Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1951 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1949 - 1950

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTN

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 5ú Nollaig, 1951.

Wednesday, 5th December, 1951.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Mr. W. E. Wann (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. M. Breathnach, Mr. J. O’Donovan and Mr. P. O’Kelly (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

607. Chairman.—Paragraph 18 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead H.—Printing.

It was observed in the course of audit of the expenditure on printing that the normal procedure in connection with the placing of contracts was not always followed, and I am in communication with the Accounting Officer on the matter.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wann.—The points at issue were that in a number of cases contracts had been placed without inviting competitive tenders and that sometimes the formal approval of estimates received was not given until the deliveries had actually been completed. It was also noticed that estimates had been invited by correspondence, no official form of tender embodying conditions of contract having been issued. The Accounting Officer has informed me that the departures from normal procedure generally arose from the urgency of the work and the knowledge that only certain firms were in a position to submit a tender but that steps had been taken to invite competitive tenders in future and to ensure that tenders are approved before the work is actually put in hands.

608. Chairman.—Have you anything to add, Mr. Carr?

Mr. Carr.—I should like to say that at the particular time the Stationery Office was finding great difficulty in getting certain classes of work done. Even where efforts had been made to get competitive tenders it had not been found possible to place orders on that basis and it was frequently necessary to get in touch with individual firms and ask them to do the work. For certain types of work only certain firms are equipped to do it and that tends to restrict competition for that particular class of work. However, at the moment even in cases such as that the reasons why we have had to depart from strict contractual procedure are recorded at the time. Unfortunately, in some cases at that time they were not so recorded because of the urgency of work.

609. You will appreciate that this is a point which the Committee must take notice of because it has always, been the case that we have had to insist that the proper system of contract must be observed in all State matters. But if you can say that it is being cleared up, I am sure the Committee will accept that?—I can assure the Committee that that is the position at the moment. In any case, it is happening almost every day of the week that we are not able to get competitive tenders, but if we have to place orders on any other basis the reasons are indicated at’ the time.

610. There is also the matter of the date of approval being much later than the date of delivery. Even where there were no competitive tenders that seemed an odd way to do business?—I am afraid that that happened at the time because there was a particular rush of work in the Stationery Office and we were finding great difficulty in getting people to do the work, but, as I explained, before any order is now placed, the particular estimate or tender has to be formally approved.

That should be satisfactory.

611. Chairman.—Paragraph 19 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“A sum of £448 7s. 5d. was expended on printing and binding 250 copies of a handbook. The sanction of the Department of Finance had been obtained for an estimated expenditure of £160 on this work and I have asked that covering sanction be sought for the additional expenditure incurred.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wann.—The sanction of the Department of Finance has since been obtained.

612. Chairman.—What was this handbook?

Mr. Carr.—A Shipping List and Directory (Shipping Handbook, 1949). At the particular time the estimate was based on the prices which were regarded as ruling in 1945 and it was not found possible to get the book printed at anything approaching that price. Following several direct approaches to firms, one firm ultimately accepted it at a special estimate. The book was published in 1949 and the printing charges had gone up very substantially in the interval. The original figure of the estimate was about £160 and when eventually it was published the actual cost was about £448. There was a charge of £5 for paper. It was unfortunate that the matter was not covered at the time by going to Finance there and then and explaining the circumstances. That was overlooked, and I am sorry for it. I shall try to avoid that in the future.

As long as it will be avoided in the future it will be all right.—That will be done.

613. Deputy Davern.—Am I right in saying that stationery has increased by 400 per cent. in cost in the last four or five years?—I do not think it would be as much as 400 per cent., but the cost has been increasing. In fact, this year we have had to add 7 per cent. on the prices ruling up to 31st December last. There was an increase last year also. There have been very substantial increases in the last few years.

614. Chairman.—Paragraph 20 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Stores.

I am in communication with the Accounting Officer on certain points arising out of an examination of the records of equipment issued on location to Government Departments.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wánn.—The recording of stores (such as Typewriters, Dictaphones, Calculating Machines, etc.) issued on location during 1949-50 to Government Departments—which is, of course, essential to enable the Stationery Office to exercise control over such stores—was, in the main, not carried out, and therefore the records in relation to such stores were far from complete. The Accounting Officer agrees that this was the position and stated that it was brought about by staff depletions through illness and vacancies and that, with the allocation of the necessary staff, it was hoped to bring the work up to date.

Mr. Carr.—So far as our records are concerned, the work has been brought up to date. We have started a check of all the machinery on location to various Departments. Three Departments have already been dealt with. That work is being constantly pursued. We shall go right through all the Departments and bring all records up to date.

615. Chairman.—You appreciate that we are bound to consider this important because without a complete record, Departments could be asking for new equipment which might be lying surplus in another Department?—I appreciate that. I admit it was unfortunate at the time, but we have now brought it up to date and we will ensure that it is kept so and that all the records are procured. The work will be done.

