Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1947 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1944 - 1945

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 27ú Feabhra, 1947.

Thursday, 27th February, 1947.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY COSGRAVE 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 29—AGRICULTURE.

Mr. Seán O Broin called and examined.

603. Chairman.—I should like, on behalf of the Committee, and on my own behalf, to welcome Mr. O Broin in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and to wish him, on behalf of the Committee, as well as on my own behalf, every success in the arduous duties which he is undertaking.

Mr. O Broin.—Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

604. Chairman.—Paragraph 15 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads as follows:—

“Subhead F.1,—Agricultural Schools and Farms.

15. In January, 1944, an offer of Johnstown Castle and Demesne, County Wexford, as a gift to the nation for the purposes of a lay agricultural college, was accepted by the Government. Acceptance of the offer was subject to the enactment of any necessary consequential legislation, and the Johnstown Castle Agricultural College Act, 1945, which became law on 17th October, 1945, formally accepted the gift and authorised the necessary arrangements for carrying out its terms, and for the transfer of the property to the Minister for Agriculture. Pending the making of internal alterations, ordinary farming operations were carried out on the property. Expenditure incurred during the year under review and charged to this subhead amounted to £10,824 12s. 11d., comprising £3,422 15s. 9d. for remuneration of staff, including allowances and gratuities to ex-employees of the estate, and £7,401 17s. 2d. for general expenses of management. The disbursements included £710 17s. 3d. in recoupment of the expenses of the donors on the maintenance and working of the property during the period from January, 1944, until formal possession was taken by the Department in April, 1944 and £3,504 18s. 0d. for the purchase of live stock and outdoor effects on the estate. Sums amounting to £3,269 3s. 9d. were received from the sale of live stock, farm produce, etc., and are included in the Appropriations in Aid.”

Mr. Maher.—The purpose of that paragraph is to summarise the financial effects of the 1945 Act, referred to in the paragraph.

Chairman.—Can you say, Mr O Broin, if this college is being run on the same lines as the Albert College?—At present there are some horticultural students there. We have not been able to carry out all the alterations and adaptations necessary to enable the college to be run as an agricultural college in the full sense, but the intention is to have it run on somewhat a higher level than the other three main agricultural colleges that we direct. In addition to that, the intention is to have a soil advisory service and a soil analysis service there. It will not be quite on the same lines as the Albert College; it will be somewhat different from the existing colleges run by the Department.

605. Will the soil analysis service be available for the farmers?—Yes, that is the intention.

Deputy Coogan.—Deputy Hughes’ persistence is coming home to roost.

606. Chairman.—Paragraph 16 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report reads:—

“Subhead G.3.—Fertilisers Subsidies

“16. The charge to this subhead relates to a payment of subsidy made to Comhlucht Lorgtha agus Forbartha Mianraí, Teoranta, in respect of Avoca pyrites supplied to a fertiliser manufacturer in the period April to October. 1943. The subsidy authorised was of such amount as would enable the company to deliver Avoca pyrites at the same price per unit of available sulphur content as imported pyrites, subject to a maximum subsidy of 9d. per unit, and under this arrangement the company became entitled to payment at the maximum rate on approximately 639 tons of pyrites supplied.

No subsidy was paid during the year on imported phosphates and pyrites. As indicated in paragraph 18 of my previous report, the payments on account in respect of the 1942-43 and 1943-44 seasons amounted at 31st March, 1944, to £354,398 10s. 11d. and £228,254 0s. 1d., respectively.”

Chairman.—Is it proposed to continue this arrangement, or has the position improved since the Report was published? —The position has improved as regards the general subsidy on imported phosphates and imported pyrites. We had a very heavy subsidy in the years, 1942-43 and 1943-44, mainly on account of the high cost of freight. In 1944-45 no subsidy was paid on imported phosphates and pyrites, but we had to pay the sum mentioned here in respect of the pyrites obtained in Wicklow. The Mining Company could not sell the pyrites at the same figure as the imported pyrites without this subsidy and we had to pay the subsidy in order to enable the manufacturers to get the material at the same level as the imported pyrites.

607. Are they still working at Avoca? —They are still working there, I understand.

608. Chairman.—Paragraph 17 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:—

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

“17. The charge to this subhead comprises normal grant amounting to £114,249 5s. 0d., special temporary grant totalling £2,000, and payments amounting to £58,111 17s. 9d. for the purpose of supplementing committees’ expenditure on the provision of lime for agricultural purposes.

The normal grant of £114,249 5s. 0d. includes a sum of £72,989, approximately equivalent to the proceeds of the agricultural rate of 2d. in the £ levied under the Agriculture Act, 1931, and extra grants, amounting to £41,260 5s. 0d., equivalent to the amount of the income of committees from rates in excess of the statutory minimum 2d. rate.”

Mr. Maher.—That is the annual paragraph which sets out in detail how the charge to this subhead is made up.

609. Chairman.—Paragraph 18 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:—

“Subhead J.—National Stud.

