|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTN(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 12ú Aibreá, 1951.Thursday, l2th April, 1951.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
Mr. W. E. Wann (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. M. Breathnach and Mr. J. O’Donovan (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 29—AGRICULTURE.Seán ó Broin called and examined.894. Chairman.—Paragraph 18 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads as follows: “Subhead F.2—Grants to Private Agricultural Schools, etc. In connection with the establishment of a new agricultural college at Gurteen, Ballingarry, County Tipperary, the Department of Finance sanctioned the payment, subject to certain conditions, of a grant equal to one-half of the certified expenditure incurred on the necessary renovation, repair and construction of buildings, and on essential equipment, up to a maximum of £9,000. Under this arrangement payment of the full grant became due and was made from this subhead. Provision was included in a Supplementary Estimate for a grant of £10,500 to St. Patrick’s Agricultural College, Monaghan, towards the cost of purchasing the property and adapting and equipping it for the purposes of agricultural education and the grant was paid to the college authorities in the year under review.” That paragraph deals with the establishment of an agricultural college and an Estimate for a grant to another. What is the policy that is being followed in relation to these grants, generally?—These are the only two applications of this kind which we have had in recent years—the one from Gurteen in 1947 and the one in respect of St. Patrick’s, Monaghan, in 1948. In the case of Gurteen, they asked for half the expenditure on the renovation, repair and construction of buildings and half the expenditure on equipment. We dealt with that as described in the note. We got Department of Finance authority to pay half the cost, subject to an overriding maximum of £9,000. Half the cost was something over £9,000 but we had to confine ourselves to the £9,000. With regard to St. Patrick’s, Monaghan, they started their college some years before that and made no application at all at the start. However, they applied in 1948 for half the cost of the capital equipment for the college. Following the application, we got the authority of the Department of Finance to pay £10,500 to St. Patrick’s College. 895. Does that complete your responsibility or do you continue to pay grants? —We pay annual capitation grants and the salaries of some of the teachers in these schools. That is a standing feature of our scheme. We deal similarly with the colleges at Warrenstown, Pallaskenry and Mountbellew. 896. Deputy Briscoe.—Then St. Patrick’s College, in the manner in which it arose, was not included in the Estimate of the grants? Chairman.—It is in a Supplementary Estimate. 897. Paragraph 19 refers to subhead G.3—Fertilisers Subsidies—and reads as follows:— “The expenditure of £1,375 18s. 8d. charged to this subhead relates to payments made to two concerns in respect of superphosphate imported from Holland. Including £1,287 10s. 0d. paid in the previous year, the subsidy on this fertiliser, of which 3,559½ tons was imported, amounted to £2,663 8s. 8d. No subsidy was paid in the year under review to manufacturers of artificial fertilisers.” Deputy Briscoe.—I am not quite clear about this. Can the Accounting Officer explain it?—It is a balance from 1947-48 in respect of superphosphate which we imported from Holland. 898. Chairman.—Subhead G.4 relates to Improvement of Poultry and Egg Production. Paragraph 20, which refers to it, reads as follows:— “Apart from remuneration and travelling expenses of staff amounting to £33,420 8s. 10d., the expenditure on this service consisted mainly of grants towards the cost of providing accommodation and equipment for poultry-keeping and of subsidies on sales of dayold chicks. Grants paid direct by the Department totalled £35,978, comprising £11,805 towards the establishment or extension of commercial hatcheries, £23,031 towards the establishment or extension of approved hatching-egg supply farms and to pedigree poultry breeders, and £1,142 towards the cost incurred by ordinary poultry-keepers in providing poultry-houses to accommodate adult birds. Also, £15,644 10s. 9d. was paid to certain County Committees of Agriculture in recoupment of grants made by them to ordinary poultrykeepers towards the cost of chicken houses and equipment. Subsidies paid to licensed hatchery owners on sales of day-old chicks totalled £10,221 14s. 7d. Pursuant to Section 7 of the Poultry Hatcheries Act, 1947, which came into operation on 1st December, 1948, the Minister for Finance sanctioned fees varying from £1 to £20, according to incubator capacity, for poultry hatchery licences, and a fee of 10s. for a provisional permit for each egg supply farm. As will be seen from the account, fees amounting to £2,221 12s. 7d. were brought to account as appropriations in aid.” Deputy Briscoe.—I suggest that the first word of the title heading be deleted and that the heading should read: “Poultry and Egg Production.” Chairman.—We are not in the Dáil now. We must restrain ourselves as much as we can. Deputy Briscoe.—After all, the money is spent for the improvement of poultry and egg production. We know it has not improved and we are leaving ourselves open to criticism. Deputy Sheldon.—There may have been an improvement in the year in question. 899. Chairman.—Let us look at the subhead on page 94. The grant was £400,000. Only £106,000 odd was spent, leaving nearly three-quarters of the sum unspent. On page 98 we read a note on the subhead, which states that it was not found possible to proceed this year with operations under the poultry development scheme on the scale contemplated. Have you any comment to make on that?—This was the first year in which there was any substantial expenditure on the scheme, which really started on the 1st April, 1948. We were more or less in the dark as to the amount of money to provide. We had contemplated paying rates of subsidies on day-old chicks rather higher than we eventually decided to pay, and some items of payment were not discharged until the year 1949-50. 900. Deputy Briscoe.—I notice that under this item grants ranging from £1 to £20, depending on the size, are paid to people who acquire incubators. Does the Department keep any track of these incubators after the grant has been given and what is the position where these incubators have ceased to operate?—These incubating stations are subject to constant supervision. We have a staff for visiting the premises where these incubators are. They check on the number of day-old chicks distributed by the hatcheries and they go into their records very meticulously. It is on that examination and on the records that we pay the subsidies on day-old chicks. Deputy Sheldon.—The figures are fees paid by the hatcheries. Deputy Briscoe.—I thought they were grants. Mr. Ó Broin.—The grants are much more substantial. They range from £250 to £1,000 for the hatcheries. 901. Deputy Briscoe.—I suppose that at some time or another a report will be issued on this whole situation so that one will be able to see the net result?—So long as provision is made in the Vote, it will continue to be reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee. 902. Chairman.—What happens if a commercial hatchery is started and the owner then discontinues the business?— That is largely his own look-out. 903. What is the position when you have paid him a grant?—The grant we pay would be only a very small part of the total cost of establishing the centre. 904. Do you think that, generally speaking, they have all kept on in the business?—Generally speaking, they have. There were 117 in that year. There are 155 now. 905. Can you give a grant subsequently for an extension or for any number of hatcheries which the proprietor wishes to have?—Yes, but we generally put a ceiling to the size of the hatchery in respect of which we would pay a grant. We should not like, for example, to see one man with a hatchery that would cover half the country. 906. May we take it that it is not necessarily confined to farmers?—They are not farmers. They are mainly co-operative societies and commercial companies. 907. Deputy Briscoe.—Except in so far as grants are paid through the county committees of agriculture. Is that not so?—That is a different set of grants. But it is all under the one general scheme. 