616. Deputy D. O’Sullivan.—Under subhead F.2, what are the arrangements for the reprinting of issues of Dáil Debates? I have had occasion in the past few weeks to go to the Government Publications Office and I have been unable there to obtain copies pertaining to particular debates within 24 hours of publication?—The debates are printed off the evening that they reach Cahill’s from the Dáil and they are supposed to be with Deputies within two days. We usually run off between 700 and 800 copies of which about half go to the Dáil. We have then a number of subscribers to whom we send them. If we find the sales are going up for any particular debate, orders are given immediately for a reprint. There should be no prolonged delay, and I would like to know of any case in which delay occurs, because I could make arrangements at once for more copies. The type is left standing and, according as copies are required, they are run off. I think that in the near future we shall increase the number done daily because we find that the demand for debates is increasing. But at any time when more copies are required we can arrange at once for those copies to be made. The moment we get notice that there is a run on a particular issue because of a particular debate, orders are given there and then to increase the number.

Chairman.—Do not tell me the Irish people are becoming politically minded at last?—That is so. We find the demand is increasing.

617. I take it the type is kept for any particular issue only for quite a short time and that you could not have a reprint later on?—The type must be kept standing until the bound volumes are run off. The first issue is unrevised. It is revised and the type must be kept standing until the Stationery Office gives authority for its dispersal. That may be in 12 months or even longer. Normally, we try to keep it within 12 months.

618. The type rent must come fairly high then?—That particular contract provides for type rent for the normal period of about 12 months. In the case of ordinary work six months is the period that we provide.

619. Under F.6, is it proposed to publish a new Oireachtas handbook?—The matter is under consideration at the moment.

620. It is quite a number of years since there was one?—Yes. Mr. Flynn, the compiler of the previous handbook, has died. The matter is under consideration at the moment and there is correspondence in progress between the Department of Finance and the Dáil Office in relation to it.

621. Under subhead J—Miscellaneous Office Supplies—I do not know whether it is fair to pursue the matter now, but last year I was anxious to find out something about the Palantype machines. I was anxious to know what had happened to them, how many have been procured and what Departments were using them or were they, in fact, being used at all. Admittedly, the question did not really arise last year because there was no expenditure on them in the year under review, but Mr. Whelehan was kind enough to send me a note explaining something about them. Later on he furnished me with some more detailed information. I cannot now remember the exact details, but it was not very clear to me as to whether or not these machines had been a success. I am wondering if you know anything about them?—As a, matter of fact I have some personal knowledge. I understand that the operators require very special training. It is not every girl who is capable of becoming a good operator of the Palantype Those who do are quite good. So far as I know there are only three or four Departments which have operators—one in the Department of Defence, I think one in Local Government, and one in the Department of Finance. There has been no demand for them from Departments. I suppose that speaks for itself. I know one girl who is competent at it, but I would not think many girls would care to have to operate them.

622. What is worrying me is that I take it they were fairly expensive machines. There seemed to be a fair amount of expenditure on them and on the training of the girls but it never got anywhere. There must have been a fair amount of expense involved in training and that, expenditure must have been nugatory?— The ones that were bought so far as I know are at present in use. There is one in use. I know in the Department of Finance. and also in the Department of Defence.

623. Have, you any in store?—No. I have seen no demand come through since last January. Not since then have I seen a demand for any Palantype machine.

Mr. Breathnach.—They were not all purchased. Some of them were rented. I think we purchased those for which we found there would be a demand. That was all.

624. Chairman.—Under subhead L— Books and Maps—I take it this excess is reflected in the first two items in the Appropriations in Aid where there is an increase on the sale of books and maps?—That is the position. There is a tendency to increase.

625. The only point that struck me, was that there was a Supplementary Estimate brought in, in which provision was made for an increase in the sales of Stationery Office publications and Oireachtas papers, including debates; various changes were made then in the spending subheads but no change was made in this particular one. I was wondering was there any reason for that because, if it was anticipated that more would be sold than provision had originally been made for, surely it should also be provided that more would be spent under the corresponding spending subhead?—I have not looked into that but we have been increasing our sales of maps and books and other things generally. I am informed that it relates rather to books for Departments.

626. That would be subhead H?—I am afraid I shall have to correct that. These are books which are bought for Departments—they are publications which various Departments demand and which we buy for them.

627. They are bought under subhead L. What struck me as peculiar was you were anticipating an increase at the time the Supplementary Estimate was introduced in the sales but you did not apparently anticipate any increase in your purchases. The Estimate itself was rather curious, I think, in respect of that very matter. In the Book of Estimates, page 106, the Estimate for the purchase of books and maps was down by £400 from the previous year, whereas the sale of Ordnance Survey maps and the sales of Stationery Office publications were estimated to be up considerably. However, I presume that notice should have been taken of that in the Dáil where it could have been queried rather than here. It looks rather odd that, with extra sales anticipated, there would not be extra expenditure, unless the stocks’ position might have affected that?—If the Committee wish I shall look into that.*

I would be glad if you would?—Very well.

628. The note in connection with item No. 5 of the Appropriations in Aid— Miscellaneous Sales—mentions that “The surplus is due to exceptional allowances being received for old typewriters traded out on the occasion of a purchase of new equipment.” Does not the term “traded out” imply a certain sort of contra account? If you are buying a new car, and you traded in the old car, what is usually shown is the net result. Do you show a complete purchase price and a complete selling price of each separate item?—Yes. It is on the same principle as the trading in of a second-hand car. If we have a machine to trade out we make a deal with the contractors.