“18. In paragraph 20 of my previous report I mentioned that the property known as The National Stud Farm, Tully, County Kildare, was transferred to the Government from the British Government on 1st January, 1944, and that, pending the enactment of legislation providing for the establishment of a State stud farm, ordinary farming operations were conducted on the property. The legislation referred to was embodied in the National Stud Act, 1945, which, however, did not become law until 4th August, 1945, and, accordingly, ordinary farming operations continued to be carried on during the year under review. The expenditure totalled £21,497 2s. 3d., of which the principal items were £3,338 13s. 3d. for wages and allowances, and £15,552 12s. 4d. for the purchase of live stock. Receipts, which are brought to account as Appropriations in Aid, amounted to £20,868 0s. 2d., and were mainly derived from the sale of live stock.

A net amount of £21,300 was received from the British Government in connection with the transfer of the property and is included in the Exchequer extra receipts. This sum represents £28,260 9s. 3d. for user in lieu of rent for the period December, 1922, to 31st December, 1943, less £6,960 9s. 3d., being the agreed value of live stock and machinery taken over with the farm.”

The farm is now being run as a stud farm?—Yes, Sir, it was handed over to the new company in August last.

610. Chairman.—Paragraph 19 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:—

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

“19. The arrangement under which certain administrative expenses of the Dairy Disposal Company, Limited, formerly paid from voted moneys, are defrayed from the funds of the company, continued in operation and no expenditure was incurred under this subhead during the year.

Receipts in connection with the disposal of creamery properties amounted to £2,572 18s. 7d., and, in addition, the company repaid £56,000 on foot of an advance of £112,000 made in March, 1933, to cover trading losses incurred up to 31st December, 1931. The sums paid over by the company, which are brought to account as Exchequer extra receipts, amounted, therefore, to £58,572 18s. 7d. The total Vote expenditure to 31st March, 1945, from moneys provided for the improvement of the creamery industry amounted to £1,197,847 5s. 6d. and receipts were £310,445 8s. 10d., leaving a net charge on public funds of £887,401 16s. 8d.”

Mr. Maher.—I understand the usual return has been furnished to the Committee.*

611. Chairman.—Is the company still being run at a loss?—No, the company is making substantial profits.

612. When did it start to make a profit? —It has been making profits for some years.

613. Deputy Briscoe.—When this company makes profits, are they dealt with in the ordinary way, just like an ordinary company—do they pay a proportion of income tax to the Revenue Commissioners and does the net balance go to the reduction of these funds?—The results of the operations of the company are set out in the consolidated balance sheet which I think the Committee have. The company pays considerable sums in income tax and the balance remaining over is shown as a balance in the accounts, but it is retained by them. Of course, there is a considerable amount used for the purposes of new capital; they find the capital out of their profits.

614. Deputy Briscoe.—The payment of income tax must have been considerable? —Yes, £35,000 in one year.

615. Chairman.—For the information of the Committee, the Profit and Loss Account for the year ending 31st December, 1945, shows a balance of £166,872 17s. 5d. and the accounts were audited by an outside firm of chartered accountants, as shown on the consolidated balance sheet.

616. Deputy Briscoe.—Does it mean that ultimately if this amount of capital reaches a very substantial figure the result will be the wiping out of this original advance?—No. I do not think so.

Mr. Maher.—They have repaid £56,000 in respect of the advance. I am not quite sure whether any sum has been paid since in respect of last year or the current year.

Mr. O Broin.—There are comparatively small accounts which come in every year, which the company receives in instalments in respect of transferred properties. There is a sum of £2,572 18s. 7d. in the Vote. In regard to the question raised by Deputy Briscoe I think the position would be that if one could visualise a position in which the Dairy Disposal Company were to finish, and to have disposed of all its properties, the realisation of assets plus the profits would come over to the Department as a receipt.

617. Deputy Briscoe.—We have been discussing this matter year after year for as many years as I can remember and up to a certain period there was always the point as to when this liability to the State in the matter of these creamery transactions would end. Now it would appear that not only is the liquidation of these disposed properties going to be settled but the company will have made a substantial amount of money on its activities. It will have paid a considerable amount to the Exchequer by way of income tax—I do not know whether they had a pre-war standard and had to pay excess profits as well —but from our point of view we should regard the money paid to the Exchequer, either by way of repayment or by way of tax, as part of the whole transaction. I cannot regard the payment of income tax as something apart from the whole transaction.

618. Chairman.—Can you say whether if the property were realised now the amount got from its realisation added to the profits made up to the present by the company would exceed the Vote expenditure?—I do not think it would, unless the prices realised were unexpectedly high.

619. Deputy Briscoe.—It would have reduced the outstanding balance of £887,000 very considerably?—Yes.

620. Deputy Dockrell.—If you take the attitude that you must take income tax into account, you are introducing a new element into trading conditions whether they are carried on by the State or anybody else. I think we have to leave income tax out of our consideration as it is left out in other cases.

Deputy Briscoe.—Except that in this particular case if the board could have disposed of everything, including this company, they would not have been trading. If they had been carrying this on and making a loss, there would have been a charge against the Department for adding to this outstanding balance?—I think the position is that the payment of income tax is an expense incidental to their trading activities as it is in any ordinary commercial firm.