908. Chairman.—Paragraph 21, which relates to subhead H—Grants to County Committees of Agriculture—reads:— “The charge to this subhead comprises normal grant amounting to £139,858, special temporary grant totalling £4,883, payments amounting to £62,646 12s. 5d. for the purpose of supplementing committees’ expenditure on the production of lime for agricultural purposes, and recoupment of £1,563 7s. 11d. expended by seven committees on grants towards the cost of the erection of poultry-houses in Gaeltacht areas. The normal grant of £139,858 includes a sum of £73,343, approximately equivalent to the proceeds of the agricultural rate of 2d. in the £ levied under the Agriculture Act, 1931, and extra grants, amounting to £66,515, equivalent to the amount of the income of committees from rates in excess of the statutory minimum.” Do you pay a certain grant against the original statutory contribution?—In respect of anything over 2d. we pay an equivalent sum to the county committee. 909. Are any of them paying more than the 2d.?—All of them are paying more than the 2d. 910. Chairman.—Paragraph 22 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 paragraph 22 of the previous report to the placing of contracts amounting to £101,145 8s. Od. for the erection in each of the counties Donegal and Galway of a central building and 100 glasshouses, and to the payment of instalments totalling £45,685 on foot of the contracts. Further instalments amounting, to £44,080 were paid in the year under review. The charge to the subhead also includes £3,133 11s. Od. for architects’ fees, and £5,926 15s. 9d. 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 1948 season, tomato plants propagated in the central buildings were transferred to 143 glasshouses then ready for planting and approximately 111 tons of tomatoes were marketed, the net proceeds of sale being £13,794 2s. 0d., of which £10,855 6s. 1d. was paid to the growers and the balance of £2,938 15s. 11d., credited to appropriations in aid. The full amount due by the growers under the terms of the agreements was £3,369 12s. 7d., but owing to the fact that several glasshouses were not ready for planting until the season was well advanced, and to an outbreak of disease among the plants in one area, it was decided to postpone the collection of sums amounting to £430 16s. 8d.” I do not understand what “general expenses” may be in the reference to “remuneration and travelling expenses of staff, and general expenses.” Had you to send in a special staff?—At each of these centres we have a horticultural instructor. He has a certain amount of travelling to do locally. In addition, members of our headquarters staff have to keep in touch with the operations at each centre. They supervise the work generally. 911. Deputy Sheldon.—What is the total amount paid under this scheme by way of architect’s fees?—The usual fees for architects—5 per cent. on the amount of the contract. 912. What is the total amount? This year there was over £3,000 but I think that there was also a sum in the previous year, was there not?—It would be within the figure of 5 per cent. on the contract fees. The total contracts were over £100,000. 913. Chairman.—The original scheme was for a central building and 100 glasshouses in each county. Has that been modified?—Yes. There are five houses less in the Connemara area. Instead of 100 houses we have 95 there. 914. What about Donegal?—There are 100 in Donegal. 915. Deputy Briscoe.—Are all these houses still operating fully?—They are. 916. Chairman.—Do you have to do all the administrative work in connection with the sale of produce and so forth?— We have. A very considerable volume of work is involved in the sale of the produce, the making out of the accounts of the individual glasshouse holders and the distributing of the receipts. 917. How are these commodities marketed?— We generally try to get some one person to buy the produce at each centre but we have had experience of a few different methods. Sometimes the buyer buys the whole crop at a certain figure; in other cases we have had to arrange for a trader to sell the tomatoes on commission, to get the best price he could on the open market and receive a commission on his sales. 918. How would prices compare with prices on the Dublin market, not so good?—Some were sold on the Dublin market. It would be the Dublin market price less the commission of the salesman. 919. Deputy Sheldon.—At the end of the paragraph there is a note that it was decided to postpone the collection of sums amounting to £430. Was that collected the following year?—I do not think it was all collected. The sum was remitted because of losses? —It may have been further postponed in some cases but I am not quite certain. 920. Chairman.—Is there a manager in charge?—In Donegal and Connemara there is a central station which is under the control of a horticultural instructor. Each instructor has an assistant and at each centre there is also a foreman. A certain amount of casual labour is employed during the packing season and for various operations of that sort. 921. Can you get into the early market?—Donegal has a rather late season of course and it is not easy to get into the early market. I think that the turf—if there is any turf in these areas—gives them a great advantage in this business. In Aran the people should be able to compete with growers from any place. 922. Deputy Briscoe.—Would you say that generally speaking the experiment has been justified, that the quality of the the tomato crops has been good and that there is a possibility of this business becoming a permanent feature of work in the areas?—It is really very difficult to generalise in a matter of this sort. It has only been in operation for the last few years. The returns to the growers have varied a good deal. Some of them have been very unfortunate with disease. Apart from disease?—I suppose that the opinion of the people themselves would be more valuable than mine. 923. There is substantial State assistance for the development of tomato growing under these circumstances in these approved type glasshouses. There is a market for tomatoes in the country. Your Department probably controls the variety of tomato that will be grown in these houses. Packing is under your supervision and you ensure that they arrive in good condition. Taking it all round, with the experience your Department has had of it, does it appear that it will develop and become a feature of the agricultural life of these areas?—It is very difficult to make a definite statement on that. 924. I understood you to say that all of these houses were still in production? —Yes. 925. That would indicate that the owners are continuing, not abandoning the scheme?—It shows that the prospects to them are not discouraging. 926. Chairman.—Will the liability continue or will it decrease if the scheme remains as it is at present? Will you be able to reach the stage when you will not require very substantial aid?—It depends on whether we are going to continue to bear some of these charges or whether we can hand over all the business to the local people. 927. Will it be possible to set up an organisation by which it would be transferred to the local suppliers themselves? —We were hoping at one stage that all the houses and work in each area might be taken over by local co-operative societies which would assume full responsibility for the operation of the glasshouse scheme but we have not reached that position. 928. Deputy Briscoe.—Assistance is given under two heads. Advances are made to erect the houses themselves and these advances are repayable by the owners over a certain period under a certain agreement. Under that heading I understand that payments have been highly satisfactory, more so in fact than would have been expected. The other part of the subsidy is State expenditure on staff. That is also recouped to some extent from the returns on the sales?— The local operating costs are recouped but not the expenditure on the local horticultural instructor in charge or on headquarter’s staff. 929. In practically all cases advances for the houses are being repaid as anticipated?—In this year, yes, with the exception of £430. 930. This was an exceptional year due to disease, but normally?—There are difficulties every year as a matter of fact. 931. Chairman.—Have the horticultural instructors sufficient knowledge of the commercial side of the business or is the Department able to make up in the assistance it gives?