But you show only the net result?—We show the whole figures.

629. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—With regard to item No. 8—Proportion recovered from local authorities of cost of printing and paper required under the Electoral and Juries Acts—how is the proportion arrived at which the local authorities have to repay?—The amount that we are entitled to recover from them is laid down in the Electoral Acts.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 11—EMPLOYMENT AND EMERGENCY SCHEMES.

Mr. Corish called and examined.

630. Chairman.—The following paragraphs. Nos. 13 to 17 inclusive, which are of an informative nature, appear in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General:—

“Vote 11—Employment and Emergency Schemes.

13. Provision was made under subhead F (Urban Employment Schemes), subhead G (Rural Employment Schemes) and subhead J (Reconditioning or Repair of Public Roads subject to Heavy Turf Transport) for grants towards expenditure by local authorities on schemes for the provision of employment. The grants were paid in instalments, during the progress of the various works, by the Department of Local Government acting on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office. Accounts of the expenditure are examined by Local Government Auditors whose certificates are furnished to me in support of the charge to the vote.

14. The expenditure charged to subhead H (Minor Employment Schemes) and subhead I (Development Works in Bogs used by Landholders and other Private Producers) related to schemes administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office. In some counties the schemes were carried out on its behalf by the county engineers who received imprests from the vote which were subsequently accounted for in detail.

15. The schemes for which provision was made under subheads K (Farm Improvements Scheme), L (Seed Distribution Scheme) and M (Lime Distribution Scheme) were administered, as in previous years, by the Department of Agriculture acting on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office. Owing to the introduction of the Farm Buildings Scheme (subhead M.ll, Vote 29, Agriculture), and the Land Rehabilitation Project (subhead M.13, Vote 29, Agriculture), the Farm Improvements Scheme was not operated as such in the 1949-50 season and the charge to subhead K includes farm improvement grants authorised in prior years only, and expenditure on a field drainage scheme operated in Counties Galway and Mayo. The grants paid amounted to £249,388 Os.11d., made up as follows:—

Expenditure on the field drainage scheme in Counties Galway and Mayo amounted to £16,641 18s. 6d., the work being carried out under a system of direct labour by men formerly employed on the production of hand-won turf. Farmers participating in the scheme were required to contribute towards the cost at the rate of £4 per statute acre, and a sum of £988 17s. Od. is included in the exchequer extra receipts in respect of these contributions. Administrative expenses amounting to £46,665 Os. 3d., on the schemes provided for under subheads K, L, and M, account for the remainder of the charge to subhead K.

16. The scheme for which provision was made under subhead N (Rural Improvements Scheme) was administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office, either directly or through the agency of county engineers. Grants were made towards the cost of works for the joint benefit of groups of two or more farmers, consisting of accommodation roads to houses, farms and bogs, small drainage works (excluding field drains), roads which connect two county roads, and the erection or reconstruction of small bridges. Only works which were estimated to cost not less than £40 were considered. In most cases grants of 75 per cent. of the estimated cost, excluding county engineers’ fees, were paid, the balance being contributed by the beneficiaries. Contributions in cash were usually collected, but contributions of either materials or labour were also considered, and the contributors or members of their families were afforded the opportunity of employment on the works. The expenditure during the year on approved works amounted to £103,016 12s. 9d. but cash contributions amounting to £22,516 18s. 6d. reduced the charge to. the vote of £80,499 14s. 3d.

17. The charge to subhead O (Miscellaneous Schemes) relates to expenditure on works of an emergency character or for the relief of unemployment and distress. These works were administered either by the Special Employment Schemes Office or by other Departments acting on its behalf.”

631. With regard to subhead G—Rural Employment Schemes—the excess on this subhead amounts to 73 per cent. of the original figure. I take it that you were only saved from serious trouble by the very heavy amounts which were not expended on other subheads. Do you not, think that it would have been proper to have informed the Dáil by means, say, of a token Supplementary Estimate?— At the time that this extra expenditure on sanitary service works became known, or was projected, we anticipated that we would have savings on the Vote elsewhere. We consulted the Department of Finance on the matter, and we decided that we could allow the Department of Local Government to extend their expenditure on sanitary service schemes in view of reduced expenditure on some other subheads.

632. I would like to hear what the Department of Finance has to say on this subject. I take it that this Committee is bound to take a serious view of any major change in the application of the subheads of an Estimate. I know, of course, that the Department of Finance view is, that all that really matters in the long run is that the first paragraph in an Estimate should be carried out, but it has been customary, I think, for anything in the nature of a large difference to be brought to the notice of the Dáil. Most of the Estimates in that particular year did, by means of token Supplementary Estimates, indicate major changes in programme. In this case, there . is only one of the subheads in which there is a great saving. I refer to subhead O, and the explanation given is that “the expenditure in respect of grants towards the cost of major harbour development works was less than estimated.” Taking: that, in conjunction with the explanation given in regard to sanitary service works, it looks as if there were some change of programme during the year More money was spent on sanitary service works and less on harbour development. Does the Department of Finance not think that this was a case which should have been brought to the notice of the Dáil by means of a token Supplementary Vote?—The Dáil, I think, has always realised that this is a Vote in respect of which there must be a certain amount of flexibility. It is a Vote for Employment and Emergency Schemes, and it has always been accepted that there has to be a certain amount of flexibility: that, if you cannot give employment on a particular class of work, you are entitled to select another class of work so long as it falls into the same group.

