if it were proper that it should have been appended to these Estimates at least in the ensuing year, that is, 1943-44?

Mr. Hogan.—I think it would have been proper to do so.

730. Chairman.—But it has not been done?

Mr. Hogan.—No.

731. Chairman.—I think Mr. Twomey will forgive us for asking all these questions as an important principle is involved.

Mr. Twomey.—Yes. I should like to say that if it were proper that it should have been done in the account for the year 1943-44, that is the succeeding year, it should equally have been done every year since 1935 because, since the passing of the Stabilisation Act, 1935, we have been using the Stabilisation Fund, over which the Minister has control, as well as voted moneys, to carry out a certain programme in connection with the dairying industry in this country, that is, to maintain the price of milk and butter at a certain level, and where the voted moneys were not sufficient the Stabilisation Fund was brought into play. The two were regarded more or less as interchangeable, and it was generally recognised that the two funds—the voted’ moneys that appear in the Estimates and the moneys that were in the fund as a result of levies— were used as required to maintain a certain level for dairy produce in this country. There was nothing essentially different in the principle in this particular case. If we were right since 1935 we are right now. If we are wrong now we have been equally wrong since 1935.

732. Chairman.—Would it not be true to say in respect of the situation arising in 1935 that the Dáil was fully advised of the fact that the Minister intended to allow these two funds to run side by side and to have recourse to either or both of them as circumstances might require?

Mr. Twomey.—There is just this difference, Mr. Chairman, that the purpose was altered slightly by this Emergency Powers Order.

733. Chairman.—And there is the difference that the Dáil was fully advised of what we might call the 1935 situation, whereas the Dáil does not appear to have been specifically advised at all of the situation arising in connection with the agricultural produce subsidies and the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund?—Except in so far as the Order was laid on the Table of both Houses and had not been annulled.

734. But the terms of the Order would scarcely constitute adequate advice to the Dáil that it was proposed to provide this under the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund—On the face of it, it did not appear that there was anything essentially different in regard to what we were doing in that year. It might be technically different, but it did not appear that there was anything essentially different.

735. Might I reduce the matter to this: that at 12 midnight on 31st March, 1943, there was no matured claim in his Department, as Mr. Twomey asserts, which had not been discharged up to that particular time?—There probably were claims that could have been sent to the Accounts Branch for payment, in the sense that they had matured, although I do not regard them as matured until they reach the Accounts Branch of the Department.

736. If they had reached the Department before midnight on that date, the matter could have been dealt with?—I do not know if it could be done, or whether the matter could have been dealt with in time. In a limited number of cases it might have been possible for a number of officers to have got the accounts to the Accounts Branch and then deal with them.

737. Are you sure of that?—I am not sure of that, and if it were a case that that could have been done, and was not done, I would have to take disciplinary action. In the sense, however, that they did not reach the Department in time, I do not see what I could do.

738. And I have no doubt that the Committee would accept your word, Mr. Twomey. May I take it, therefore, that when you say there was no matured claim to be dealt with up to midnight on the 31st March, 1943, there were no claims in that could have been paid in time?— There were some claims that could have been paid if they had been hurried up.

739. Yes, but you understand, Mr. Twomey, that we are entirely dependent on your word, and do you say that they could have been or should have been paid in all the circumstances?—It is very difficult for me to answer that, because if an officer says to me that he received a claim but had not the opportunity to send it to the Accounts Branch because he was very busy on some other work and, possibly, overlooked it, I have to take his word for it, and one does not like to take disciplinary action in a case of that kind where the officer concerned was so busy that he could not reach the matter, particularly in view of the fact that it was only at the last moment the claim was received.

740. Well, perhaps, you could reserve a decision on that matter and inform the Committee later on as to what decision you propose to come to on it?—Very well, Mr. Chairman.