—We give all the assistance possible in securing buyers for the crops. The local horticultural instructors’ job is mainly concerned with propagation of the crop and attention to it. Deputy Briscoe.—From the practical point of view things appear to be all right. but the sale of the crop is also affected by the removal of the tariff? 932. Chairman.—Paragraph 23 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 special scheme of loans 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 ceased in the course of the financial year 1947-48, and the charge to this subhead represents sums paid to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, Limited, in respect of the cost of administering the scheme, at the rate of 2 per cent. per annum on the amount of loans outstanding from time to time. As stated in paragraph 23 of the previous report, the loans are free of interest and are repayable in four instalments spread over a period of four years, the first instalment falling due eighteen months after the date of issue. Sums received during the year in repayment of loans amounted to £55,667 3s. 11d. and are included under subhead P—Appropriations in Aid. The amount outstanding at 31st March, 1949, in respect of these loans was £246,468 10s. 7d. as shown in the statement appended to the account.” Deputy Sheldon.—Has repayment continued to be satisfactory?—Yes, very satisfactory. 933. Chairman.—Have the loans for the purchase of cattle and sheep been cleared off?—The final instalments will not be due until the end of this year but so far payments have been coming in very well and there are practically no arrears. 934. With regard to subhead M.6— Improvement of the Creamery Industry —to which the Comptroller and Auditor-General refers in paragraph 24 of his Report, what was the purpose of this conversion of issued share capital into paidup capital?—The company were on the point of being involved in some litigation and were advised by their legal advisers that it would be better to have all the shares paid up before they entered on this litigation. In fact the litigation did not take place but in the meantime they took this precaution. 935. What was the advantage?—There was some legal point involved with which I am not very familiar. 936. I see that the total expenditure to the 31st March, 1949, on the improvement of the creamery industry amounted to £1,197,869 and receipts were £384,218 leaving a net charge on public founds of £813,650. Could you tell us why the vastly greater portion has to be borne by the Exchequer?—Originally when the company was being launched the sum of £1,126,000 was issued for the purpose of purchasing premises of proprietary creameries. The company has been operating for about 25 years and has been working about seventeen groups of creameries very successfully and has made a considerable amount of money. They have financed a number of new undertakings out of their own revenue and have paid very substantial sums in income tax. If the concern were to be liquidated now I think it would prove to be more than capable of discharging all liabilities. 937. The company has assets therefore? —The consolidated balance sheets which we furnish every year—the Committee have probably before them the balance sheet for the year ended 31st December, 1949—shows the position in brief.* 938. It seems to be in a very prosperous condition. Has the company paid off its obligations so far?—It has paid off all the money it owes with the exception of course of the original grant which could only be paid off if we were to liquidate the whole concern. They got a special advance of £112,000 in 1933 to cover trading losses and they have paid that off completely. 939. The profit and loss account shows a profit of £364,453 2s. 11d.; where did that go to?—That is all invested in the business; it is tied up in stocks, buildings, etc. 940. Your attitude is that the business is still expanding?—Yes. In recent years the Dairy Disposal Company have put extra travelling creameries on the road and are adding to their existing premises and are keeping their equipment and plant generally up-to-date. 941. How does the Minister for Agriculture stand in relation to this enterprise? Is he the owner?—The Minister is the owner but it is worked as a purely commercial concern by the directors who are seconded civil servants, and the Minister for Agriculture takes no hand in the day-to-day working of the business. 942. It seems to be in a very prosperous condition. The reserves seem to be very substantial. If the position is that they are able to finance further expansion and that they have on the other side these reserves, they are in a very prosperous condition?—They are. 943. Deputy J. J. Collins.—Listening to the statement that the group of creameries known as the Dairy Disposal Company are such successful undertakings, it is very surprising the Minister is inclined to throw them away, as he is about to do in Kerry?—The original idea of setting up this company was that they would take over proprietary creameries and hold them for a while, re-organise the areas and then hand over to local co-operative societies. Over the years there has been a good deal of criticism from various quarters on the grounds that the original purpose is not being fulfilled and that the Dairy Disposal Company are retaining the premises. 944. We have a case in County Limerick where the co-operative in a specified area refused to agree to the erection of a creamery and the Minister and the Dairy Disposal Company built a creamery there, to the detriment of the entire group of co-operative creameries around it. The attitude does not seem to be consistent, that is, the attitude in relation to the general underlying ideas of the Dairy Disposal Company when it was first initiated —handing back to the co-operatives. Where they are working well, this body comes in to build a creamery. It seems to be in conflict with the general idea?—I am not familiar with that case. In recent years there has been, as well as the criticism to which I referred, a demand for further development which only the Dairy Disposal Company can undertake—further development in, for example, parts of Kerry and Clare where they have creameries. There has been a good deal of local demand on the part of milk suppliers for further facilities, so the Dairy Disposal Company has been forced by public opinion to undertake additional responsibilities. In that case I have in mind they went against public opinion and they erected a creamery?—I do not know the circumstances of that case. 945. Chairman.—With regard to subhead M.10—Potato Reserve Scheme—referred to in paragraph 25 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report, is this a potato reserve scheme for a particular emergency or is it a standing commitment?—I do not think that there is anything I have to add to what is said in the note. We bought about 1,892 tons of potatoes and we did not require them all. We sold a considerable quantity to the Ministry of Food, after providing a comparatively small quantity for the Dublin market. The outcome of the whole transaction was a deficit of £4,000. That was only in this particular emergency—this is not a standing commitment, this potato reserve scheme?—No. 946. Deputy Briscoe.—What price was paid for these potatoes and at what price were they sold to the two different customers, the Dublin market and the British Food Ministry?—The average cost including transport, freight and so on was about £14 a ton and we sold the potatoes in the Dublin market at the price ruling in that market at the time. Some of them were sold at £10 15s. 0d. and some at £12 a ton. We sold 940 tons to the British Ministry of Food and realised £11 a ton. 947. How do we come to subsidise the sale of potatoes to the British Food Ministry, because that is what it amounts to?—Of course the whole purpose was to enable us to guard against a scarcity of potatoes in Dublin. We had to buy the potatoes and to have a reserve. When we did not require them all, we had to sell at the best price we could get. It was not really a subsidy to anybody. 948. We were not under contract to supply any to the Food Ministry that year?—We did supply a good deal of potatoes to the Food Ministry later in 1948, but that was a separate contract entirely apart from this transaction. 949. This supply was delivered in excess of the contract?