633. That raises the point that if you cannot give employment on a certain type of work, I think it would be of interest for the Dáil to know why that could not be done. In that particular year, the projected amount to be spent on harbour development was abandoned, while sanitary service works were carried out at more than the estimated figure. I would like to hear what the Department of Finance has to say on the matter?

Mr. O’Kelly.—My explanation would be the same as that given by the Accounting Officer. This Vote, originally, was for a bulk sum. There is a certain amount of fluidity between the subheads; originally the money was voted without any details and was segregated afterwards under subheads for information.

634. Chairman.—Can we take it that the figures given under the various subheads are really only notional?

Mr. O’Kelly.—It is recognised that there will have to be a certain amount of give and take in connection with the subheads during the year.

635. Chairman.—Though we have not reached the subhead yet I might mention while we are on the point that the note on subhead O indicates that the expenditure in respect of grants towards the cost of major harbour development works was less than estimated. It is obvious there is a saving of £71,000. What happened?

Mr. Corish.—That is a matter outside of our control. In regard to these major harbour development works it is the Department of Industry and Commerce that makes the grants for the different harbours. It was decided that a certain proportion of the State grants for these harbours should be charged against the Employment Schemes Account because of the employment given by the works. The Department had a very big Estimate at the beginning of the year and it was calculated that a certain percentage of that would be for labour. In the course of the year it was discovered that, for various reasons which they will be able to explain, some of these big harbour works could not proceed, probably because of shortage of material, machinery and equipment. It was only at a late stage, some time around Christmas or so, that we discovered that they were not likely to spend their full amount and that consequently the whole amount provided would not be taken from our Vote.

636. You are merely an agent in the matter. you just do what you are told? —That is so.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 29—AGRICULTURE.

Seán Ó Broin called and examined.

637. Chairman.—Paragraph 21 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead F.1—Agricultural Schools and Farms.

Provision was included in a Supplementary Estimate for the purchase of Grange Farm, Dunsany, Co. Meath, for use as a dairy cattle breeding farm and as a station at which live stock can be kept temporarily pending location under the Live Stock Improvement Schemes. The purchase was completed in December, 1949, and the charge to the subhead includes sums amounting to £41,403 13s. 8d.in connection therewith.”

What size was the farm?—About 500 acres.

638. Chairman.—Paragraph 22 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead G.4—Improvement of Poultry and Egg Production.

Apart from remuneration and travel ling expo-uses of staff amounting to £26,574 4s. 1d., and expenditure of £11,944 15s. 9d on equipment for poultry technicians, advertising, etc., the expenditure on this service consisted of grants towards the cost of providing accommodation and equipment for poultry-keeping and of subsidies on sales of day-old chicks. Grants paid directly amounted to £111,639 11s. 8d., comprising £19,454 17s. 5d. towards the establishment or extension of commercial hatcheries, £58,577 towards the establishment or extension of approved hatching-egg supply farms, poultry stations and pedigree poultry breeding farms, £33,151 16s. 6d. towards the cost incurred by ordinary poultry keepers in providing accommodation for adult birds, and £455 17s. 9d. in sundry grants. Also, £35,416 8s. 2d. was paid to certain County Committees of Agriculture in recoupment of grants made by them to ordinary poultry keepers towards the cost of chicken houses and equipment. Subsidies paid to licensed hatchery owners on sales of day-old chicks totalled £65,422 8s. Od.

Fees amounting to £2,285 3s. Od., in respect of poultry hatchery licences, etc., are brought to account as appropriations in aid.”

Could you say how much of all that was done under this subhead is still operative?—We have halted the expansion of hatcheries. We are not encouraging any more of those for the time being, but in other respects the operations that are described continue.

639. The various hatcheries are still functioning?—Yes, they are functioning and getting subsidies for day-old chicks; the poultry pathology technicians continue to operate and so on.

640. Chairman.—Paragraph 23 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:—

“Subhead H—Grants to County Committees of Agriculture.

The charge to this subhead comprises normal grant amounting to £156,430 10s. 0d., payments amounting to £49,235 9s. 6d. for the purpose of supplementing committees’ expenditure on the provision of lime for agricultural purposes, and recoupment of £1,397 12s. 7d. expended by eight committees on grants towards the cost of the erection of poultry-houses in Gaeltacht areas.

The normal grant of £156,430 10s. Od. includes a sum of £73,611, approximately equivalent to the proceeds of the agricultural rate of 2d. in the £ levied under the Agriculture Act, 1931, and extra grants, amounting to £82,819 10s. 0d., equivalent to the amount of the income of committees from rates in excess of the statutory minimum.”

Mr. Wann.—The scheme under which grants were paid towards the erection of poultry-houses in Gaeltacht areas was terminated, I think, in the year under review.

Mr, Ó Broin.—The poultry development scheme superseded this particular scheme.

641. Chairman.—Paragraph 24 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead I.3—Scheme to encourage the commercial production of glasshouse crops in Gaeltacht areas.