621. Chairman.—Can you give us any indication as to whether if the assets as set out in the consolidated balance sheet were realised and added to the profits, they would exceed the Vote expenditure up to the present?—I do not think they would. I should qualify that by saying that a good deal would depend on the price they got for the assets. If they got a much higher price than at present they think they would, the realisation of the assets plus the profits might exceed the original grant.

622. Chairman.—Paragraph 20, of the Report reads:—

“Subhead M.10.—Potato Reserve Scheme.

“20. In order to avert a shortage of potatoes of the 1943 crop in the Dublin area, it was arranged that the Dublin and District Potato Committee, a body representative of the Dublin wholesale potato trade, should purchase approximately 4,000 tons of potatoes from growers in County Donegal for delivery as required, that the purchase price should include a bonus varying according to the month of delivery, and that the net cost of the scheme should be borne by the Exchequer. It was subsequently decided that in order to meet requirements of the Department of Defence and the Turf Development Board, Limited, an additional quantity of about 1,000 tons should be purchased from merchants, mainly in County Monaghan.

Under the foregoing arrangements, approximately 4,600 tons of potatoes were purchased. Of this quantity, it was possible to sell only 360 tons to Dublin merchants, the loss sutained amounting to £1,411 15s. 1d.; the Department of Defence and the Turf Development Board, Limited, were supplied, at cost, with 840 tons, and the balance, 3,400 tons, was sold to Monarchana Alcóil na hEireann, Teoranta, at a loss of £21,326 16s. 8d. The total loss on sales amounted, therefore, to £22,738 11s. 9d. Expenses totalled £1,001 6s. 4d., bringing the cost of the scheme to £23,739 18s. 1d., of which £23,719 2s. 0d. is charged to this subhead and £20 16s. 1d. was paid in the succeeding financial year.”

I notice that there was a substantial loss in respect of the scheme. Can you give the Committee an indication of the causes?—It so happened that although a substantial quantity of potatoes, about 4,000 tons, had been accumulated and paid for by the Department in the expectation that there would be a scarcity, particularly in Dublin, towards the end of the season, the position was very much better than was anticipated. Only a few hundred tons out of the 4,000 tons were sold in Dublin, so that we had to send 3,400 tons to the alcohol factories at a very much lower price than the price originally paid for the potatoes.

623. Did the alcohol factories make a reduction in the price of industrial alcohol as a result?—I do not know.

624. Were any similar schemes carried out in subsequent years?—Yes. There was a similar scheme in 1945 and in 1946 also.

625. Deputy Coogan.—With similar results?—No. We made some money one year and lost a little in the other.

626. Deputy Lydon.—You buy from merchants rather than direct from the farmer?—We drew the reserves from Counties Donegal and Monaghan and we generally get the local merchants to buy from the farmers in these counties.

627. Deputy Dockrell.—Would it not have been possible to sell to the Dublin merchants more than 360 tons, because I should imagine that the price paid by the Dublin merchants must have been very much larger than that paid by the alcohol factories? Surely it might have been possible to cut the loss; in other words, to get a price higher than the alcohol factory paid but possibly some what lower than the price paid for the 360 tons? Could some deal of that kind not have been done or were the potatoes bad?—Potatoes were fairly plentiful at the time and if we had thrown that quantity on the Dublin market it might have upset the market very considerably. In addition, I think a large proportion of the stocks were of a variety that are not normally very popular in Dublin. They would prefer to get other varieties, but if potatoes were scarce they would have been glad to take them. However, the position was very much better than we anticipated it would be.

628. Deputy Coogan.—Was the position not that there were absolutely no potatoes in Dublin when the scheme was embarked on?—Yes.

629. And is it not apparent that the Dublin merchants were able to stock up more quickly than you were able to get potatoes from the country, that they simply beat you to it?—The scheme was embarked upon largely on account of our experience in 1943 when there was almost a potato famine in Dublin. There was a possibility that, if we had not this scheme, there might have been holding of potatoes against anticipated high prices towards the end of the season. As it happened, potatoes came freely on the market and towards the end of the season they were plentiful enough and there was no necessity to draw on the reserves at all.

Chairman.—I understand that the Dublin market could absorb only 360 tons —220 tons of Kerr’s Pinks and 140 tons of Arran Banners. The loss on the sale amounted to £1,411 15s. 1d., or about £4 per ton.

630. Deputy Dockrell.—My point in raising this was not to blame the Department for it, because the worst thing that could have happened would have been if Dublin had been left short of potatoes, but I wonder whether, with perhaps closer co-operation with the merchants, some saving in that rather considerable loss could have been effected?—There was the very closest co-operation with the merchants because it was a committee of merchants, in association with some officers of our Department, who actually conducted this deal in potatoes.

631. Chairman.—The price paid by the Alcohol Company is much lower than the commercial price?—Yes.

632. Deputy Coogan.—Did the Department ever consider selling directly to the public through some agency outside that of the merchants? Is it a fact that there is a ring in the vegetable business in Dublin?—The Department decided to sell through the ordinary trade channels

633. Chairman.—Paragraph 21 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General refers to Subhead O.10. (Emergency Powers (Tillage) Orders) and is as follows:—

The Tillage Orders made by the Government under the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, required the occupiers of arable lands to till a specified proportion of their holdings, and the Minister for Agriculture was empowered to enter on and take possession of these holdings whose occupiers failed to comply with the provisions of the Orders, and to cultivate such holdings or make conacre lettings. The charge to this subhead comprises £46,429 9s. 1d. for salaries, wages and allowances; £19,932 16s. 2d. for travelling and miscellaneous expenses; and £8,713 5s. 9d. representing the cost of seeds, manures, implements and fencing materials, together with the cost of the erection of fencing and of other operations incidental to the cultivation of entered holdings. The expenditure includes a payment of £1,005 11s. 11d. made to the Department of Defence in recoupment of the cost of work performed by the Army Construction Corps.

The disposal of sums realised from sales of crops and from conacre rents in connection with holdings of which possession had been taken by the Minister for Agriculture is also regulated by Emergency Powers Orders. The receipts may be applied towards defraying expenses incurred by the Minister in discharge of the powers conferred on him, towards paying debts due to a State authority by the occupiers of entered holdings, or towards the payment of any rates due to a local authority oy such occupiers. The total receipts to 31st March, 1945, amounted to £15,793 18s. 4d., of which £11,907 14s. 8d. was appropriated towards expenses, including £6,063 17s. 6d. brought to account as Appropriations in Aid in the year under review. The sums disbursed in the period ended 31st March, 1945, totalled £2,756 15s. 1d., comprising £2,347 13s. 8d. to State and local authorities and £409 1s. 5d. to the occupiers of the holdings concerned.

Mr. Maher.—The difference between the total sums received at 31st March, 1945, £15,793, as stated in the Report, and the amount appropriated towards expenses, £11,907, does not represent profit arising from the operation of the Tillage Orders. In the case of conacre lettings, receipts usually exceed expenses but, as regards direct cultivation undertaken by the Department, the reverse is the case. For example, 93 holdings were tilled by direct action in the 1944 season and at 31st March, 1945, expenses exceeded receipts by approximately, £45,000. I should like to state that as a supplement to the paragraph in the report.

634. Is the moral to be drawn that State farming does not pay?

Mr. O Broin.—We do not claim this is farming in the ordinary sense of the term. Cultivation in cases of direct entry is undertaken under the most difficult circumstances. Harvesting is also done in these cases under very great difficulties. In cases, we have practically had to give the crops to somebody who would go in and harvest them. We always try to let the land in conacre and it is only if we fail to get local people to take the conacre that we try to cultivate the land ourselves.

635. Has the number of farms dealt with by direct entry shown a reduction? —The number has varied considerably. Taking into consideration lands of which we took possession and let in conacre or cultivated by direct action, the figures are: 1940, 6 holdings; 1941, 100; 1942, 118; 1943, 74; 1944, 147, that was the largest number; 1945, 66; 1946, 65.

636. Deputy Blowick.—Does it not seem strange that the receipts from the crops should not, at least, exceed expenses?—Not in the circumstances in which we have to dispose of them. In some cases, we find it impossible to get anybody to tender. In certain cases, we have had to ask people to take the crop as it stood for a nominal payment. Others tender and then discover that the crop is “lodged” before they can dispose of it. Then, they back out of their contract.

637. In some of these cases, there would be local sympathy with the owners of the lands?—Yes, in some cases.

638. Deputy Briscoe.—And the reverse in other cases?—Yes.

639. Deputy Dockrell.—Would much of this be marginal land or land which the occupiers contended was unsuitable for tillage?—It is generally land which the Department’s inspectors consider capable of yielding a crop. It varies a good deal from district to district but it is generally classed as arable land.

640. Looking at the terrific cost, £73,000, and the yield, £15,793, there would seem to be a possibility that some of the farmers were correct in their assumption that the land was not suitable for tillage?—That sum of £73,000 includes the salaries of the staff employed in the enforcement of the Tillage Order throughout the country. The cost of salaries, wages and allowances was £46,429 9s. 1d.

641. This is not just the cost in connection with the particular holdings which were entered?—I think that the figure you are quoting is the all-over figure, which includes the salary of the entire staff engaged in the enforcement of the Tillage Orders. We segregate these costs and the figures are available.

642. This figure would include work which had nothing to do with these particular farms?—Yes.

643. And it would include the expenses of inspectors going to people who had complied with the Tillage Orders?—Yes. The inspectors are constantly on the move.

644. Would it not be possible to get the costs debited to the particular holdings under review? How much did it cost the State to enforce the Tillage Orders against farmers who refused to comply with them?—In the year 1944, the total costs of entering, and cultivating holdings entered, amounted to £11,000, odd, and the total receipts amounted to £6,500.

645. Deputy Lydon.—None of these farms is in Connacht?—I have not with me the geographical distribution of the farms but outside Roscommon few would be in Connacht. A large number would be in Westmeath and the other grazing counties.

646. Deputy Briscoe.—On the whole, is not the primary responsibility of the Department to see that arable land is tilled and, apart from what the inspectors themselves may find, have not cases arisen where neighbours have brought to the attention of the Department the refusal of certain persons with suitable land to do any tillage? While this process may appear to be costly, the fact that a person knows that he will lose considerably by the Department coming in, tilling the land and disposing of the crops without any consideration to him in respect of rent or other expenses, has a salutary effect and helps to keep those who would normally “slack” up to scratch?—That is so.

647. Deputy Dockrell.—Is there any way of debiting the whole cost to the individuals concerned?—We could debit it but I do not think that we could collect it without selling them out. Very often, the people concerned have fairly big holdings, with no implements or machinery or means of cultivation. Very often, they are old people who cannot do such work themselves and have nobody to help them.

648. Deputy Blowick.—There are cases also where there may be a glut of conacre in a locality and a person may find it impossible to dispose of conacre to his neighbours? That is so.

Deputy Blowick.—I have known isolated cases of that kind in which there was severe hardship.

649. Chairman.—Paragraph 22 of the Report refers to Subhead P. (Appropriations in Aid). Dealing with the levy on the slaughter of cattle and sheep, it states:—

“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 received in the year under review in respect of levy due but uncollected at the date mentioned was £1,146 10s. 9d., and the amount of levy outstanding at 31st March, 1945, was £6,156 15s. 8d. As noted in the account, a sum of £126 10s. 0d. was written off with the sanction of the Minister for Finance.”

Mr. Maher.—This is an annual paragraph showing the progress made in the collection of these sums.

650. Chairman.—Paragraph 23 of the Report refers to extra receipts payable to the Exchequer which states:—

“As will be seen from the account, fees amounting to £355 were received in respect of licences granted under the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, and Orders made thereunder. These comprised £40, being £10 for each licence issued under the Emergency Powers (No. 254) Order, 1943 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 37 of 1943), which related to the licensing of persons engaged in the business of producing, processing and selling specified classes of agricultural seeds, and £315, representing £1 for each licence issued under the Emergency Powers (Export of Dead Poultry and Rabbits) Order, 1941 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 536 of 1941).”

To whom were those dead poultry and rabbit licences issued?

Mr. O Broin.—To persons engaged in the trade of exporting poultry and rabbits throughout the country. It is necessary that they have premises of a standard to suit our requirements. Provided they comply with these requirements, we issue licences to them for this purpose.

651. Were there similar requirements in the case of persons granted licences for seed processing?—That is somewhat different. There are four companies licenced for the production of seed— mangold, kale and rape seed—the Associated Seed Growers, Dublin; Seed Producers, Dublin; a company in Dundalk and the Sugar Company. On account of the difficulty—in fact, the impossibility— of getting supplies of imported seeds of these kinds during the war, arrangements were made with a number of seed merchants to form these companies for the purpose of engaging in the production of seeds. The companies operate by making contracts with farmers for the growing of the seeds and they then distribute them to the trade in the ordinary way. There are only a limited number of companies engaged in this business. They have to be licensed and each company pays a licence fee of £10.

652. Turning to the Vote itself, is the veterinary research mentioned in Subhead E.2. carried on at the Veterinary College or independently by officers of the Department?—Veterinary research at the moment is carried on at the Veterinary Laboratory in Thorndale.

653. Arising out of Subhead F.3., can you say what provision is being made for the supply of serum for animal diseases? I think Deputy Blowick is interested in the provision of serum for mastitis and abortion.

645. Deputy Blowick.—And also for braxy and louping ill in sheep.

Mr. O Broin.—Vaccines are made at Thorndale for some of these diseases. A braxy vaccine is made and supplied to the veterinary profession.

655. Deputy Blowick.—But there is an insufficient supply?—I have not heard any complaints as to inadequate supplies.

656. What about louping ill?—Off-hand I am unable to say what is the position in regard to that. As regards mastitis and contagious abortion, the position is that the investigations are largely in the experimental stage. The staff are not quite satisfied that they have discovered an abortion vaccine which is effective in all cases. They think that penicillin is going to be effective against mastitis but I do not think that the experience, in this country at any rate, of the use of that preparation has been sufficiently extensive to enable them to say definitely what the results may be.

657. Deputy Briscoe.—It is the intention to develop and increase the manufacture of these items?—Yes. We have actually bought a large farm out near Clondalkin and we intend to erect on it a veterinary laboratory where there will be a very big extension of the production of vaccines of various kinds and of course a great extension of these investigations into animal diseases. At present, the accommodation at Thorndale is rather limited. It is working to its full capacity and we cannot extend Thorndale.

658. Chairman.—I do not know whether it is a fair question but some years ago there was a vaccine known as Strain 19 for contagious abortion. Has that been found successful or has the Department used it at all?—It has been used but I am not very positive about the results. I think in certain cases it has given satisfactory results. I could not be positive, without consulting our veterinary people, as to what the position is at the moment.

659. Deputy Brady.—Arising out of Subhead G.3. why was it that such a small amount was expended out of the sum provided for fertiliser subsidies?—It was not necessary to pay the subsidies. The fertiliser manufacturers were able to get materials at a much cheaper rate than they anticipated when the Estimate was being prepared.

660. Deputy Briscoe.—Due to the reduction in freights?—Yes; we thought freights would be very much higher.

661. Deputy Brady.—In regard to Subhead H., how do you account for the reduction in the grants to county committees of Agriculture?—That is largely on account of the lime subsidy. We give a certain sum in respect of lime and we find every year that there is a certain amount which is not expended within the year. Farmers sometimes apply for lime but for some reason or other do not draw it. There is always a residue left in each county and the aggregate makes up the sum left over every year.

662. Deputy Blowick.—What does Subhead M.4.—loans and grants for agricultural purposes—cover?—We give loans for the purchase of stallions, premium bulls, various agricultural implements and machinery—hand sprayers and things of that kind.

663. What does Subhead M.9. cover?— The Farm Improvements Scheme is still described as a temporary scheme in the sense that it has to be approved every year. In fact, the intention of the Government, as announced in the White Paper, is, to make the Farm Improvements Scheme a permanent scheme.

664. Does this particular grant cover the whole field of farm improvements?— It does but this is only the amount expended in the financial year.

665. In what way does the expenditure of £16,000 arise under Subhead O.3.?— The bulk of it would arise from expenditure on staff and travelling expenses. The expenditure on staff would be about £11,000 and on travelling expenses about £5,000. We have a number of potato inspectors in the black scab area and, in addition, we have some staff engaged in the propagation of foundation stock potatoes. That work is mainly concentrated in Donegal.

666. Can you say what areas are affected by black scab?—The principal area, of course, is the Cooley area in County Louth. There is another area in County Mayo.

667. I was interested in that because when it came up at a meeting of the County Committee of Agriculture I was rather surprised to know that we had black scab in our county?—I cannot give the boundaries of it offhand, but it includes a considerable area in North West Mayo. The disease has been there for while and we have to take the usual precautions to prevent the spread of it outside that area.

668. Could you say whether there is any hope of stamping it out?—So far as the people in the area are concerned, by sowing immune varieties of potatoes they can produce good crops of potatoes. It is our main concern to see that they do not sow potatoes liable to attack by black scab. The great risk is that the virus of the disease may be spread, even though the tubers may be healthy, to other parts of the country by adhering particles of soil.

669. Have you compulsory powers to compel farmers living in the affected areas to sow immune varieties?—We have; we can prevent them from sowing any others.

670. The rest depends on the efficiency of the inspector whose duty it is to see that they comply with these regulations? —Yes.

VOTE 30—AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SUBSIDIES.

Mr. Seán O Broin called and examined.

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

“Subsidies, Allowances, etc., for Dairy Produce.

“24. The expenditure under this heading includes £819,151 16s. 3d. for allowances on the production of creamery butter, the authorised rates being of such amount as enabled the price of milk supplied to creameries to be maintained at 10½d. per gallon for the period 1st April to 30th November, 1944, and at 1/-per gallon for the period 1st December, 1944, to 31st March, 1945. Allowances were also payable to butter factory proprietors and non-manufacturing exporters on non-creamery butter acquired from producers, the sums disbursed totalling £7,374 8s. 7d. The balance of the charge to this Vote, amounting to £25,473 15s. 2d., represents part of a payment of £40,000 on account, made to the Butter Marketing Committee in respect of the estimated cost of cold storing creamery butter in 1944 for winter use. As in the previous year, the Vote provision was insufficient to meet the commitments involved, and allowances on the production of creamery butter and the acquisition of non-creamery butter, to the amount of £17,382 16s. 5d., were paid from the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund, together with a sum of £14,526 4s. 10d., being the balance of the advance of £40,000 made to the Butter Marketing Committee. The supplementary payments made from the fund are referred to in the succeeding paragraph,”

Mr. Maher.—I have no additional information to give on that paragraph. It shows how the expenditure has been incurred on the Vote and subsequently on the fund when the Vote provision was exhausted.

672. Deputy Briscoe.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General is not raising any suggestion that a Supplementary Estimate should have been introduced?

Mr. Maher.—That matter is being regularised and Dáil Eireann is already aware of the practice.

673. Deputy Briscoe.—It is not for that purpose?

Mr. Maher.—No, it is for information.

674. Chairman.—There is a further note, as follows:—

“Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Acts, 1935 to 1941, and Emergency Powers (No. 270) Order, 1943.

Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund.

“25. In connection with an increase in the price of creamery butter on and from 29th November, 1943, levies were imposed on stocks of butter in hand at the commencement of business on that date, and on creamery butter produced on 29th and 30th November, 1943. The income of the fund, which amounted to £101,669 15s. 9d. as compared with £297,924 in the previous year, was derived mainly from these sources, but receipts also accrued from levies, at considerably lower rates, on creamery butter produced on and after 1st December, 1943.

In addition to expenditure of £729,097 11s. 5d. from the Vote for agriculture produce subsidies and from the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund in the year 1943-44 on allowances in respect of creamery butter produced and non-creamery butter acquired during that year, payments amounting to £87,827 17s. 11d. were also made from the fund in the year under review, bringing the total cost of these allowances for the year 1943-44 to £816,925 9s. 4d. As indicated in paragraph 24, the fund was also utilised to supplement the Vote expenditure on production and acquisition allowances for the year 1944-45, the disbursements totalling £17,382 16s. 5d. Sums amounting to £48,241 3s. 1d. were paid to creameries in connection with the Department’s scheme for the cold storage of creamery butter for winter requirements in 1943-44, and the balance of the expenditure from the fund, £69,295 12s. 7d., related to payments made to the Butter Marketing Committee. Of the last mentioned item, £4,776 represented issues made to meet administrative expenses. In addition, the committee was recouped trading losses for the years 1942-43 and 1943-44 amounting to £49,993 7s. 9d. and relating mainly to cold storage operations in the latter period. As stated in the previous paragraph, £14,526 4s. 10d., part of a payment of £40,000 on account made to the committee in respect of the estimated cost of cold storing creamery butter in 1944 for winter use, was charged to the fund.

I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding the method of calculating the allowances paid to certain creameries in connection with the Department’s scheme for the cold storage of creamery butter for winter use in 1943-44.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—Yes, the details of the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund will be found on page 97 of the Accounts. As regards the last paragraph, we notice that, in cases where creameries cold-stored butter both in their own cold stores and in public cold stores, the Department aggregated the quantities for the purpose of calculating the amounts payable. In some cases this meant a slightly increased cost and, on querying the Accounting Officer, he informed me that it is in accordance with the usual practice of the Department to aggregate the two quantities for the purpose of arriving at the charge and that any other method of calculating the allowance, without prior notice to the creameries, would be contrary to the terms of the circular issued to the creameries. I have accepted that explanation, but it is quite possible that if substantial charges appear in later accounts we may ask the Accounting Officer to get the approval of the Department of Finance.

675. Deputy Briscoe.—Is not the bulk of the cold storage conducted in Dublin? —Yes.

676. Has the Department considered any other method than the present one, which is, apparently, very satisfactory but very costly. The bulk of the cold storage is in Dublin and I think that, whether the space is occupied or not to the full of the estimated requirements, a charge is still made?—Yes. The cold stores that are used are:—three in Dublin, two in Cork, two in Limerick, one in Waterford, one in Fenit, one in Clonmel and one in Sligo and the creameries have their own cold stores as well.

677. It is the question of cold storage generally. As I understand it, from the information given to me—I may be entirely wrong—an estimate has to be made as to the approximate amount of butter that would be stored. The cold storage people take the view that for butter storage nothing else can be stored in that particular accommodation, because of the taint that would arise to the butter and when butter is not available in the quantities set out there is this tremendous charge for no butter stored at all. The vast bulk accrues in Dublin. Similarly, there is an objection on the part of other traders that, when they want to make arrangements for storing, the storage is not available as it is booked, although not in use. I do not know if there can be any better system than the present one, but it looks to be on the costly side and some people say that that argument about keeping a place empty is stretched a little too far at some times?—I do not know if the position is just as described, but I know that the charges made by the cold stores have been gone into very carefully by our Department over a number of years. Every year they go into the question of the charges carefully and have conferences with the owners of the cold stores and I think we are satisfied that the charges made are as reasonable as they could be. As to the effect on outside cold stores, I suppose we would take the view that butter should have priority.

678. I have no doubt that the matter is under constant and careful attention, this year and at all times, but I am not quite satisfied in my mind that the position is 100 per cent. good.

679. Chairman.—If there are no further questions, we can turn to the Vote itself on page 96. Deputies will see that the account of receipts and payments in respect of the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund during the year ended 31st March, 1945, is set out on page 97.

VOTE 31—FISHERIES.

Mr. Seán O Broin further examined.

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

“Subhead G .2.—Advances for Boats and Gear.

“26. No advances were made to the Sea Fisheries Association from this subhead during the year under review. The total of advances for boats and gear to 31st March, 1945, amounted to £138,750. The half-yearly instalments of the annuities set up to repay these advances falling due to 31st March, 1945, amounted to £93,587 11s. 3d., while the sums collected by the Sea Fisheries Association from borrowers and transferred to the Deparament in payment of the annuity instalments amounted to £94,146 10s. 3d., including £10,058 10s. 7d. repaid in the year under review and credited to Appropriations in Aid. At 31st March, 1945, therefore, the repayments were in advance to the extent of £558 19s. 0d.”

Deputy Briscoe.—This is the first time that you had repayments in advance, in the history of the Sea Fisheries?—I think it has been tending in that direction for the last few years.

681. Deputy Briscoe.—It is quite a different picture from what it was many years ago. It looks healthier.

682. Chairman.—Does this really arise from a deduction in the payments made to the fishermen, on the basis of the sales?—The contributions from the fishermen are collected in that way, a certain percentage of their catch being taken over by the Association in repayment of the loans made to the fishermen. In that way, there is a direct relationship between the quantities of fish caught and the amount of money which the Sea Fisheries Association can obtain.

683. Chairman.—That would account for the payments?—Yes. Better returns from the fishing would account for the satisfactory condition of the repayments.

Chairman.—There is a further note, as follows:—

“Subhead G. 3.—Advances for General Development.

“27, No advances were made to the Sea Fisheries Association for general development during the year under review. The amount of the advances made in previous years and in course of redemption at the 31st March, 1944, was £1,522 14s. 3d., and these advances were re-payable over a period of 20 years by half-yearly instalments, covering principal and interest. The association decided, however, to discharge its liability forthwith, and during the year a sum of £1,242 19s. 1d., representing the value, at the date of repayment of all outstanding instalments, was received and is included in the Appropriations in Aid. There were, therefore, no advances for general development in course of redemption at 31st March, 1945.”

684. Deputy Brady.—Is it due to the war conditions that there was no advance requirement by the Sea Fisheries Association?—They did spend a sum of money on the construction of a lobster pond in County Donegal but they were able to repay the sum advanced at once out of the proceeds of their ordinary marketing transactions.

685. Chairman.—Who sells the lobsters? —The Sea Fisheries Association, I think.

686. Were they sold on the ordinary market?—I could not say off-hand what the destination of the lobsters would be.

Chairman.—The note continues:—

“Fishery Loans.

“28. Repayments of fishery loans, which are accounted for as Appropriations in Aid, amounted to £4 13s. 0d., and the balance outstanding on these loans at 31st March, 1945, was £20,246 4s. 9d., including arrears of £20,208 14s. 5d. There were no remissions during the year under the Fisheries (Revision of Loans) Act, 1931.”

687. Deputy Briscoe.—These outstanding arrears are not these old arrears which have been under discussion for a number of years?—They are. They were under discussion by the Department of Agriculture in the old days.

688. Is it not the intention of the Department to have them written off and finished with?—Yes.

689. Deputy Dockrell.—They go back a great number of years?—Yes, to the Congested Districts Board or the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction.

690. Deputy Briscoe.—I think this Committee has had sufficient evidence that a great number of these could be regarded as wholly irrecoverable?—We think that the balance of £20,246 4s. 9d. is wholly irrecoverable.

691. Deputy Briscoe.—Would you not think it worth while getting the sanction of the Department of Finance and save the appearance of this every year in the accounts?—It would not be desirable to do it at the moment.

692. Chairman.—I understand this matter was raised before and it was considered desirable to continue showing it on the accounts for the present.

693. Deputy Briscoe.—As a matter of policy?—Yes.

694. Deputy Lydon.—On Subhead E. 3. —Sea Fisheries Protection—can you say what steps are taken to protect our fisheries?—At one time we had two boats engaged on the fishery protection services. During the war these boats were taken over by the Department of Defence which undertook to perform the protection services that we had formerly performed. Now it has been decided that the Department of Defence will continue to perform that service as a permanent measure.

695. Chairman.—Can you say if the Department of Defence is, in fact, doing that?—We have heard no complaints of failure on their part to carry out that duty.

696. Deputy Lydon.—Are you aware that Spanish trawlers are constantly around the Aran Islands, County Galway?—I am not, but the position may be that they keep sufficiently far out to avoid an infringement of the law.

697. Deputy Briscoe.—The position in regard to this matter, I think, is that there has to be some co-operation between the Department of Defence and the Gardaí. As I understand it, if people see any of those foreign boats fishing inshore near any of our small ports they notify the Guards. The Guards then take the matter up with a view to seeing if anything can be done about the matter?—Yes, and this subhead is for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the Gardaí.

698. Deputy Blowick.—Are there any reports reaching the Department about poaching?—I have not seen any reports recently.

699. Deputy Briscoe.—Would you consider it advisable to ask the headquarters of the Gardaí if a number of complaints have been made of foreign boats fishing around the coast and whether any indication would be given to the Department that the Gardaí would be as alert as possible when such complaints reach them. I do not know that the ordinary Guard really knows the extent of his responsibilities in this matter when he gets a complaint?—The position, of course, is that very much cannot be done if a boat is not available to pursue these trawlers. Without a boat much cannot be done to deal with a vessel that may be infringing our laws. I would like to say that I think there is fairly close contact between our Fisheries Branch and the headquarters of the Gardaí and that the Guards are doing all that they can.

Deputy Dockrell.—I have never heard of any failure on the part of the Guards in this matter. They always do their duty, and are very alert.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 4—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL.

Mr. W. E. Wann called and examined.

700. Deputy Briscoe.—How are the Appropriations in Aid made up?—Of audit fees.

701. I take it the position is that your Department gets recouped for certain duties it carries out?—Yes. We are sometimes asked by the Department of Finance to carry out certain audits. In that way these audit fees become payable.

The witness withdrew.

* See Appendix IX.