—The Ministry of Food price was £11 a ton. 950. In that year we undertook to supply the Food Ministry with a certain amount at a certain price. In the same year we also bought potatoes in order to meet a certain situation in Dublin. There was supposed to be a shortage and high prices were being charged. The Dublin market did not absorb the amount of potatoes bought for Dublin and the surplus was sold to the British Ministry at the contract price for their ordinary requirements. Had we at that time fulfilled our contract to the Food Ministry, or were we short and had to fill up? Deputy Sheldon.—I think the position was that the British Ministry did not actually need the potatoes and they took them, to our advantage. We tried to get £11 from the British or otherwise we could throw them in the sea. I am aware of potatoes in my area being in jeopardy on Derry Quay and it took a great deal of pressure to get them disposed of to some advantage. Mr. Ó Broin.—I have not the precise dates when we sold to the British Ministry, but I think that what Deputy Sheldon says was the case. We had to try to get a market for these potatoes when we had them on our hands at the time. The alternative was to sell them to the alcohol factories at a lesser price. 951. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead O.10—Emergency Powers (Tillage) Orders —which is referred to in paragraph 27 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report, there is one point I would like to mention. It is not the first time it has occurred, but it is the first time it struck me that it needs an explanation. There was a charge to the subhead which represented a saving and the explanation on the subhead is that there was not as much done under the Emergency Powers (Tillage) Orders. In the receipts £23,703 were applied towards defraying expenses, including £2,076 brought to account as Appropriations in Aid during the year under review. It appears to me that the total cost of this is inclined to be disguised as far as the Appropriation Account is concerned, because if roughly £21,000 went towards defraying expenses directly, the real cost of the service would then run to something like £82,700. Part of the cost was drawn from the subhead and part was defrayed directly. I suggest a clearer picture would have been given if the total cost had been charged to the subhead and the total receipts brought in as Appropriations in Aid. If that had happened the figures would have been very close to the Estimate. Why was it decided that some of the receipts should be applied directly without appearing in the Appropriation Account?—I think the receipts all came in as Appropriations in Aid. The Comptroller and Auditor-General, in the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 27, says that the total receipts in connection with this service to 31st March, 1949, amounted to £28,057?—I see your point. 952. Some of the expenses were paid directly out of that?—These would be expenses of tilling, seeds, hiring tractors, fencing, caretaking and so on. 953. But some of those items are charged to the subhead. I wonder why all items were not and all receipts shown as Appropriations in Aid—it Would give a clearer picture?—I think all the expenses were charged to the subhead, and all receipts shown as Appropriations in Aid. In that event the only receipts were £2,000?—Yes, that is right. 954. But it says the total receipts in connection with this service amounted to £28,000. Something similar appeared in the note last year, but I am afraid I overlooked it?—In the Vote we had provision for the purchase of seeds, manures, machinery and implements. In subhead O.10 there was a provision of £7,250 in 1948-49. The expenses of these things would be charged to the subhead and the receipts should come in as Appropriations in Aid. 955. They do, but they were considerably less. I was wondering why the expenses should have been divided into the two types, one paid directly and the other which appears in the subhead?—If the Committee wishes, I will try to elucidate that point by sending in a statement* I would like it cleared. On the face of it, it looks as if part of the expenses had been concealed and the note in the subhead that there was less done than was anticipated might not necessarily be true. 956. Mr. Wann.—Was not the balance of the receipts credited to the subhead? —Yes. 957. In effect, there was only the net expenditure shown?—I do not think so, Mr. Wann. However, it is a point I would like to look into further. 958. Chairman.—In the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General it is stated that in the cases where the expenses exceeded the receipts, the total of the deficits amounted to £12,312 19s. 6d. as compared with £12,327 10s. 8d., so there was no change, practically, during the year?—No, Sir. Does that mean that the same amounts were still due?—Yes, that is so. 959. That there was no addition during the year?—Yes. It means that. When we entered on holdings, if we had a surplus over expenditure, we could not retain it as a profit. We had to expend all. If we made a deficit, there was nothing to offset that deficit. Even on the same holding we could not offset a deficit of one year by a profit from a previous year. We were handicapped in every way and the total deficits from 1940 to 1948 amounted to the figure mentioned by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. So that, with the cessation of compulsory tillage, this is a deficit that has to be faced?—Yes. 960. In regard to subhead P—Appropriations in Aid—there is a paragraph number 28 by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which is as follows:— “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 £345 0s. 7d., and the amount of levy outstanding at 31st March, 1949, was £1,467 7s. 7d. As noted in the account, sums totalling £246 2s. 10d. were written off with the sanction of the Minister for Finance.” There is an amount outstanding there and a smaller amount was written off. Was there any development of that situation? —This is a dying business. There is a very small sum of money outstanding and we hope to collect some of it. The work under this head will come to an end very soon. 961. In regard to the Vote proper, the Committee will see the notes on page 97 explaining the variations. In regard to subhead B—Travelling Expenses—the explanatory note says that the volume of travelling found necessary during the year increased more than was anticipated. Was there some special reason for that? —It is very difficult to estimate the volume of travelling. It depends on the circumstances that arise from time to time. There was a number of international meetings that we had to attend that year. We cannot always foresee what we may have to expend under the head of travelling. 962. The point that the Committee might be interested in is whether the travelling expenses arose from the same amount of work, whether it was as a result of an increase in the amount of work that had to be done or whether there may have been international conferences?—There were international conferences and that was one cause, certainly. In addition, there was a good deal of travelling by our veterinary inspectors which was additional to the normal. 963. In regard to subhead F.1—Agricultural Schools and Farms—according to the Appropriations in Aid—number 3, page 100—you got a certain proportion of those back?—Yes. Sales of produce is one item. 964. In regard to subhead F.2—Grants to Private Agricultural Schools, etc.—was the supplementary by way of increase in salaries?—It was for St. Patrick’s College, Monaghan. 965. With regard to F.7, what are these additional grants to University Colleges? —These were grants that were arranged with the University authorities towards the end of 1947. The negotiations on these were all conducted by the Minister for Finance. 966. What was the purpose of them?— It had been represented by the University, by both the Dublin College and the Cork College, that their funds were inadequate to meet their commitments and to enable them to keep going in the way that they would like. They had discussions with the Government at the time. The result was the authorisation to pay these additional grants—roughly, 50 per cent. of the normal statutory grants. 967. Is this to remain under a separate subhead, then?—I think it is, The first grants mentioned, £24,984 and £13.000, are specifically provided by statute. They probably have to remain separate in the Estimate all the time. Any additions would have to be shown separately. 968. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead F.8 —Educational Tours for Instructors in Agriculture, etc.—I was wondering what happened this year to prevent the tour. In a previous year it was had weather?— The agricultural instructors were not prepared to go on this tour on the terms that we had put to them. We were anxious that they should defray part of the cost themselves. They were not prepared to do that, so the tour fell through on that account. Chairman.—They would be paid their salaries and you thought they ought to pay part of the cost?—We thought they ought to pay part of the cost of the tour. 969. Deputy Kitt.—What proportion? —About one-third. That used to be the practice in former years. 970. Chairman.—In respect of G.1— Improvement of Milk Production—there was a decrease in the number of cows entered for test under the cow-testing scheme. How does that stand at present? —The number of cows under test in 1948 was down in comparison with 1947. The number was up again in 1949 but I have not the figures for 1950. 971. The scheme has not really given the satisfaction that had been expected? —No, it has not. It has been rather in a standstill position for quite a long time. 972. In regard to subhead G.3—Fertilisers Subsidies—there is a note explaining that no subsidy on superphosphate and compound fertilisers was required as the landed cost of the raw materials imported was substantially less than anticipated when the Estimate was framed. 973. In respect of G.4—Improvement of Poultry and Egg Production—is this £400,000 special to the particular year? —Yes. 974. There would be no carry over, then?—No. There was a saving surrendered at the end of the financial year. 975. What do you think the expenditure would be if it were going in a normal way?—In or around £200,000 is the provision that we are making currently for that scheme. 976. You provided a great deal more than is really required?—Yes, but we had nothing to guide us when we were framing the Estimate—nothing very precise. 977. In regard to subhead H—Grants to County Committees of Agriculture— the lime subsidy scheme was not availed of to the full extent provided for. Was there any reason for that?—That seems to be a standing feature of the lime subsidy scheme. I think Deputy Sheldon was inquiring on the same lines at a previous meeting. We never found that the total amount provided for the lime subsidy scheme was taken up. For some reason or other, there are always some people who will not take the lime or cannot take it and there is always a balance, great or small, left over at the end of the season. Deputy Sheldon.—I inquired locally about that. I discovered that what happens is that certain people apply for lime and when it is made available change their minds, for one reason or another, and that upsets the scheme. 978. Chairman.—Has transport anything to do with it? Deputy Sheldon.—No. Mr. Ó Broin.—It is weather conditions, and so on. 979. Deputy J. J. Collins.—Has the provision in respect of burnt lime disappeared?—It has not disappeared yet but I think it will disappear. Chairman.—Is it in this year’s Estimate?—There is only £15,000 and it is intended to be applied to sea sand. 980. You are providing lime under the scheme?—We are. 981. Deputy Kitt.—Was not the subsidy to the County Committees of Agriculture reduced in respect of burnt lime? —It was. Is not that one of the reasons why it was not available?—It probably would be but I do not think it was reduced in this particular year. 982. Deputy J. J. Collins.—It has disappeared?—It is disappearing. We have not enough in Limerick. Grants are no longer available to subsidise burnt lime and we are in a very peculiar position. The sand subsidy will remain. Is that so?—Yes. We are in a very peculiar position in Limerick in that one little pocket of the county has free access to a particular foreshore and can get all the sand they require for agricultural purposes and the rest of the county is cut out altogether. 983. Chairman.—In respect of subhead K.1—Agricultural Societies and Shows, including Miscellaneous Grants-in-Aid— do you bear the cost of sending the educational exhibits to the shows or do they make any refund?—We defray all the expenses in connection with the staging of the educational exhibits, say at the Spring Show, at Ballsbridge, and we send exhibits to some of the country shows as well. 984. Would not the country people like to see these exhibits?—As far as we can, we try to supply country shows with exhibits. 985. Chairman.—The provision under subhead K.3—Grant in respect of the Development of the Manufacture of Milk Powder—is a very small token Estimate. How does it come about?—There is a very long story associated with that. It arises out of a special arrangement that was made with the Dungarvan Co-operative Society in connection with the supply of dried milk to the Cow and Gate people in England. There was a rather complicated arrangement under which, first of all, there was an import duty upon foods of the same kind that the Cow and Gate people made. Then there was a subsidy arranged for the Dungarvan society under which they got a certain price for the milk foods made from their dried milk. This arrangement was come to many years ago and it was discovered, after the war had been on for a year or two that the Dungarvan people were making rather more money than they would have made in the ordinary way and the payment of the subsidy was suspended. Recently the Dungarvan Creamery has been raising the subject with us again and been asking us to clear up the whole matter. We propose to provide for the payment of the outstanding subsidies covering a number of years. That will be by a Supplementary Estimate which the Minister will no doubt explain in the Dáil, probably later on this year. 986. Deputy Sheldon.—In connection with subhead M.4—Loans and Grants for Agricultural Purposes, etc.—there is a note on page 99 which mentions that a smaller percentage than expected of the applications approved during the year fell within the scope of the scheme financed from this subhead. Does that mean that there were advances from somewhere else for loans and grants for agricultural purposes?—Yes, from the Agricultural Credit Corporation. 987. Chairman.—Is there any better explanation of the small expenditure under subhead M.11—Farm Buildings Scheme— than that contained in the note?—There is nothing really except what is printed in the note. 988. The note states that the expenditure incurred was mainly in respect of commitments entered into in the previous year in connection with the preparation of plans and specifications and attendances at conferences. So that really apart from these commitments there was nothing done?—No. 989. Deputy Kitt.—This work is going ahead now?—It is, since April, 1949. 990. Chairman.—In connection with subhead O.3—Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, Black Scab in Potatoes Orders, etc.—I see a reference to the purchase of seals. Are these seals required for all exports?—Yes, on potatoes exported. 991. On subhead O.5—Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Acts, 1933 to 1939, and Emergency Powers (Cereals) Orders, etc.—I see that there was a big saving which is stated to be due to many wheat growers not utilising their credit vouchers in time to enable merchants to claim recoupment of the value of the vouchers before the close of the year. How does this matter of the vouchers stand now?—There is a steady stream of vouchers coming in. They are coming in very irregularly and we cannot relate payments to the year to which we intended to relate them in the Estimate. We have to keep on dealing with them as they come along. 992. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—In regard to subhead O.6—Acquisition of Land (Allotments) (Amendment) Act, 1934—is it only the unemployed in urban areas who can qualify for these holdings?— Mainly the unemployed in urban areas who come within the terms of the Act. The Act prescribes various categories of people. In rural areas, where there is an approved association, it is possible also to bring the unemployed within the terms of the Act but there are not very many of these. 993. Chairman.—Passing on to the Appropriations in Aid, the total Appropriations were down as compared with the estimated figure. That seems to be due largely to items 16 and 18. As regards 16, repayments from Vote 11 in respect of the cost of administration of the temporary scheme in connection with farm improvements, you did not get as much as you anticipated?—No. We were bound to insert the amount we thought we would have had to claim when we framed the Estimate. 994. Deputy Briscoe.—In regard to item 24, can Mr. Ó Broin tell us how these receipts arise or what fees are charged?—The receipts arise as stated, from licences and inspection fees under the Fresh Meat Acts, the Pigs and Bacon Acts and the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts. Fees are prescribed under each of these Acts. 995. The fees are rather nominal but the State has to run the service by having almost full-time veterinary officers in attendance. Has it ever been considered that these fees should be raised?—It has been suggested to us by the Department of Finance from time to time. When these Acts were first passed, the value of cattle was somewhat different from what it is to-day and the present fee as compared with that charged in the old days would now be almost negligible. Chairman.—Perhaps you would let us have a note on that. It is rather an interesting point?—I will.* 996. Deputy Briscoe.—Is it not correct to state that the fees do not represent the true cost of the service you have to run?—Of course this relates to a very important part of our trade. It is a service from which the whole community benefits. It is not merely the exporters who benefit. 997. I think you will agree that the certificate which you attach to the canned meat exports give them a very distinctive value because it is more or less a certificate of quality and shows that these exports are made under your supervision? —That is so. 998. Chairman.—Item 27 deals with Emergency Powers (Tillage) Orders. It relates to the sums recoverable in respect of expenses incidental to entry on holdings and the making of lettings in conacre or the cultivation of such holdings. Mr. Wann.—With reference to paragraph 27 of my Report, I should say that the figure of £23,703 17s. 6d. was credited to Appropriations in Aid either in this or previous years. The expression “applied towards defraying expenses” is that used in the Order. Chairman.—Mr. Ó Broin is to let us know what the position is.† Mr. Ó Broin.—I will try to elucidate the point as far as I can. I think what Mr. Wann says is probably the position. 999. Chairman.—The second last paragraph on page 104 states that fines amounting to £154,171 17s. 0d., incurred by holders of milling licences under Section 10 of the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Act, 1938 for failure to meet the technical requirements of the Act to take into store specified monthly quantities of home-grown wheat, were remitted. Perhaps you could give some explanation of that?—That arises from a provision in one of the Cereals Acts. At the time that provision was put into the Act, millers were obliged to purchase prescribed quantities of home-grown wheat. That was some time before the war. If they did not purchase these prescribed quantities, they rendered themselves liable to a fine at the rate of £1 per barrel of the quantity by which their purchases were in deficit. Of course, the circumstances have changed entirely since then. The difficulty now is to get wheat and not to force people to buy it. This is purely a technical offence. It arises because of the provision in the Act, and these fines are automatically remitted. 1000 Had any money been collected in respect of these fines?—I do not think we actually had to put the collection of fines into operation for many years. 1001. Deputy Sheldon.—Would it not be better to bring in an amending Bill?— That would be one way of dealing with it. Of course, we have not had normal circumstances since 1939. 1002. Deputy Briscoe.—I observe that by Department of Finance authority S.90/23/36 sanction was given for the remission of fines. It would appear from that, that the sanction, was given in 1936, although, of course, I know that was not the year?—That is the Finance File number, but that does not give any indication of the date. Chairman.—Could we have the date?— The date was the 21st February, 1950. That was in respect of the cereal year 1948/49. 1003. Deputy Sheldon.—And there would have been similar notes in previous years?—Yes. Chairman.—If the members have no questions to ask on the Statement of Loan Securities repayable to the Department or on the General Cattle Diseases Fund, we can now take the next Vote. VOTE 30—AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SUBSIDIES.Seán Ó Broin further examined.1004. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following paragraph, number 29, in respect of this Vote: “Subsidies, Allowances, etc., for Dairy Produce. Allowances on the production of creamery butter were payable at such rates as enabled the price of milk supplied to creameries to be maintained at 1s. 2d. per gallon for the period 1st May to 31st October, and at 1s. 4d. per gallon for the period 1st November to 30th April. The sums disbursed on allowances on creamery butter produced on and after 1st April, 1948, amounted to £2,184,843 15s. 8d., of which £2,132,217 11s. 10d. was paid from this Vote and £52,626 3s. 10d. from the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund. The charge to the Vote also includes payments amounting to £4,355 0s. 9d. to the proprietors of registered butter factories in respect of non-creamery butter acquired by them and sold to the Butter Marketing Committee for household use, bringing the total of such payments, including £81,140 5s. 3d. charged to the Vote in 1947-48, to £85,495 6s. 0d. Following the removal, as from 28th April, 1948, of the restrictions on the purchase and distribution of non-creamery butter, allowances were also paid on stocks of non-creamery butter held by the proprietors of registered butter factories at the close of business on 27th April, 1948, and the amount disbursed under this heading was £4,074 3s. 2d. In addition to expenditure of £1,877,318 6s. 4d. in the year 1947-48 on allowances on creamery butter produced in that year, payments amounting to £68,852 19s. 10d. were made during the year under review, bringing the total cost of these allowances for the production of the year 1947-48 to £1,946,171 6s. 2d., as compared with £828,109 0s. 1d. for the year 1946-47. The remainder of the expenditure charged to the Vote, £85,006 5s. 2d., comprises a payment of £40,000, on account, made to the Butter Marketing Committee in respect of a deficiency in the Committee’s trading account for the year ended 31st March 1949. and sums totalling £45,006 5s. 2d. paid to creameries in connection with the Department’s scheme for the cold storage of creamery butter. As stated in the account, a loss of £7,054 was incurred in connection with the purchase and sale by the Butter Marketing Committee of 2,138 cwt. of non-creamery butter. The subsidy paid on this butter amounting to approximately £11,171 is included in the sum of £85,495 6s. 0d. referred to above.” It will be seen from the paragraph that the provision for non-creamery butter was very small, but that there was a very substantial expenditure in respect of allowances on creamery butter. The total cost of these allowances for the production year 1947-48 was £1,946,171 6s. 2d. as compared with £828,109 0s. 1d. for the year 1946-47. That indicates substantial improvement in production. Were there any other reasons for the increase? —There was a higher rate of production allowance. The price of milk had been raised. 1005. Could you tell the Committee what the figure would have been on the former rate?—I am afraid I have not that figure with me.* 1006. With regard to the sums paid to creameries for the cold storage of creamery butter, how is that cold storage paid for? Is it an increasing liability? Has the Department itself control of the cold storage or are contracts made with outside firms?—There are arrangements with the firms which own the cold stores. Recently, they have been inclined to ask for increased charges. 1007. Do the creameries take any part of the liabilities?—The creameries arrange for the cold storage, and we allow them the cold storage charges. 1008. Would it not be better if the creameries were to make their own arrangements? Under this, you make the arrangements and you are in the position that you are faced with demands for increases. The creameries are recouped. so that it really does not concern them what you pay. This matter enters into the price of the butter, I presume?—Yes. It falls on the subsidy provision. What the Committee would like to know is why the creameries do not make their own arrangements and be responsible for them?