Reference was made in previous reports to the placing of contracts for the erection of central buildings and glasshouses in Counties Donegal and Galway. Further payments amounting to £6,469 19s. Od. were made in the year under review bringing the total amount paid on foot of these contracts to £96,234 19s. Od. on 31st March, 1950. The charge to the subhead also includes £214 4s. 11d. for the purchase of the site for the central buildings in County Galway and expenses in connection therewith, and £4,125 19s. 6d. for remuneration and travelling expenses of staff and general expenses.

Each grower for whom a glasshouse was erected entered into an agreement to repay £150 of the cost, with interest at 2½ per cent. per annum, by annual instalments of £20 or 10 per cent. of the net proceeds of the crop, whichever was the less, and to bear a proportion of the running expenses of the scheme. In the 1949 season, tomato plants propagated in the central buildings were transferred to 195 glasshouses and approximately 184 tons of tomatoes were marketed, the net proceeds of sale being £12,053 9s. 1d., of which £8,040 4s. 5d. was paid to the growers and the balance of £4,013 4s. 8d. credited to appropriations in aid. Under the terms of the agreements the amount due by the growers for the 1949 season was £4,682 14s. 7d. but, as it was considered that it would be a hardship on growers with abnormally low returns to be required to meet their liabilities in full, it was decided to postpone the collection of sums amounting to £707 Os. lOd. The total liability of the growers in respect of the 1948 and 1949 season outstanding at 31st March, 1950, was £1,100 6s. 7d.”

Mr. Wann.—The sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained for the deferment of the collection of the amount of £1,100 6s. 7d.

642. Chairman.—Has any of the amount outstanding for those years been collected since?

Mr. O Broin.—If there were any arrears collected, it would be from the proceeds of this year’s crop. I cannot say, because I do not think that the accounts have been finally settled yet.

643. Chairman.—Paragraph 25 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead M.M. 5—Special temporary scheme of loans for the purchase of cattle and sheep.

The charge to the subhead, £4,928 2s. 2d., represents sums paid to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, Limited, in respect of the cost of administering the special scheme of loans made to assist farmers who suffered serious and abnormal losses of cattle and sheep as a result of severe weather conditions in the early months of the year 1947.

The loans are free of interest and are repayable in four instalments spread over a period of four years. Sums amounting to £83,882 9s. 0d. received during the year in repayment of the loans are included under subhead P— Appropriations in Aid. The amount outstanding at 31st March, 1950, in respect of these loans was £162,586 1s. 7d. as shown in the statement appended to the account.”

Mr. Wann.—These loans were made in the year 1947-48 and they totalled £302,466 14s. 6d. As stated in the paragraph the amount outstanding at 31st March, 1950, was £162,586 1s. 7d.

644. Chairman.—If I remember correctly, in the first repayment year, more was paid than had been expected?

Mr. O Broin.—That was so.

645. I take it that that good record was not quite kept up?—The record has been very good on the whole. 1951 will be the last year for the repayment of the instalments. The amount outstanding at the end of last month was, I think, £11,000, so that payments have been coming in very well.

That is very good.

646. Chairman.—Paragraph 26 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead M.6—Improvement of the Creamery Industry.

As will be seen from the account, no expenditure was incurred under this subhead during the year.

Receipts arising from the disposal of creamery properties, which are brought to account as exchequer extra receipts, amounted to £10,654 18s. 4d. The total expenditure from voted moneys to 31st March, 1950, on the improvement of the creamery industry amounted to £1,197,869 5s. 6d. and receipts were £394.873 16s. 11d., leaving a net charge on public funds of £802,995 8s. 7d.”

Mr. Wann.—I understand that the consolidated balance sheet of the Dairy Disposal Company, Limited, has been furnished for the information of the Committee.*

647. Chairman.—This Company has made trading profits?

Mr. Ó Broin.—Yes. The accumulated profits are shown in the consolidated balance sheet. I think that the Committee have copies of this balance sheet for the year ended 31st December, 1950. The profit shown there is £365,384.

648. Is it proposed that any of the profits should be paid back to the Exchequer?—I do not think that point has been raised. The company are using these profits for further developments. They are putting the money back into the work of the company. If some of the profits had to be paid to the Exchequer, moneys would have to be provided in some other way for further developments.

649. It is a continuing business?—The money is used to continue the development of the business.

650. Chairman.—Paragraph 27 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:—

“Subhead M.11—Farm Buildings Scheme.

The expenditure charged to this subhead comprised £35,226 9s. 7d. for administrative expenses and £23,068 6s. 10d. for grants for the construction and improvement of farm buildings and for certain allied works. The grants made included £14,094 15s. 6d. paid to rated occupiers towards the cost of newly constructed farm buildings or extensions at rates varying according to the nature of the work undertaken; £2,384 13s. 3d. for improvement, repair or conversion of farm buildings on the basis of 50 per cent. of the approved estimated cost of the labour required, subject to a maximum grant for each building equal to three-fifths of the grant for a new building of the same class; and £6,588 18s. 1d. for other approved works on the basis of 50 per cent. of the approved estimated labour cost.”

Is this the first year of this scheme?— Yes, it was the first year in which it was fully in operation.

