Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1954 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1952 - 1953

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 7 Deireadh Fómhair, 1954.

Thursday, 7th October, 1954.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. M. Breathnach, Mr. C. J. Byrnes and Mr. J. Mooney (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 27—AGRICULTURE.

Seán Ó Broin called and examined.

521. Chairman.—Paragraph 24 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead G.5.—Repayable Advances for Importation of Superphosphate.

By arrangement with the Minister for Agriculture, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teoranta, undertook the importation and distribution of superphosphate, and in the year of account repayable advances amounting to £922,716 18s. 8d. were made to the company to finance the scheme. It was provided that these advances should be repaid by periodical remission to the Department of the proceeds of sales less expenses £40,000 was repaid by the company to 31 March, 1953, and is brought to credit of the Vote as Appropriations in Aid.”

What is the present position with regard to repayments?—A considerable sum was repaid in the following financial year, and we got an additional sum in the present financial year, but the total outcome of the transaction will be that we will not get back nearly as much as we advanced.

522. For the record, will you tell us just what happened to cause that?—The circumstances that arose were something like this: In 1950 there was a considerable quantity of superphosphate bought in at a comparatively satisfactory price from the point of view of the farmer; in the following year, 1951-52, there was a very sharp rise in prices of all fertilisers because of the outbreak of the Korean war and, at the same time, it was thought advisable to put in a stock in case there was a subsequent scarity. These had to be bought at a considerably higher price than the fertilisers purchased the previous year. Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teoranta were acting on behalf of the Minister and they were working on an overdraft from the bank. When that overdraft reached a certain proportion the bank told them they could not go on financing them and we had to guarantee the overdraft. In this year, 1952-53, there was in fact a Supplementary Estimate and the circumstances were explained to Deputies by the Minister when he was introducing that Supplementary Estimate. The result of the increase in the price was that there was a very slow sale. Farmers were not prepared to pay a considerably increased price over that of the previous year and the fertilisers were stocked up; there were very considerable charges for storage and a certain amount of deterioration set in. Then prices began to fall and if we were to get rid of the fertilisers we had to authorise Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teoranta, to sell them at prices very much lower than prices we had hoped to get when the fertilisers were imported, and we had to authorise a series of reductions in prices. The result of all that is that we will not be able to get back from the company anything like the sum of money we advanced to them to finance the transactions.

523. Could you give us any idea of the loss?—That might be anticipating the accounts for the following year and for the present year, but I think the loss will probably be something in the region of £400,000 or £500,000.

524. How much money was involved altogether?—There was an advance of £922,716 18s. 8d. made to the company.

525. So the probable loss would be in the region of 40 to 50 per cent.?—It will be about that, I think. Some of these fertilisers are still actually unsold and the transactions have not been completed. The accounts are not complete yet.

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

“Subhead M.8.—Farm Buildings Scheme.

Grants paid in the year to rated occupiers for the construction and improvement of farm dwellings and certain allied works amounted to £299,636 4s. 4d. and administrative expenses to £93,375 19s. 7d. The grants included £184,996 4s. 3d. towards the cost of newly constructed farm buildings or extensions at rates varying according to the nature of the work undertaken; £26,761 17s. 6d. 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 £87,878 2s. 7d. for other approved works on the basis of 50 per cent. of the estimated labour cost.

The percentage of administrative expenses looks very high. It is about 31 per cent.? —I think it is about 21 per cent.

Deputy A. Barry.—It is nearly one-third.

527. Chairman.—Would it not be 31 per cent.?—The figures mentioned there do not take account of the farm water supply scheme which is administered by the same staff.

528. Deputy A. Barry.—Out of the same £93,000?—No. It is a different subhead but the same staff operate the two schemes.

529. Chairman.—And all the cost of the staff is borne on this?—Yes, and therefore administrative expenses would amount to about 21 per cent. for the whole lot.

530. That looks a little better?—It is, considering there has to be a lot of travelling and a lot of the jobs are small. Though each work involves a comparatively small amount of money there is a good deal of travelling and taking all the circumstances into account, I think the figure is in fact very reasonable.

531. There have to be several inspections—one before anything is done and some in between?—And a final inspection in the end.

532. Chairman.—Paragraphs 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General are for information and read:—

“Subhead M.9.—Land Rehabilitation Project and Water Supplies.

The expenditure on this service is made up as follows:—

The Land Reclamation Act, 1949, authorises the Minister for Agriculture to carry out land reclamation, field drainage and other works and provides for the payment by the occupiers of a contribution towards the cost, the contribution being payable either in full or, if the occupier so elects, by means of an annuity, when the Minister certifies that the work has been completed. Under the arrangements made for the operation of the project an occupier could 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. Alternatively, if he carried out the work himself to the satisfaction of the Department, he would be entitled to 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 scheme was introduced in 1950-51 to enable occupiers of land to obtain supplies of lime and artificial fertilisers on credit, and to have them spread by the Department, with the object of rehabilitating land deficient in soil fertility but not needing the specific works already provided for, i.e., field drainage, etc. It provides for the testing of land to establish its need of lime and fertilisers on payment by the occupier at the rate of 1/- per statute acre. A farmer who elects to avail of this scheme is required to deposit at least 10 per cent. of the cost and to repay the balance by means of an addition to his land purchase annuity.