—The creameries do make their own arrangements, but the charge, ultimately, has to be found in some way or other out of the subsidy. The creameries must be put in a position to pay a certain price per gallon for the milk. They have to be recouped the difference between the sum required to do that and the expenses associated with the running of the creamery. This cold storage charge has to be borne on the subsidy in any case, and we are very much concerned in the matter from that point of view. 1009. It is a continuing liability in view of the low production during the winter time. Can you give the Committee any idea of what it amounts to per lb. of butter sold?—It amounts to 10/- a cwt. or about a 1d. a lb. 1010. I would like to see the creameries going ahead and doing more of their own business and the State doing less?—If the cost ultimately falls on the State we are concerned to see that the creameries do not pay too much for cold storage. 1011. Deputy Briscoe.—Is not this situation bound up with the fact that the sale of butter is no longer free? We are all on the ration, and the State has the responsibility of seeing that all the people get their ration. Therefore, the butter has to be stored for longer periods than would normally be the case if the individual creameries had the freedom to do their own business. I take it that if the creameries were allowed to make their own arrangements, the position would be different. It might be that the creamery would be able to get the cold storage done cheaper in Cork than say in Dublin. The concern of the Department is to get an overall charge over which they will have control?—And at the lowest possible figure. 1012. I would like to know, if it is permissible to ask it, what is the extent of our storage facilities? Is the Department satisfied that we have enough facilities? Do difficulties arise when there is good production during a certain few months in the year?—The existing cold storage facilities are not sufficient to meet the demands made on them from time to time. Butter is not the only commodity which people want to cold store. In fact, we were not able to get cold storage for butter at the end of last summer. Are there not various reasons for that, one being that firms, which previously provided cold storage facilities, changed hands. I know of one firm myself which previously stored butter but does not do it now, because it did not consider the terms offered to it satisfactory. I take it that an increase in cold storage costs is reflected back in the storage charges. 1013. Chairman.—With regard to the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s paragraph, it refers to the payment of £40,000 to the Butter Marketing Committee in respect of a deficiency in the committee’s trading accounts. Have you anything to say on that?—I am a bit doubtful whether the term “deficiency” is the correct way of expressing it. That £40,000 is in the same category as the £45,006 paid to the creameries in connection with the cold storage of creamery butter. 1014. Deputy J. J. Collins.—Would that be £40,000 plus the £45,000?—Yes. It appears formally in the accounts as a deficiency, but really it is an expenditure incurred by the Butter Marketing Committee in arranging for the cold storage of a certain quantity of butter, mainly for Dublin. 1015. Chairman.—When is a deficiency not a deficiency but an expense? What have you to say Mr. Wann? Mr. Wann.—I would not disagree with Mr. Ó Broin’s point of view. Mr. Ó Broin.—It is shown as a deficiency, but it really arises from the cold storage of butter. 1016. Deputy Briscoe.—In view of the fact that this charge arises from the cold storage of butter, and that the cold storage of butter is now the responsibility of the State and will probably remain so, has the Department made any estimate of the maximum amount of butter that it will need to store over what might be called the peak periods so as to be able to cover the lean months? Could the Department make arrangements with the storage people whereby they would have first claim on whatever storage facilities were there at an agreed price?—Of course, it would be easy enough to estimate the quantity, but as regards storage, the owners of the stores are the masters of their own property and we could not be sure that they would fall in with our views. We could, of course, requisition storage but that would be an extreme step. 1017. Deputy Gilbride.—Have they not been most anxious to get the butter?— Yes, but at a charge which we might not be willing to agree to. 1018. Deputy Briscoe.—Their charges are subject to the price control authorities surely the same as any other business? —In this instance we act in effect as the price control authority. 1019. Deputy J. J. Collins.—We had an exceptionally high butter production last year and I think you said you were not able to find sufficient storage for it. Would that be a factor with regard to the sale of butter abroad?—Yes. 1020. As against that, this is going to be a recurring liability while butter is State controlled and rationed?—And while it is subsidised. 1021. As this is a recurring liability and as you have the Dairy Disposals Board under your guidance and control, would they not provide suitable and adequate cold storage facilities at a rate which would not be excessive and inclined to fluctuate from year to year?—That is a suggestion worthy of consideration. Deputy Briscoe.—It is well known that cold storage is now being used for a lot of new items, particularly the export of meat to America. Would your Department not consider asking the E.C.A. people to give a grant? Chairman.—We will have to address that question to the Minister for Agriculture. Deputy Gilbride.—The question is whether State control is cheaper than private enterprise. Deputy J. J. Collins.—But private enterprise has not been sufficient to do the job we would like them to do. I am not keen on State control. 1022. Chairman.—If the co-operative creamery organisations took over more of these activities they might relieve the State in the long run, not financially, but from a vast number of other worries that I am sure Mr. Ó Broin knows more about than I do. As to the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund, you were paying on cheese as well as butter during this period?—Yes, there is a levy on cheese. 1023. Is this completed now?—The Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund is a standing fund; it is there all the time. 1024. Deputy Briscoe.—The last subparagraph of paragraph 29 shows that there is a loss on non-creamery butter. Would that be the butter you had to put gas masks on to get rid of?—That was the factory butter that had been held in cold storage for some months by the Butter Marketing Committee. It deteriorated in quality and we had to sell it at a comparatively low price to the British Ministry of Food. 1025. Chairman.—What is the position about the cold storage of non-creamery butter? Is it possible to deal with it on account of the different qualities?—Normally, it is not cold stored. This was a particular scheme in operation in the summer of 1947. It was farmers’ butter which had been bought by the Cork butter buyers and blended and sold to the Butter Marketing Committee with the intention that it would ultimately go into consumption in the Dublin area. The Committee had it in cold store but were not able to dispose of it in the time they originally thought. In the end, it was left on their hands and late in the year 1948 they had no other means of disposing of it and they sold it to the British Ministry of Food, the butter having been in cold store for several months. Normally, we do not take any hand in the cold-storing of factory butter. 1026. Deputy Briscoe.—Did not that arise by the removal of this butter from subsidy?—It was associated with that. 1027. Chairman.—Paragraph 30 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report reads as follows:— “Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund. The income of the Fund from levies, mainly on home sales of creamery butter and raw cheese, amounted to £17,229 9s. 11d., as compared with £49,582 6s. 2d. in the previous year, during which additional receipts arose from levy collected on stocks of butter in hand at the commencement of business on 17th April, 1947. The Creamery Butter (Prices for Catering Establishments) Order, 1948 (Statutory Instrument No. 247 of 1948), and the Creamery Butter (Prices for Catering Establishments) (No. 2) Order, 1948 Statutory Instrument No. 355 of 1948) prescribed prices for creamery butter sold to catering establishments by virtue of permits issued under Article 9 of the Emergency Powers (Distribution of Butter) Order, 1944 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 121 of 1944). The Orders required that payment, on account, should be made to the Minister for Agriculture at the rate of 6d. per lb. and 9d. per lb., respectively, on the issue of permits for the period 31st July to 29th October, 1948, and the period commencing on or after 30th October, 1948. In accordance with the terms of the Orders, receipts totalling £26,572 19s. 3d. were paid into the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund during the year under review. The payments out of the Fund include the sum of £52,626 3s. 10d. mentioned in paragraph 29, for allowances on creamery butter produced in 1948-49, payments to the Butter Marketing Committee of £5,765 to meet administrative expenses, and £22,370 18s. 2d. in recoupment of the balance of a deficiency in the Committee’s trading account for the year ended 31st March, 1948, due mainly to expenditure on the cold storage of butter for winter consumption and in respect of which a payment of £30,000, on account, was made from the vote for Agricultural Produce Subsidies in the year 1947-48.” Does this last paragraph refer to what we have been discussing, the deficiency in the Committee’s trading account, Mr. Wann? Mr. Wann.—Yes, for a different year. One paragraph related to 1948 and the other to 1949. VOTE 31—FISHERIES.Seán Ó Broin further examined.1028. Chairman.—Paragraph 31 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report reads:— “Subhead F.5—Miscellaneous. Section 35 of the Fisheries Act, 1939, which was brought into operation on 1st January, 1948, by the Fisheries Act, 1939 (Commencement) (No. 4) Order, 1946 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 191 of 1946), provided 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 were made to owners during the year, but compensation amounting to £1,456 2s. 8d. was paid to fifteen employees in March, 1949, and is included in the charge to this subhead.” Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—I should like to know whether all this compensation has been paid or are there cases still pending?—There are a lot of them still pending. There has been a good deal of delay in trying to clear up the applications. We had to get accounts from the applicants, we had correspondence with them and reference to the Department of Finance and we had to refer a number of cases to the Chief State Solicitor who had to be satisfied as to the title of the claimants. That is one thing which is holding up the payments considerably—the delay in establishing title to the properties. 1029. Chairman.—They have to establish title?—We have to be sure that the people to whom we are paying compensation are entitled to it. It is a rather slow process. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—It seems very protracted?—It is. 1030. Chairman.—Paragraph 32 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report states:— “Subhead G.2—Repayable Advances for Boats and Gear. Including the advances of £23,000 charged in this account, the total advances for boats and gear to 31st March, 1949, amounted to £178,500. The half-yearly instalments of the annuities set up to repay these advances falling due to 31st March, 1949, amounted to £140,622 6s. 3d., while the sums collected by the Sea Fisheries Association from borrowers and transferred to the Department in payment of the annuity instalments amounted to £127,631 14s. 7d., including £10,022 17s. 5d. repaid in the year under review and credited to Appropriations in Aid. The repayments were, therefore, in arrear on 31st March, 1949, to the extent of £12,990 11s. 8d., as compared with £10,418 15s. 10d. on 31st March, 1948.” Apparently we are getting into a worse position?—Yes. 1031. Is there any explanation for that? —Yes. When a boat is surrendered by a fisherman who has not been very successful or is resumed, it is very often found that it needs a certain amount of reconditioning. When it does go out again, the original debt which has not been discharged by the previous hire purchaser cannot be passed on to the next man. The boat must be given out at a value which is written down considerably. In that way there is a growing deficit and the Sea Fisheries Association have no means of meeting that. They have no source from which to meet that situation. At present we are discussing with the Department of Finance some means by which we can get over that difficulty. 1032. The boats are revalued every time there is a new loan?—They are revalued but they cannot be revalued at a figure which would include the original debt which has not been paid. 1033. Deputy Briscoe.—This matter has been going on since the establishment of the Sea Fisheries Association or before that. In view of the situation which arises and which has been described by the Accounting Officer, when a boat is taken back from a fisherman there is no sense in pursuing him for the outstanding balance of his loan. Why is it not written off from year to year instead of being carried over as an uncollected debt? In many cases this arises from misfortunes at sea. If a fisherman encounters a gale and practically everything movable on his boat is blown away, he probably surrenders it, but he continues as a debtor for so much money. Instead of having this carried forward, as it appears to be something which has to be written off, why is it not done from year to year?—We are discussing that matter with the Department of Finance in order to arrive at some means by which it can be dealt with. 1034. If you were big enough to wipe out the millers £177,000 by way of fine, surely you should wipe this out too?— The circumstances are not parallel. They are both technical?—This is actual. 1035. You are discussing it with the Department of Finance?—Yes. On the lines I suggest?—We will take that suggestion into consideration. It would be better to wipe it off from year to year and say it is a loss each year. At one time it was considered by the Department of Finance that if that line of approach was taken fishermen might be led to borrow too easily, feeling that they were not going to be pursued. In view, however, of the situation which confronts the fishermen, we should be a little practical about it. 1036. Chairman.—What you are really suggesting is that the Department should take the responsibility for the scheme and pay the fishermen. Deputy Briscoe.—No. I am suggesting that once a fisherman surrenders a boat with a charge on it the difference between what it was sold at originally and what it was sold at subsequently should be written off as a loss and not carried forward as a debt due by the fisherman. Mr. Ó Broin.—In fact, it is due by the Sea Fisheries Association. It becomes a debt due by that association to the Exchequer. 1037. Chairman.—Paragraph 33 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report reads 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 £2,200 charged in this account, amounted at 31st March, 1949, to £12,100. These advances are repayable over a period of 20 years by half-yearly instalments covering principal and interest, and sums totalling £502 6s. 11d. were repaid during the year under review and are included in the appropriations in aid. A grant of £6,500 was made to the Sea Fisheries Association in the year out of moneys provided from the Transition Development Fund established by sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Finance Act, 1946.” 1038. Paragraph 34 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report states:— “Fishery Loans. Repayments of fishery loans, which are accounted for as appropriations in aid, amounted to £10 5s. 9d., and the balance outstanding on these loans at 31st March, 1949, was £20,369 17s. 9d., including arrears of £20,332 7s. 5d. There were no remissions during the year under the Fisheries (Revision of Loans) Act, 1931.” These are the old loans?—Yes. I think that what Deputy Briscoe has been urging might be urged in this case also?—A proposal to write off a large number of these has been before the Department of Finance for over a year, I think. 1039. Deputy Briscoe.—As to subhead E.3—Sea Fisheries Protection—to whom is that money paid?—To the Guards. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