741. Do you wish to say anything, Mr. Hogan, about this matter of postponement of matured charges?

Mr. Hogan.—Yes, I would say, on behalf of the Department of Finance, that it would be wrong consciously or deliberately to postpone the payment of matured charges so as to avoid the presentation of Supplementary Estimate or Excess Vote. I think it is recognised that that is irregular. But I do want to put on record what is contained in the Epitomé of the Reports from the Committees of Public Accounts from 1922-’23 to 1933-’34. This matter of the postponement of such payments was raised on previous occasions by the Committee, and the Minister for Finance on 26th June, 1930, according to the Epitomé of the Reports, was of this opinion:—

“The Minister desires to point out that there appears to be some misapprehension in the minds of the Committee as to the meaning in Section 24 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866, of the expression ‘sums which may actually have come in course of payment’. The expression in the section refers to actual final payments made in a financial year, and not, as the Committee appears to think, to claims which are due and fully matured in the same period. There is no statutory provision prohibiting postponement of payments, and the present practice was instituted merely by Treasury Minute.”

The Committee, in reply to that, in their Final Report, 1928-29, said’:

“The Committee is aware of the practice which has grown up under Section 24 of the Act of 1866 in so far as it relates to sums that have actually come in course of payment, and is of opinion that the practice is in itself desirable and should be continued.”

The Minister, in his reply, said:

“The Minister is pleased to note that the Committee no longer contend that he was guilty of a breach of a statutory provision in deferring payment of portion of the Beet Sugar Subsidy.”

I put this on record in connection with the question of whether it is legal or illegal, or whether there was a breach of the statutory provision discussed previously. I do not think that, even if Mr. Twomey did postpone a payment, he committed an illegality, although he might have departed from desirable practice.

742. Chairman.—And I think that the Department of Finance will agree that good practice, in the administration of public funds, has almost the sanction of law.

Mr. Hogan.—Undoubtedly so.

743. Chairman.—Now, the second point is the question of the Constitution, and I cannot see how the Committee can go further without having the opinion of the Law Officers. I do not think we can go any further on that matter until we find out from Mr. Christie what the views of the Law Officers are on that matter, and I am sure that Mr. Christie will know whether this thing should be done through the Department or in another way.

Mr. Hogan.—I should like to be informed of the specific points on which the Committee desire the advice of the law officers—if it is intended that the advice should be sought by the Department.

744. Chairman.—I shall arrange, through Mr. Christie, to have further elaboration of the matter so as to clarify the point in question. Therefore, gentlemen, having examined this matter in detail, I think we may take it that the subheads need not be gone on with in further detail, except to call attention again to paragraph 81 in the Note by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—Yes, Mr. Chairman. In the summer of 1942 the Department informed creamery proprietors and butter merchants that an allowance of 11/3 per cwt. would be paid to cold storers of creamery butter who complied with certain specified conditions regarding the periods and quantities in which the butter would be stored and withdrawn for sale during the winter of 1942-’43. The allowance of 11/3 per cwt. was based on an average period of cold storage of 26 weeks. For various reasons, however, it was not found practicable to adhere to the original arrangements, with the result that in many cases butter was not, in fact, kept in cold store for the full average period. As it appeared that the full allowance of 11/3 per cwt. had, nevertheless, been paid in these cases, we asked whether Department of Finance sanction had been obtained for this procedure. No reply to our inquiry has been received.

745. Chairman.—Can you give us any information as to that, Mr. Twomey?

Mr. Twomey.—Yes. I think I sent Mr. Maher a memorandum dealing with the matter. We did approach the Department of Finance and I understood that decision would be deferred pending an explanation of the matter before this Committee. This is a rather involved matter, and I should like to go into it in some detail.

746. Chairman.—Well, Mr. Twomey, I am extremely reluctant to trespass on your time, but it is now almost 2 o’clock, and I think we shall have to postpone further discussion of the matter until the next meeting of the Committee. Would it be agreeable to you to arrange with Mr. Christie to deal with these matters on another occasion?

Mr. Twomey.—Yes.

747. Chairman.—Would it suit your convenience also, Mr. Hogan, if we can arrange for another time to discuss this matter?

Mr. Hogan.—Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman.—If so, and if we are all agreed, I think we can now adjourn.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix VII.

* See Appendix VIII.