651. I take it that that is the reason why the administrative expenses are so high in proportion to the total expenditure?—Yes. At the end of the financial year there was a very big number of cases which had been inspected but on which work had not been commenced or certainly on which work had not been completed. All that preliminary work enabled the scheme to proceed in the following financial year.

652. Chairman.—Paragraph 28 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead M.13—Land Rehabilitation Project.

The Land Reclamation Act, 1949, authorised the Minister for Agriculture to carry out land reclamation, field drainage and other works and provided for the payment by the occupiers of a contribution towards the cost, the contribution being payable when the Minister certifies that the work has been completed or, if an occupier has so elected, by means of an annuity.

Under the project an occupier may arrange to have approved work carried out by the Department on agreeing to pay two-fifths of the estimated cost plus the cost of fertilisers supplied, subject to a maximum of £12 per acre, or alternatively, he may carry out the work himself and receive a grant amounting to two-thirds of the estimated cost, subject to a maximum of £20 per acre less the cost of fertilisers supplied.

A considerable quantity of machinery was purchased for operation by the Department. and, in addition, arrangements were made to assist individuals, contractors’ and farmers’ organisations to acquire machinery, to enable them to undertake work on the project, by the issue of free grants limited to one-third of the cost.

The expenditure charged to the subhead was made up as follows:—

There are some points about this project about which we should like some information. I do not know whether this is the correct place to seek that information but, perhaps, you could give us some assistance. Where work has been done by the Department without the use of machines—for instance, where men are employed digging drains—there is, apparently, a fairly considerable delay before they receive any money. The complaint has been made to me that men who are doing that type of work are not big contractors who can go to a bank and say: “I am doing this contract job; will you give me accommodation?” They have no means of borrowing against the work they are doing and some of them are finding it difficult to carry on. They are married men, with families and if a job lasts a month or two months, they may find themselves in serious difficulties. I wonder could payment be expedited so that some of the money, at least, could be advanced to these men?—As a matter of fact, the question of speeding up payments is one that we have constantly before our minds. Occasionally we may get into arrears for one reason or another; it is very hard to avoid that but I have not heard of any complaints recently about it. I shall inquire into the matter in the office when I go back and see if I can do anything in these particular cases. That is where the farmers are doing the work themselves?

No, but cases where the Department is doing it for the farmer and employing men. They are just ordinary working men who find it difficult when the money is not forthcoming for some time?—I agree that in these cases there should be no avoidable delays.

653. There is just this other point. Where land is drained, and it is considered necessary to apply ground limestone and superphosphates, I take it that in ordinary grasslands no difficulty would arise but up with us, where it is largely tillage land that is concerned, I am informed that the officials are insisting that as soon as the drains are made, the top dressing will be immediately applied, though the land is about to be ploughed. It does not take anyone with a great deal of agricultural knowledge to realise that the difficulty with lime is to keep it in the top layer. If the officials insist on the lime being applied before the land is ploughed, and it is then ploughed several inches below the surface, the whole effect is lost. A complaint was made to me that where a farmer objected to spreading the lime after the drains had been made, he was told that if he did not spread it then they would come and spread it for him. When he protested, he was told by the officials that it was not the concern of the Land Project what happened the lime, that their concern was to see that it went on. I think some warning on that point should be conveyed to the officials. We have a special difficulty in Donegal inasmuch as seed-potato growing is a major industry up there. Has it not been proved beyond doubt that ground limestone will seriously affect potatoes with scab? I do not know whether it would be possible but certainly it would be useful to arrange that where land has been drained and brought into rotation, the ground limestone should not be put on until after the potato crop had been removed and the land was being put under grass again.

I think that would be worth considering?—I shall certainly have that matter looked into.

654. Deputy D. O’Sullivan.—Does the item in respect of machinery and implements include provision for the one-third loan for private contractors?—That comes under the heading of grants towards the purchase of machinery and equipment.

655. Chairman.—In addition to grants, are loans not made?—That is so. The loans are made by the Agricultural Credit Corporation.

656. Deputy D. O’Sullivan—They still obtain for the purchase of tractors, etc.? —Yes.

657. Chairman.—Paragraph 29 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which is for information, reads;—

“Subhead M.14—Prevention of contagious abortion and other diseases in cattle.

The charge to the subhead includes £4,779 12s. 11d. for vaccine and £624 12s. 4d. for advertising, publicity and miscellaneous expenses in connection with the scheme for the prevention of contagious abortion in cattle which was initiated in October, 1949. The Department made available, free of charge, the required supplies of vaccine in the first year of operation of the scheme, and by arrangement with the Veterinary Medical Association of Ireland reduced fees were charged to farmers. by veterinary surgeons for carrying out the vaccinations.”

658. Chairman.—Paragraph 30 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:—

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

Reference was made in previous reports to arrangements whereby growers who sold wheat of the 1943 and 1944 harvests were enabled to obtain, in exchange for dockets which they had received from authorised purchasers of the wheat, fertiliser credit vouchers for 2s. 6d. per barrel of wheat sold, and the fertiliser suppliers were recouped the amount of the allowances made by them on submission of monthly claims supported by the relevant credit vouchers. These arrangements continued in operation during the year under review and were extended to growers of the 1945 crop. Including expenditure of £270,168 15s. 5d. charged to this subhead, the total paid to fertiliser suppliers in connection with the redemption of the 1943, 1944 and 1945 dockets amounted at 31st March, 1950, to £622,382 7s. 8d.”