The scheme for the installation of water supplies in farm dwellings provides for the payment of grant equal to 50 per cent. of the approved estimated cost of installations, subject to a maximum grant of £100. No grant is payable for any work estimated to cost less than £10.”

533. Chairman.—Paragraph 30 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Following certain experiments carried out by Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teoranta, on the reclamation of bogland the Minister for Agriculture decided to afford the company financial support for a scheme of reclamation. Under this scheme the company may purchase areas of bogland, and also arrange for the reclamation of small areas of bogland by the occupiers under its direction and supervision. A grant of £16 per statute acre reclaimed becomes payable to the company when the reclaimed land produces a satisfactory crop. The grants paid in the year under review amounted to £52.”

This, of course, is just the beginning of the scheme and that accounts for the very small sum?—Yes.

534. Has it developed satisfactorily?— We paid a good deal in the way of grants in the subsequent financial year, 1953-54.

535. How do you decide what is a satisfactory crop?—First of all, we have the certificate of the general manager of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teoranta, and then we have an inspection of the place as it looks at the time; that is, at the time of the payment of the grant. That is the only way be can determine it.

536. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Is it only the company that gets the grant? If a private individual wanted to start on his own would he get a grant?—This is a special scheme that applies to the Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teoranta, only.

537. Deputy A. Barry.—This is in the nature of an experiment?—Yes.

538. Chairman.—It can be applied to private people who arranged to do their own?—Yes, and I think near Gowla bog they have taken in some stretches of tenanted bogs.

539. Deputy Bartley.—Is it the Department that takes in the ground?—We deal only with the company.

540. Presumably if a private occupier wanted to do his own he would have to do it under the aegis of the company?— By arrangement with them. It is the occupier of the bogland who arranges with the company.

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

“Subhead N.1.—Diseases of Animals (Ireland) Acts, 1894 to 1949.

Consequent on the decision of the Department of Agriculture, under the provisions of the Foot and Mouth Disease Order, 1950 (S.I. No. 79 of 1950), to quarantine all live stock assembled for exhibition at the Spring Show, 1952, the Royal Dublin Society claimed £2,974 8s 5d. in respect of expenditure incurred during the period 11 to 27 May, 1952, on the maintenance of the stock, including wages, fodder, litter, etc., and on the subsequent cleansing and disinfection of its premises. The society was recouped the expenditure from this subhead.”

That is something we hope will not happen again anyway?—I hope not, sir.

542. Chairman.—Paragraph 32 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead O.5—Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Acts, 1933 to 1939, and Wheat Order, 1951, etc.

Reference was made in previous reports to arrangements whereby growers who sold wheat of the 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946 and 1947 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. The fertiliser suppliers were recouped the amount of the allowances made by them on submission of monthly claims supported by the relevant credit vouchers. Including expenditure of £127,923 16s. 0d. charged to this subhead the total paid to fertiliser suppliers in connection with the redemption of the credit vouchers amounted at 31 March, 1953, to £1,273,978 6s. 5d. I understand that an appreciable number of dockets are still outstanding.”

I suppose you have no idea how many dockets would be outstanding?—We estimate there might be up to 200,000 dockets outstanding. There is a liability of about £400,000 outstanding at any rate which has not been discharged.

543. Deputy A. Barry.—Does the gross figure bear a fair relation to the estimated acreage?—This had not any relation to the acreage.

544. Were the fertilisers delivered on the basis of grain grown?—No—on the basis of deliveries of wheat in the years 1943 to 1947. It is an old scheme. It has been discontinued for the past seven years. On a few occasions we tried to fix a final date beyond which we would not receive any further dockets but the trickle still continues to come in We still get about two or three a day, or something like that.

545. Is the scheme completed?—The last dockets were issued in 1947 but we still have the liability to give vouchers in exchange for these dockets, if the people send in the dockets to us.

546. Deputy Bartley.—Do you think that the people who sowed the wheat really took no further interest in these vouchers, left them aside and forgot them?

Chairman.—I do not know. I am still looking for some of them.

Deputy T. Lynch.—I am looking for some of them, too

Deputy Bartley.—The dockets? I take it the vouchers were issued for the full amount of wheat bought?

Mr. Ó Broin.—Yes.

Deputy T. Lynch.—The vouchers were too small. All we got was a little ticket, when we went to the mill. