|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 18ú Samhain, 1948.Thursday, 18th November, 1948.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
Mr. J. Maher (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. C. S. Almond, Mr. F. T. McHenry, Mr. J. Mooney and Miss M. Bhreathnach (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 29—AGRICULTURE.Seán ó Broin called and examined.885. Chairman.—Note 14 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:— Subhead E.2.—Veterinary Research. “The Estimates for the year under review included provision of £27,000 for the acquisition of lands for a new veterinary research institute, and for salaries, wages, allowances and general expenses in connection with its establishment and maintenance. The expenditure totalled £27,245 10s. 9d., comprising £22,000 for the purchase, in November, 1946, of certain farm lands at Brownsbarn, Clondalkin, County Dublin, and £5,245 10s. 9d. for wages and general expenses. The latter figure included the purchase, at a valuation of £1,797, of existing fodder crops and manure on the farm, together with sums totalling £2,339 7s. 3d. expended on the acquisition of live stock, implements and tools. Receipts in the period ended 31st March, 1947, which are included in the Appropriations in Aid, amounted to £848 1s. 0d., and accrued mainly from the sale of live stock.” Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Maher? Mr. Maher.—No. The paragraph sets out the financial position up to the 31st March, 1947. Deputy Sheldon.—In effect, though there was a slight excess on the Vote, that was off-set by the Appropriations in Aid which amounted to about three times the excess. I am wondering if, when the Estimate was framed, allowance was made for Appropriations in Aid? Mr. O Broin.—We only got possession of the place in December, 1946. These figures refer to the period between December, 1946, and the 31st March, 1947. A good part of the financial year had passed by the time we got possession of this place. Deputy Sheldon.—In other words, it was not expected that there would be Appropriations in Aid?—We expected some but we were not able to estimate them. Chairman.—In fact, a Supplementary Estimate was introduced to cover this purchase which was not provided for in the original Estimate?—That is so, Sir. 886. Chairman.—Perhaps not fully. Paragraph 15 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:— Subhead E.3.—Subscriptions, etc., to International and other Research Organisations. “Following approval by the Government, in August, 1946, of the submission of an application for membership of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and of the sending of a delegation headed by the Minister for Agriculture to a conference of the Organisation at Copenhagen, the Organisation admitted this country as a member and fixed the subscription to be paid for the year ended 30th June, 1947, at 53,000 United States dollars. Expenditure amounting to £13,695 13s. 9d. is included in the charge to this subhead, comprising £13,184 1s. 7d. in respect of the subscription and £511 12s 2d. for the travelling and other expenses of the delegation to the Copenhagen conference.” Mr. Maher.—That paragraph is for information only. Deputy Sheldon.—I notice that the payment had to be made in United States dollars. That means a withdrawal of 53,000 dollars from the number of dollars we have in any year?—Yes. Would it have been possible to make the payment in sterling?—No. The method of payment of the subscription was fixed by the Organisation and all countries have to follow the same practice. We think that the subscription is rather high and we are hoping to get it reduced. We are going to make representations to have it reduced, if possible. 887. Chairman.—Note 16 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:— Subhead G.3.—Fertilisers Subsidies. “As in previous years, the subsidy payable to manufacturers of artificial fertilisers was assessed by reference to accounts which were certified by the auditors of the concerns. The accounts for the 1944-45 fertiliser season showed that, after allowing the approved profit of 10/- per ton there remained a surplus of £39,512 4s. 8d., and this amount was remitted by the manufacturers to the Department in June, 1946, and credited to a suspense account. The rate of profit for the 1945-46 season was fixed at 8/-per ton, and on this basis the accounts for that season disclosed a deficit of £57,907 14s 7d., which was made good to the manufacturers, the net loss in respect of the two seasons, £18,395 9s. 11d., being charged to this subhead. The balance of the expenditure charged to the subhead relates to a payment of £12,025 13s. 6d. made to Mianraí, Teoranta, representing subsidy at the rate of 2s. 7d. per unit of sulphur in respect of 2,588 tons of Avoca pyrites, containing 93,102 units of sulphur, supplied to the manufacturers of artificial fertilisers in the year ended 31st March, 1946.” Mr. Maher.—The purpose of this paragraph is to show how the charge to the subhead of £30,421 3s. 5d. was arrived at. Chairman.—In what way does the rate of profit affect the deficits? It seems to have some effect on them if I read this paragraph correctly. Deputy Sheldon.—Perhaps if we knew how many tons were involved in the year 1944-45 and in the year 1945-16. it would help. Mr. Maher.—In the 1944-45 season the amount was 81,209 tons and in the 1945-46 season the amount was 106,416 tons. Mr. O Broin.—I should explain that we in Agriculture were unable to go very much into the details of this matter. The arrangements were somewhat as follows: the fertiliser manufacturers followed a particular programme for the year. At the end of the year their costs were examined by the Department of Industry and Commerce, who considered, in addition, the question of allowing them a particular profit. The Department of Industry and Commerce then told us whether there was a deficit or a surplus to be dealt with. Deputy Sheldon.—That Department annually examines their books?—Yes. We were depending on the certificate issued to us by the Department of Industry and Commerce. I do not say I understand finance but it strikes me as odd that in allowing an approved profit of 10/- per ton on 81,000 tons there was a surplus amounting to £39,512 4s. 8d. The approved rate of profit was then dropped to 8/- per ton and on 106,415 tons there is a deficit of £57,900. Frankly I do not understand it. 888. Chairman.—Have we any information as to the selling price of fertilisers in each year? Am I right in thinking that the manufacturers were guaranteed a rate of profit per ton on the output?—Yes. Am I right in thinking that they sold that output at something less in the year 1945-46 than the actual cost of production plus the net profit allowed them?—That is so. 889. Deputy Sheldon.—If you are allowed an approved rate of profit of 8/-per ton over your actual cost and at the end of the year there is a deficit of £57,000 there must be something wrong. If you are given a specific profit per ton you are bound to make that profit?—The selling price was the determining factor, and in that year it was less than in the previous year. We were trying to bring down the selling price of superphosphate to the farmers. It was the selling price that determined the deficit. This was a subsidy to enable the manufacturers to sell at a lower price than they would otherwise have been able to sell. 890. Does the phrase “approved profit at the rate of 8/- a ton” mean anything? If they were allowed 8/- a ton profit how could that profit turn into a. deficit? Did they not in fact make a profit of 8/- a ton?—Perhaps I might take a simple illustration: suppose the cost of manufacturing were £100 and on to that the manufacturers were allowed £6 profit. The product should bring in £106 when sold; but, in fact, if it were sold for £90 then someone would have to pay the difference between £90 and £106. I still do not understand how it works out if the cost of manufacture is £100 and you are allowed £6 profit. Does it mean that you did not get £106?—Not without the subsidy. Deputy Coburn.—Was there not a price fixed between the manufacturers and the Government which would carry a profit of 8/-?—Yes, it was sold at a fixed price. Deputy Sheldon.—The phrase “approved profit” is confusing?—Perhaps guaranteed profit would be more correct. Deputy Dockrell.—A guaranteed price which did not bring in a profit?—The expression “approved profit” is not mine. 891. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has been endeavouring to help me here but I do not quite understand it yet. Apparently in 1944-45 the manufacturers were allowed an approved profit of 10/- per ton and on that approved profit there remained a surplus of £39,512. Does that mean that no subsidy was paid in that year?—That is so. Therefore the selling price of fertilisers in the year 1944-45 covered a profit of 10/-a ton plus the cost of production to the manufacturers?—Yes. Mr. Maher.—The position in 1944-45, on my information, is that 81,309 tons were sold and a profit of 10/- per ton on that is £40,654. That is distributed among the six firms concerned, each of them getting a specific apportionment of that sum. After charging the approved net profit there remained a net surplus of £61,870 on manufacture. That also was distributed among the six firms and they refunded the difference. In the following year the position was the other way about—there was a loss. 892. Chairman.—We have, according to this, a surplus of £39,512 but the surplus profits, according to the statement you have just made, amounted to £61,870. Mr. Maher.—I am giving the net figures. That is only how the charge is made up because there are two years in the charges, 1944-45 and 1945-46. After crediting the surplus of £61,870 on manufacture there remained an over-all surplus of £39,512, which is the figure in the Report. Chairman.—Perhaps we could have some amplification of the position other than has been given us here. Would you send us a short statement setting out the whole matter clearly because it is difficult to appreciate exactly how the surplus arose in one year and the deficit in another. I know there are variations in the selling price as between one year and another?—I will try to get that information.* 893. Chairman.—The second paragraph relates, apparently, to the subsidy paid to Mianraí Teoranta. Deputy Sheldon.—This is another subsidy. I was wondering what is the effect per ton. It works out at £4 13s. roughly per ton of Avoca pyrites. I take it that by the time that is worked into the artificial manures the amount of subsidy per ton of artificial manures is small?—The pyrites are used for the manufacture of sulphuric acid. It is the sulphur in the pyrites that is important. The raw rock phosphate is treated with sulphuric acid in order to produce superphosphate. I could not say how that element of subsidy emerges in the finished superphosphate product. 894. Chairman.—I will read the note on it and it may help the Committee a little. According to the information supplied by the manufacturers the cost of production, including transport charges and overheads, for pyrites delivered up to November, 1945, was £6 5s. per ton. The output was sold at £2 per ton, less 3s. for dumping conders, which involved an average loss of £4 8s. a ton or 2s. 7d. per unit of 34 per cent. sulphur content, and payment of a subsidy at this rate was duly authorised by the Department of Finance. According to a note, one cwt. of pyrites is equal to one unit of sulphate and one unit of sulphate is equal to seven cwts. of sulphur. If the loss on seven cwts. of sulphur is £4 8s. the loss on one-fifth of one cwt. is equal to 2s. 7d. approximately. Now, have we any idea what the pyrites cost?—The object of the subsidy on the Avoca pyrites was to enable the manufacturers to have that commodity at roughly the same price as the price of imported pyrites during the year 1944-45. 895. Chairman.—I shall now proceed to Note 17 which relates to subhead H:— Subhead H.—Grants to County Committees of Agriculture. “The charge to this subhead comprises normal grant amounting to £128.094 10s., special temporary grant totalling £2,000, and payments amounting to £59,133 8s. 10d. for the purpose of supplementing committees’ expenditure on the provision of lime for agricultural purposes. The normal grant of £128,094 10s. includes a sum of £73,131, approximately equivalent to the proceeds of the agricultural rate of 2d. in the £levied under the Agriculture Act, 1931, and extra grants, amounting to £54,963 10s., equivalent to the amount of the income of committees from rates in excess of the statutory minimum 2d. rate.” Mr. Maher.—The charge in this subhead is £189,227 18s. 10d. and the purpose of this paragraph is to show how that amount has been arrived at. 896. Chairman.—Note 18 of the Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:— Subhead H.H.