Mr. Wann.—The scheme commenced in the cereal year 1943-44 and was operated up to and including 1947-48 when it was discontinued.

659. Deputy Davern.—May I ask if all the moneys due have now been paid by the Department?

Mr. O Broin.—The moneys claimed have been paid but there may be a number of people who lost their dockets and made no claims and who probably never will claim. I do not know how many of these there would be.

660. Chairman.—There would be a lot of small amounts. This represents, apparently, about 5,000,000 barrels?— Yes.

661. Chairman.—Paragraph 31 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead O.O—Flour and Wheaten Meal Subsidies.

The expenditure charged to this subhead, totalling £7,765,704 3s. 5d., was made up as follows:—

The flour subsidy, paid to Grain Importers (Éire), Limited, was the amount required to control the price of flour and to regulate the earnings of the milling industry, which were limited to a percentage of an agreed figure representing capital employed together with the cost of providing any additional capital in excess of the agreed figure. The expenditure comprised £7,597,517 11s. 3d. in respect of losses incurred in connection with the allocation of imported wheat and flour for periods up to the 28th January, 1950; £58,783 in respect of adjusting payments for the cereal year 1946-47 made by the company to the millers following examination of the millers’ accounts by officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce; and £32,699 8s. 9d. for remuneration of importers-distributors for wheat handled on behalf of the company in the calendar years 1946 and 1947.

The subsidy on wheaten meal for the cereal year 1948-49 was paid at varying rates representing the difference between the average cost of production, together with a profit of 2s. 6d. per sack, and the controlled selling price.”

Mr. Wann.—The last claim furnished by Grain Importers, Limited, in the year under review covered the period up to the 28th January, 1950. At the 31st March, 1950, there was an amount of approximately £177,000 still due to Grain Importers in respect of this period.

662. Chairman.—Paragraph 32 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General refers to subhead Q—Losses. It is as follows:—

“A sum of £160,000 was provided by supplementary estimate to recoup Grain Importers (Éire), Limited, the loss incurred on the disposal of 8,835 tons of oatmeal imported in 1948 at a cost of £442,899 12s. 4d. to meet a probable shortage following the poor harvest of 1947. 3,350 tons were sold to oatmeal millers for home consumption, but owing to the good harvest in 1948 and to deterioration in the condition of the oatmeal the company was unable to dispose of the remaining 5,485 tons to the millers, and 406 tons were ultimately sold for animal feeding and the balance disposed of to continental buyers. The receipts totalled £282,952 3s. 9d., resulting in a loss of £159,947 8s. 7d., which is charged to the subhead.”

Mr. Wann.—As stated in the paragraph the amount required to adjust the loss was provided by a Supplementary Estimate.

Chairman.—I suppose a full explanation was given to the Dáil.

633. Chairman.—Paragraph 33 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“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 on the date mentioned was £221 0s. 10d. and the amount of levy outstanding at 31st March, 1950, was £1,055 2s. 1d. As noted in the account, sums totalling £191 4s. 8d. were written off with the sanction of the Minister for Finance.”

Mr. Wann.—I have nothing to add.

Chairman.—I suppose this sum was gradually worn away with small collections. Before we deal with the subheads, I should like to compliment Mr. Ó Broin on the very full and clear notes on the different subheads. It makes the work of the Committee very easy indeed.

Mr. Ó Broin.—Thank you, Sir.

664. Chairman.—Subhead F.2 relates to grants to private agricultural schools, etc. Your note on page 96 mentions that a capital grant provided for one of the agricultural colleges was not earned. What does that mean, precisely?—That was a capital grant which was provided for St. Columba’s College, Rathfarnham, in respect of buildings which they intended to put up. In fact, they did not go on with the erection of the buildings.

665. Subhead G.1 refers to improvement of milk production. I suppose we ought to be pleased about this. It looks as if there was an improvement in the cowtesting business. Was more interest taken in it?—There was a very slight improvement.

Still, any improvement is to be welcomed.

666. Subhead K.4 refers to the grant in respect of demonstrations. in potato ensilage. Are these demonstrations still being continued?—No, they have ceased. These were demonstrations which were originally given by the Sugar Company. I think the value of potato ensilage is now pretty well generally recognised.

Is it not a fact that some counties are still continuing?

Deputy D. O’Sullivan.—Cork is.

667. Chairman.—Likewise Donegal. Subhead. M.3 refers to the printing of special departmental publications. Is there any hope of a report? I think it is some time now since there was one. What is the position?—I take it that you are referring to the Department’s Journal. I am sorry I cannot give the date of the last issue of the Journal. We try to get out at least one a year.

668. I do not think that there was one every year for some years. Was there? —There was one in 1950.

669. The only question I can ask in relation to the details of the Appropriations in Aid is why was it decided, as between item 4 and item 29, to move certain fees? They were estimated for under item 4 of the Appropriations in Aid and were, in fact, credited as miscellaneous receipts under item 29. What is the explanation?—These receipts refer to the blood testing of poultry. When the new poultry scheme was inaugurated the blood testing was done by poultry technicians and any receipts came in as Appropriations in Aid of that particular subhead. Formerly, that work was done in the Veterinary College. When it ceased to be done at the Veterinary College we transferred’ the receipts from No. 4 to No. 29.