—Payments to County Committees of Agriculture. “In connection with the emergency scheme for the saving of the 1946 harvest, arrangements were made, in cooperation with the Department of Industry and Commerce, for the distribution of free rations of tea and sugar to voluntary harvest workers. Permits for the purchase of supplies were issued to the secretaries of county committees of agriculture and the preparation and distribution of the rations was in general carried out by the local branches of the Irish Red Cross Society. The cost of the tea and sugar was defrayed in the first instance from the county committees’ funds and the sum of £856 15s. 2d. charged to this subhead relates to the recoupment to participating committees of the amounts expended by them.” Mr. Maher.—The scheme operated in all counties except Mayo, Meath and Monaghan. 897. Chairman.—Note 19 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:— Subhead J.—National Stud. “As stated in paragraph 20 of my previous report, legislation providing for the establishment of a State stud farm at Tully, County Kildare, was embodied in the National Stud Act, 1945, which became law on 4th August, 1945, and provided for the setting up of a company to take leases or licences of the farm and to carry on the business of stud farming. Cólucht Groighe Náisiúnta na hÉireann, Teoranta (The Irish National Stud Company, Limited), was incorporated in April, 1946, and the 31st August, 1946, was, by Order of the Minister for Finance (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 289 of 1946), appointed as the transfer date for the purposes of the Act and on that date the use and occupation of the farm was granted to the company under licence from the Minister for Agriculture. Until the farm was taken over by the company, ordinary farming operations were continued on the property and the expenditure charged to the subhead, amounting to £9,341 9s. relates, therefore, to the disbursements in connection with these operations during the period 1st April to 31st August, 1946, the principal items being £1,811 19s. 1d. for wages and allowances, and £6.673 4s. 6d. for the purchase of live stock. Receipts in the period, which are brought to account as Appropriations in Aid, amounted to £4,633 9s. 10d., including £4,499 8s. 3d. from the sale of live stock.” Mr. Maher.—This paragraph is for information only and for the purpose of stating that the Company was granted a licence only, as the greater part of the property was held subject to the payment of an annual rent. 898. Deputy Sheldon.—Did the Company also get such live stock as was on the farm?—Yes, they took over the live stock, crops and implements at a valuation when they came into possession of the farm. There was a sum of £18,598 put as a valuation on the property they took over, such as crops, implements, live stock and so on. Where is that receipt shown in the accounts?—It is not shown as a receipt. This was paid for in shares issued to the Minister for Finance. In effect, there was no loss on the live stock?—No. Mr. Maher.—The accounts of the National Stud are audited separately and are laid on the Table of the House. 899. Chairman.—Paragraph 20 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:— Subhead M.5.—Improvement of the Creamery Industry. “As will be seen from the account, no expenditure was incurred under this subhead during the year. In my report on the appropriation accounts for the year 1944-45, I mentioned that the Dairy Disposal Company, Limited, 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. Further sums amounting to £28,000 were repaid by the Company during the year under review, making a total refund of £84,000 in respect of the advance referred to. Including other receipts in connection with the disposal of creamery properties totalling £4,323 7s. 7d., the sums paid over by the Company, which are brought to account as Exchequer extra receipts, amounted to £32,323 7s. 7d. The total Vote expenditure to 31st March, 1947, from moneys provided for the improvement of the creamery industry amounted to £1,197,847 5s. 6d., and receipts were £349,495 8s. 7d., leaving a net charge on public funds of £848,351 16s. 11d.” Mr. Maher.—This is an annual paragraph for the information of the Committee. 900. Chairman.—With reference to the figure of £848,351 16s. 11d., does the Company hold any assets against that figure?—The consolidated balance sheet shows that. A copy of this has been furnished to the Committee.* 901. Chairman.—Note 21 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:— Subhead M.10.—Potato Reserve Scheme. “It was again considered advisable to make arrangements to cope with a possible shortage of ware potatoes in Dublin and other urban areas and the Minister for Finance accordingly sanctioned the acquisition of a reserve of 1,000 tons of the 1945 crop, and authorised the cost to be charged to this subhead and receipts from the disposal of the reserve to be brought to account as Appropriations in Aid. Purchases of 675 tons, costing £7,339 14s. 9d., were made from merchants in County Donegal and County Mayo, but the supply of ware potatoes available in the country proving to be in excess of home requirements it was decided to include the reserve with other exports which were being made to the Continent by individual merchants through the British Ministry of Food, and sums totalling £7,171 17s. 6d. were received from the Ministery for the 675 tons so exported.” Mr. Maher.—The purpose of this paragraph is to show how the purchases were ultimately disposed of. 902. Deputy Coburn.—It lost nothing—there was not loss? Chairman.—£168. 903. Deputy Sheldon.—How did it arise that only 675 tons were purchased?—As the time went on we thought it was not necessary to purchase the total quantity of 1,000 tons. The supply position seemed to be better and we thought something like 600 or 700 tons would be sufficient. The only quarrel I have with the Department in this matter is that, in the event, there was a potato surplus and when a market was got it must have been the dead hand of the Department of Finance that interfered. I am wondering, from the purely financial angle, where the Dáil decided to do a thing like this, was it strictly in accord with the wish of the Dáil, where potatoes were supposed to be purchased for the home market, that a valuable concession in the way of a new export market, which was sought in order to relieve the growers, was, in fact, used to relieve the Department?—I do not think there was any conflict there. A quantity of 2,000 tons, in addition to the 675 tons, was sold to the British Ministry of Food for the British zone in Germany. 904. Deputy Sheldon.—There were potatoes taken for export which were brought back later and sold to the alcohol factory and the merchants were left at a loss?— I think that was in a subsequent season. 905. Chairman.—This note states quite clearly that the potatoes were purchased to meet a possible shortage of potatoes in Dublin and, as a shortage did not materialise, the Department was quite justified in disposing of the potatoes they had bought. 906. Chairman.—Regarding Note 22 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the first two paragraphs are explanatory and do not seem to call for comment. I will pass them over and read the third paragraph:— “The Committee of Public Accounts, in its report on the appropriation accounts for 1945-46, noted that the operation of the Compulsory Tillage Order for the 1945 season resulted in a net loss and that it was not possible for the Department ultimately to make a profit in connection with the enforcement of the Orders relating to compulsory tillage as surpluses in individual cases, after meeting the Minister’s expenses and the claims of other State Departments and of local authorities are paid over to the occupiers of entered holdings. The Committee expressed the hope that in these circumstances every effort would be made to keep losses at a minimum. I understand that in the case of holdings where the expenses exceeded the receipts, the total of the deficits for the seasons 1941 to 1946, inclusive, amounted, at the close of the 1946 season, to £7,669 11s. 4d.” Mr. Maher.—Following the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, the figure given in the last sentence was included in that paragraph. 907. Deputy Sheldon.—I would like to make it absolutely definite that we may take it that the net loss on the service was this figure of £7,669 11s. 4d. Mr. Maher.—That is the total. Deputy Sheldon.—That is the point I want to get at. Does that mean that this is the net loss?—Yes. 908. Deputy Dockrell.—It does not take into account the £64,871 16s. for salaries and wages and allowances?—No. So, in effect, it makes it greater, if that were not done?—You could not attribute all that cost to the few cases where we entered on holdings. The deficits arose only in connection with certain holdings which were entered on. In 1946 we entered on about 65 holdings. The tillage staff was engaged in enforcing the Compulsory Tillage Order all over the country—on over a couple of hundred thousand holdings. This deficit arose on actual tillage operations where we had to enter on the holdings and do the tillage ourselves or let the land in conacre. 909. Chairman.—Had you any case where you actually secured a surplus?— Yes, but we cannot set off these surpluses against deficits. In all cases where you had a surplus there was full indemnification for the expenses incurred?—Yes. 910. Deputy Dockrell.—Was the cost of the Compulsory Tillage Order much greater than the £7,669?—Yes, the cost of staff was considerably greater. 911. Chairman.—The next note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:— Subhead P.—Appropriations in Aid. Levy on the slaughter of cattle and sheep. “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 £539 14s. 11d., and the amount of levy outstanding at 31st March, 1947, was £2,445 17s. 1d. As noted in the account, sums totalling £526 14s. 8d. were written off with the sanction of the Minister for Finance.” Mr. Maher.—That is for information only. I understand that the figure at 31st March, 1948, was slightly over £2,000. 912. Chairman.—What you are now doing is collecting a levy which was first imposed in 1936? Mr. Maher.—In 1934. It ceased to be enforced as from 1st August, 1936. 913. Chairman.—Did you collect anything during the year under review?— Yes. We collect £300 or £400 every year. In some cases, the levies are being paid in instalments, and, as long as we can. collect, we will naturally go on collecting. It involves very little work but in cases where we are satisfied that there is no use in pressing for the arrears we ask the Department of Finance to give us authority to write off the debts. What is the amount outstanding?— Something about £2,000. The total amount of the levies collected up to 31st March, 1948, was about £449,000 and there is only this comparatively small sum of £2,000 left. You said that this remnant does not cost very much to collect?—It does not. So that it is still a profitable business? —It is still something we should continue to collect. 914. Chairman.—The next note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:— Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer. “As will be seen from the account, fees amounting to £327 were received in respect of licences granted under Emergency Powers Orders. 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 £287 representing £1 for each licence issued under the Emergency Powers (Export of Dead Poultry and Rabbits) Order 1945 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 141 of 1945). The Orders referred to were made under the Emergency Powers Acts and were continued in force by the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946.” 915. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead E.4., are the trials and experiments referred to in the note something carried out by the Department outside the colleges?—They are mainly at the Department’s farms. They are small trials—pig feeding trials, trials to test out the efficacy of certain seed dressings and various things of that sort which are brought to our notice from time to time and on which we have to be able to give information to the public. 916. Deputy O’Sullivan.—With regard to subhead F.8., what is the general outline of the scheme in relation to the training of instructors in horticulture?— At present we hold a competition for young men who want to become horticultural instructors and we give them a year’s course at Johnstown Castle, followed by a year’s course at the Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin. The best of that group are then allowed to compete for horticultural scholarships at University College, Dublin. The University horticultural course lasts four years, and at the end of that period students get a degree in horticulture and are eligible for appointment as county instructors in horticulture. How many trainees do you have each year?—The existing scheme has been in operation for a few years. We take eight each year into Johnstown Castle. Some have completed their course there and at the Botanic Gardens, and have gone on to the University course. There are a few scholarships offered each year. How do you select them?—By competition. It is a scheme which has been in operation only for the past few years and we may have to change it again because it is not working out quite to our satisfaction. 917. Chairman.—Arising out of the note on fertilisers subsidies, the Committee might be interested to know that under subhead G.3 the actual expenditure was almost £47,000 less than the grant, so that a considerable saving was realised on that subhead?—That is so. 918. Deputy Coburn.—With regard to Subhead I.3 relating to instruction in connection with special land settlement schemes, that would refer to people who got land?—Yes. That has ceased now. We provided a special instructor for the people brought up from the Gaeltacht areas to Co. Meath, but that arrangement has finished. 919. Chairman.—Does that mean that the Department are fully satisfied that the need for this instruction no longer exists?—Yes, for this special instruction. Deputy Coburn.—One would imagine that people who got land should know all about it and should not need instruction, or else they should not get it. Chairman.—The farming conditions with which these people had to contend in Co. Meath were very different from those to which they had been accustomed at home. Deputy Coburn.—Surely it would be better to leave them in the places they know. Chairman.—The Deputy might say that in the Dáil and see what the Mayo and Galway men will say to him. 920. Deputy Sheldon.—In connection with subhead G.1., could we have the number of cows entered for test in the two years referred to? The note mentions that there was an increase in the number entered?—I have the figures here for four years. The number of cows under test in 1944 was 53,226: in 1945, 54,874; and in 1946, 56,277. Did you mention that you had figures for a fourth year?—Yes, 1947—55,663. There was a slight decrease in that year, but these accounts only bring us up to 1946-47. There has been a gradual increase?— Yes, a very slight increase. 921. The note to subhead 1.2 seems to be slightly contradictory of the note to subhead 1.1 but I do not think it is meant to be. Under 1.1, it is mentioned that the full number of rams required was not obtainable and under 1.2 it says that two rams allowed for in the estimate were not placed. I take it that they were not even purchased? That would not in the normal way explain a saving but would mean a probable loss?—They were not purchased. 922. In the note to subhead M.3, it is stated that the expenditure in connection with the Department’s Journal was lower than was expected. I am wondering how that arose?—I think the reason is that there was only one issue of the Journal. We generally try to get out two issues in the year, but in this year there was only one issue, which would account for the lower expenditure. Was there any particular reason why the second issue was not made?—I think there was not sufficient material to hand. 923. The Journals are very interesting and it is a pity that the number of issues should be cut down?—The Journal contains a good deal of technical matter— results of investigations, research and so on—and sometimes the material might not be available to make up an issue. It does not mean that less work is being done; it means that results have not been secured in time?—That is probably the reason. Chairman.—And it does not indicate a decision to cut the number of issues down to one per year?—No. 924. Deputy O’Sullivan.—The note to subhead M.4 says that no applications were received for loans for the erection of poultry houses and that there was little demand for loans for the purchase of poultry equipment owing to the scarcity of materials. It would be interesting to know if that tendency is continuing?—It has changed very much since then. Since the beginning of this year, there has been a tremendous development in that direction. We have a special poultry scheme which is costing a very considerable amount of money in operation at present and it is being taken up very enthusiastically all over the country. 925. Deputy Dockrell.—I notice that the literary teacher at Clonakilty Agricultural Station received £30 for clerical work and £14 15s. for teaching Irish. Do the students there receive general education?—Yes; they have some lectures or classes in ordinary educational subjects. 926. Chairman.—In the notes it will be seen that certain sums were written off with the sanction of the Minister for Finance. They seem to be small sums, with the exception of one item, £526 14s. 8d. in respect of levies due under the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts. We have already dealt with that. VOTE 30—AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SUBSIDIES.Seán Ó Broin further examined.927. Chairman.—I do not suppose it is necessary to read note 25. Mr. Maher.—It shows how the total charge to the Vote, £924,948 9s. 4d., is arrived at. 928. Deputy Sheldon.—In effect, agricultural produce subsidies really are dairying subsidies?—Yes, to enable creamery butter to be sold to consumers at the prescribed price. 929. Mr. Maher.—Note 26 is in the same position. The details will be found on page 103, where the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation Fund) is given separately. VOTE 31—FISHERIES.Seán Ó Broin further examined.930. Chairman.—Note 27 by the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads as follows:— Subhead F.1.—Grants to Boards of Conservators and Local Authorities, etc. “In my last report I referred to a case in which a Board of Conservators was recouped a sum of £308 9s. 7d., being the costs in legal proceedings in connection with a conviction in the District Court for the unlawful possession of salmon illegally captured; the conviction referred to was quashed in the High Court on the ground, inter alia, that it had not been recorded in proper form, and an appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed. In the course of evidence the Committee of Public Accounts was informed that the Department of Finance was in communication with the Department of Justice with a view to ensuring that convictions should be properly recorded in the future.” Deputy Dockrell.—What is the exact meaning of the phrase “recorded in proper form”? What recording was not done that should have been done and by whom should it have been recorded?— That was a recording by the District Justice in the Court. There was some informality in the form in which he recorded his decision Deputy Dockrell.—It is a legal matter? —Yes. 931. Chairman.—It was not the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Justice?—No. I understand the size of the net should have been described and the Justice omitted to put in that the net should have been forfeited. I understand a new District Court Rule has been framed which is expected to meet the difficulty. In addition, we propose to draw the special attention of the draftsman to the point in connection with a new consolidating Fisheries Bill we are preparing at the moment. Chairman.—It will be amended in future legislation?—Yes, or by amendment of the existing court rules. 932. Chairman.—The note continues:— “Recoupment was made in the year under review to another Board of Conservators of costs incurred in almost similar circumstances. The Board secured a conviction in the District Court for a like offence, the conviction being subsequently confirmed in the Circuit Court. A conditional order of certiorari to quash the order of the District Justice on the ground, inter alia, that the conviction had not been recorded in proper form, was then obtained from the High Court, but on this occasion the application to make the conditional order absolute was disallowed and the order discharged by the High Court; the defendant, however, appealed to the Supreme Court, where the decision of the High Court was reversed and the conviction quashed. The Minister for Finance sanctioned recoupment of the costs incurred by the Board of Conservators and the amount involved, £237 17s. 1d., is included in the expenditure under this subhead.” Mr. Maher.—This paragraph is somewhat similar to the last, the difference being that in the first case the conditional order of certiorari was quashed, the order of the District Justice was made absolute by the High Court and this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court; whereas in the second case the conditional order was discharged by the High Court but this decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. 933. Chairman.—Did this case arise before or after the new District Court Rules had been made?—Before. 934. Deputy Sheldon.—Did it arise before this Committee referred to the matter? In other words, was it that the Department of Justice, in spite of the Committee, did not act quickly enough? Mr. Maher.—Recoupment in the second case is “in the year under review”. 935. Chairman.—This occurred before the Report of the Committee was published. Notes 28 and 29 are for information only and I do not propose to read them. 936. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Was it deliberate policy that there were no advances in the year under review to the Sea Fisheries Association?—It arose from the circumstances of the time. It was very difficult to get boats and gear of any kind and the Sea Fisheries Association did not require the advances. Anything they required they were able to finance out of their own funds. 937. Deputy O’Sullivan.—On page 104, how is it that the £5 under E.4, has not been spent? Deputy Sheldon.—Is there still a prospect of setting up a whale fishery?—This arose from the registration of certain ships in our register some years ago and that imposed certain obligations on us, but there are no whaling vessels in our register at the moment. The vessels were owned by people in Great Britain, and were registered here for a while. That does not obtain any longer. 938. Chairman.—How did you come to spend 10/- under E.5?—It was some small. item of miscellaneous expenditure. 939. Deputy Sheldon.—Under the Appropriations in Aid, there was an Estimate for Sales of Boats. Does that refer to boats under the control of the Sea Fisheries Association? There were no sales, but I would like to know if the Department owns the boats?—I cannot recall at the moment what this token item of £5 was intended to cover unless it related to some small boats used for hatchery work. The item is of no great significance. It certainly does not relate’ to the Sea Fisheries Association’s boats. The witness withdrew. VOTE 61—POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS.Leon Ó Broin called and examined.940. Chairman.—In our examination of the accounts of this Department, we have the assistance of Mr. Leon Ó Broin, Secretary of the Department. As this is the first occasion on which he has appeared before us in that capacity, I should like first of all to congratulate him on his appointment. Mr. O Broin.—Thank you very much, Sir. 941. Chairman.—Note 67 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General states:— Subhead E.1.—Conveyance of Mails by Rail. “Reference was made in paragraph 54 of my report on the accounts for the year 1944-45 to a revision of the payment to Córas Iompair Eireann for the conveyance of letter mails by rail. The revised annual payment of £120,000 was to be subject to review in the event of any further material change in the services rendered to the Departments and in view of the restoration of passenger trains to five days per week. from 6th July, 1945, and to all week. days from 15th August, 1945, the company asked for an increase in the annual payment. Following negotiations it was agreed to increase the annual payment to the company to £126,000 per annum as from 6th July, 1945, the increased payment to remain: in force to 31st December, 1946. Agreement was also reached on the payments to be made from 1st January, 1947,. providing for the payment of varying; amounts until 31st August, 1947, and for an annual payment of £104,719 as from 1st September, 1947, to continue until the services rendered shall vary materially.” The Comptroller and Auditor-General tells me that note 67 is for information only and brings that information up to date. Has there been any change in the services?—Yes, during the current year we restored the day mails and as a result we have arranged to pay Córas Iompair Eireann a higher sum, an extra £40,000. So, in fact, there has been a material variation?—Yes. 942. Deputy Sheldon.—Was the reduction in the main due to more mails being carried by road or to a general reduction in mail services?—To a general reduction in mail services. Now that these have been restored, the amount has gone up again?—Yes. 943. Chairman.—Note 68 states:— Subhead E.2.—Conveyance of Mails by Road. “In paragraph 63 of my last report I referred to a revision of the terms of the contract between the Department and Córas Iompair Eireann for the performance of Dublin City mail services. The revision provided, inter alia, for an increase of 45 per cent. on the basic rates payable under the contract in respect of the calendar years 1945 and 1946. As the result of further negotiations agreement was reached on the terms under which the company would operate for a period of five years from 1st January, 1947. The additional annual cost of implementing the agreement is estimated at £4,500.” 944. If there is no question arising out of that paragraph, we shall pass on to note 69 .which states:— Subhead H.2.—Losses by Default, Accident, etc. “The losses borne on the vote for the year ended 31st March, 1947, amounted to £3,396 9s. 1d. A classified’ schedule of these losses is set out at page 223. At page 225 particulars are given of 26 cases in which cash shortages or misappropriations amounting to £643 6s. 7½d.were discovered; the sums in question were made good and no charge to public funds was necessary.” 945. Deputy O’Sullivan.—What is the total staff of the Post Office?—Roughly 15,000, including all classes. And what would be the number roughly of those who have responsibility in respect of the handling of cash?—I am told about 10,000. 946. Deputy Sheldon.—At page 225 reference is made to miscellaneous losses not exceeding £20 and not involving suspicion of fraud or culpable negligence of Post Office servants. The counter losses are .given as £344. Are those included in the cash shortages or misappropriations mentioned in the paragraph?—No, they are included in the first figure of £3,396. 947. The officials concerned are not made to reimburse the Post Office where there is no suspicion of fraud or culpable negligence?—Where there is negligence, they are required to make some contribution towards the amount of the counter losses. 948. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Is there any particular percentage fixed for such contributions? Are they allowed to play off small losses?—You are thinking of something corresponding to the arrangement in the banks. We have no arrangements of that kind but the maximum which may be recouped at any one time does not exceed 5 per cent. of their wages. 949. In a case where a clerk may have a surplus one day and a loss on another day, can he place one against the other? Chairman.—He should not have a surplus. Deputy Dockrell.—He is not permitted to do that in the bank either. 950. Chairman.—My recollection is that the administration seems to have been considerably tightened up in recent years. Conditions were much worse 15 or 16 years ago. Note 70, which relates to stores, appears to be for information only. I do not think it necessary to. read, the first two sub-paragraphs. The third subparagraph states:— “In 1944, the Department of Defence informed other Departments, including the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, that a quantity of cable, which was surplus to military needs, was available if required. Up to 1946, when the Department of Defence finally disposed of the remaining stocks to a commercial firm at £12 per ton, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs had accepted only small quantities of the cable as it considered that cable more suitable to its requirements could be acquired at a reasonable price. In 1946, however, owing to the increasing difficulty of obtaining supplies, it decided to avail of the surplus stocks of cable with the Department of Defence to meet prospective new works the inquiries for which originated only about that time. It then learned that the stocks had been disposed of and immediately took steps to re-purchase, which was effected at a price of £30 10s. per ton, the charge to the Vote in respect of the transaction being £2,318.” Mr. Maher.—The Accounting Officer has since informed me that at that time the Department did not need more than a small section of cable, a fact which would have justified the use of so expensive a substitute. It was expected that for future requirements it would be possible to obtain standard submarine cable reasonably quickly and at no higher cost. 951. Deputy Sheldon.—It seems that the Department of Defence did not dispose of the remaining stock until 1946. I am wondering whether the Department of Defence let the Post Office know that they were about to dispose of this cable? 952. Chairman.—I do not think the Department of Defence at the actual moment of the sale notified you at all?— I am informed that they did not inform us at that precise moment. Deputy Sheldon.—I hope the Revenue Commissioners got after the gentleman who bought the cable at £12 a ton and sold it back to you at £30 per ton. 953. Chairman.—The final sub-paragraph states:— “In addition to the engineering stores shown in Appendix II as valued at £371,845 on the 31st March, 1947, engineering stores to the value of £13 were held on behalf of other Government Departments. Stores other than engineering stores held at that date were valued at £208,411, included in this amount being a sum of £32,501 in respect of stores held for other Government Departments.” Mr. Maher.—That is a paragraph for information only. 954. Chairman.—Note 71 states:— Revenue. “A test examination of the accounts of the postal, telegraph and telephone services was carried out with satisfactory results. Sums due for telephone services amounting in all to £80 12s. 10d. were written off during the year as irrecoverable.” 955. Chairman.—Note 72, which also deals with the test examination, states:— “The accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended 31st December, 1946, were submitted to a test examination with satisfactory results. As in the previous year, the figure shown in the accounts in respect of the total interest credited to depositors has, for various reasons, been estimated but any necessary adjustment will be made in a subsequent year.” 956. Chairman.—Note 73, dealing with the Post Office Factory, states:— “A test examination was applied to the accounts of the Post Office Factory with satisfactory results. Including works in progress on 31st March, 1947, the expenditure on manufacturing jobs during the year amounted to £30,556, expenditure on repair work (other than repairs to mechanical transport) amounted to £17,315, and expenditure on mechanical transport repairs to z£3,361.” 957. Deputy Sheldon.—Is satisfactory progress being made with the installation of telephones under the new system of doing it by regions?—Yes. We have found the system quite satisfactory. We try to clear the cases in a particular region before going on to another. 958. In regard to subhead A. 3. there is a note to the effect that the saving was due to anticipated salary scale increases which did not materialise. Did they subsequently materialise?—Yes. 959. Chairman.—What is the total expenditure, can you tell us, on the Departmen of Posts and Telegraphs in salaries, wages and allowances?—Under all head’s? Yes, if it is available?—About £2¾ millions. 960. Deputy Sheldon.—In regard to subhead E. 2. does that ‘figure of the excess, £7,000, include that extra payment for the Dublin services?—Yes, it would, Sir. 961. Chairman.—Under subhead E.5 there has been a considerable increase in the expenditure originally estimated for the conveyance of mail by air. I assume that is due to the fact that you are carrying more and more?—Yes, Sir, that is generally the reason. 962. Deputy Dockrell.—Is there any internal conveyance of mail by air?—No, we have no internal arrangements. 963. Deputy Sheldon.—Is there a possibility of speeding up some of the mails, say, from the West of Ireland north to Donegal? Apparently they come via Dublin. Is there a possibility of a service via Sligo?—Recently I looked into a case of that sort and what the Deputy says is right. There is a good deal of difficulty in the arrangements between the North West and the West of Ireland. We are looking into that, as a matter of fact. Chairman.—I am allowing Deputy Sheldon to satisfy his curiosity but it has really nothing to do with the functions of this Committee. I think the question which I put to the Accounting Officer rather blazed the trail. 964. Deputy. Sheldon.—In regard to subhead G.2., has the position about uniform clothing improved?—It has improved, certainly, as compared with the period dealt with here. I am not sure whether at the moment it is entirely satisfactory or not. There has been a considerable amount of grousing in the country?—Yes. We had to suspend issues and reduce them but things have improved. Deputy Sheldon.—Of course, in the country there is always the difficulty in seeing that the man wears the uniform only when on duty. 965. Chairman.—In regard to incidental expenses, law charges etc., I must say I think that the estimate did not seem to be excessively generous. 966. Deputy Sheldon.—In regard to K., is there an improvement now in the supply of engineering materials?—Yes, Sir. It is gradually improving?—Yes. You would hardly call it satisfactory?— Not entirely satisfactory yet but there has been some improvement. 967. What about telephone instruments?—They have become more plentiful also. There are some things still in short supply. 968. Deputy O’Sullivan.—In regard to subhead L. 2. would Mr. Ó Broin say can you only enter by consent or have you compulsory powers?—I understand we have some limited compulsory powers but usually we enter on land’ by consent. Usually by consent?—Yes. On that basis you seem to have got away with it very nicely—£171 for the whole country?—Yes. That might be a sort of firm payment, a final payment or a number of final payments made in the particular year. I have not got the details of that before me at the moment. Deputy Dockrell.—I think in most cases the Post Office seems to get it for nothing on account of the service rendered to the property owner concerned. I do not think you pay, as a rule, for telephone poles being put on land, do you? Deputy O’Sullivan.—The trouble there is that some other body might be getting service or might want the service over his neighbour’s property. There the difficulty arises for the Post Office if the neighbour objects to their going over his property. I think that that is the problem that confronts the Post Office people. Deputy Dockrell.—Certainly, the Post Office was never very givish in connection with it. which I think is quite right from their point of view. Mr. O Broin.—The problem is a rather small one. We do not often have to enter on private property. 969. Chairman.—Has there been some change in the administration of the civil aviation and meteorological wireless services? There is a provision in the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce for meteorological services also?— Yes. We look after the strictly engineering side of the work on a “service rendered” basis, I think. They do the operational work. You provide and instal the equipment and they operate and maintain it?—Yes. 970. Chairman.—That seems a rational division of labour and responsibility. The Appropriations in Aid realised £211,138. That is a very considerable sum. Is there any question any member of the Committee would like to put in relation to that subhead? 971. Deputy Sheldon.—What happened under Item (8) of the Appropriations in Aid that the receipts from the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Fund were actually lower than the original Estimate?—That happens quite often. You have to estimate in advance what the yield will be. The actual yield happened to be lower than the Estimate. Was the Supplementary Estimate early in the year?—Even still it would not be possible to estimate with absolute accuracy what you would get. 972. Chairman.—In regard to repayment services there is a note on page 227 that the labour expenditure incurred under this head is charged to a suspense account. These are for works executed for railway companies and others. There is a note in regard to extra remuneration (exceeding £30) on page 228. On page 230, note 17 states that salary payments in excess of the normal scale were made to certain sub-postmasters. I assume that all these were made with due authority? —Yes; each of them was covered with special sanction of the Department of Finance, Sir. And in respect of special circumstances?—Special circumstances. VOTE 62—WIRELESS BROADCASTING.Leon Ó Broin further examined.973. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has no note on this Vote and, therefore, I assume that we can turn to the Vote itself and consider the subheads. In subhead C. musical instruments, music etc., the expenditure is £440 8s. 5d. That seems to be an inconsiderable sum compared with the magnitude of the heading. The saving was due to inability to obtain the full requirements of printed music. Are the instruments for the orchestra provided by the Broadcasting Station?—The instrumentalists provide their own instruments but an occasional piano was bought. The greatest part of the subhead relates to the purchase of music?—Yes. 974. The licence fees estimated at £107,500 realised £111,521 and I gather that that will be considerably increased this year. I think that concludes the examination of the Post Office and Broadcasting accounts. The witness withdrew. VOTE 4—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL.Mr. W. E. Wann called975. Chairman.—The Appropriations in Aid were estimated at £2,075 and realised £2,075 10s. That is a very close estimate. Deputy Dockrell.—I wish they all could follow that. 976. Chairman.—It would seem that the Committee is perfectly satisfied with the account of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