670. On page 95. amongst the details. of the miscellaneous receipts, there is mention of “surplus receipts from sale of, artificial fertilisers manufactured under State guarantee surrendered by wholesale distributors”. Does that, in fact, mean surplus profits?—This was an adjustment of the arrangements with the fertiliser manufacturers. I think we had a talk about it here at a previous meeting of the Committee. A price was fixed for the fertilisers and the manufacturers were guaranteed certain profits and a subsidy was provided. In this particular case, I think they made more than the guaranteed profit. Accordingly, they handed the surplus over to us as a receipt. The arrangement originally made with the fertiliser manufacturers was that if they had any surplus at the end of the scheme it would be paid to the Department.

671. That is the point I tried to make— that “surplus receipts” really mean surplus profits. Is that not so?—From the point of view of the manufacturers,. yes.

672. I think the Committee should notice that the accounting, as a result of Supplementary Estimates, is extremely close. The surplus is only £133,000 out of a total of almost £10,000,000. Even though it was as a result of Supplementary Estimates, I think the Committee should note with pleasure that the Department has taken that much trouble.

VOTE 30—AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SUBSIDIES.

Seán Ó Broin further examined.

673. Chairman.—There are two paragraphs by the Comptroller and Auditor General, for information only. I will not read them, unless there is any point someone wishes to raise. On the Vote itself, there is only one subhead. Your Department was responsible for food subsidies, amounting to well over £10,000,000?— Yes. Of course, the subsidy on flour has gone back again to the Department of Industry and Commerce.

674. The Dairy Produce Account is on page 107. The Comptroller and Auditor General has a paragraph on it for information only.

VOTE 31—FISHERIES.

Seán Ó Broin further examined.

675. Chairman.—Paragraph 36 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead F.5—Compensation, etc.

The sum of £100,000 was provided under this subhead for compensation payable under sections 35 and 67 of the Fisheries Act, 1939, and for miscellaneous expenses. Compensation amounting to £1,333 4s. 3d. was paid to thirteen employees during the year under section 35 of the Act which provides for the restriction of the use of nets in freshwater and for the payment of compensation to the owners of nets and, under certain conditions, to their employees. No payments of compensation were made to owners of nets, or, under section 67 of the Act, in respect of transferable fisheries, the balance of the charge to the subhead, £46 18s. Od., being for miscellaneous expenses.”

Mr. Wann.—With regard to the compensation payable to owners of nets, I think that difficulties arose in connection with proof of title in certain cases?—Yes. There has been some delay, but there has been a good deal of progress lately and I think we are making headway now.

676. Chairman.—Paragraph 37 states:—

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

Including the advances of £60,000 charged in this account, the total advances for boats and gear to 31st March, 1950, amounted to £238,500. The half-yearly instalments of the annuities set up to repay these advances falling due to 31st March, 1950, amounted to £155,546 12s. 6d., while the sums collected by the Sea Fisheries Association from borrowers and transferred to the Department in payment of the annuity instalments amounted to £136,698 16s. 4d., including £9,067 Is. 9d. repaid in the year under review and credited to appropriations in aid. The repayments were, therefore, in arrear on 31st March, 1950, to the extent of £18,847 16s. 2d. as compared with £12,990 11s. 8d. on 31st March, 1949;”

Mr. Wann.—The increased arrears noted in the paragraph arose from the fact that while advances made to the Sea Fisheries Association are repayable on an annuity basis in half-yearly instalments, in practice the Association is required to repay only the total of the instalments received from their members by deduction from the proceeds of sale of fish caught.

677. Chairman.—Paragraph 38 is as follows:—

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

The total advances for general development in course of redemption by the Sea Fisheries Association, including a sum of £8,350 charged in this account, amounted at 31st March, 1950, to £20,450. These advances are repayable over a period of twenty years by half-yearly instalments covering principal and interest, and sums totalling £725 2s. 1d. were repaid during the year under review and are included in the appropriations in aid.”

Mr. Wann.—I think that the repayments are up to date.

678. Chairman.—Paragraph 39 reads:— “Fishery Loans.

Repayments of fishery loans, which are accounted for as appropriations in aid, amounted to £10 12s. 3d., and the balance outstanding on these loans at 31st March, 1950, was £20,434 18s. 7d. including arrears of £20,397 8s. 3d. There were no remissions during the year under the Fisheries (Revision of Loans) Act, 1931.”

Mr. Wann.—The repayment of £10 12s. 3d. during the year closes one small loan. From a scrutiny of the remaining loans, 199 would appear to be dormant and the question of writing off 191 of these is, I think, the subject of discussion between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Finance.

679. Chairman.—Have you made any progress, Mr. Ó Broin?

Mr. Ó Broin.—It is being discussed with the Department of Finance. I think we will have to write off a very considerable number of these old loans, which have been outstanding for a very long time.

680. Under subhead F.5—Compensation for for Inland Fisheries—you seem to have been very wide of the mark?—This is the matter referred to in paragraph 36 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XI.

* See Appendix XII.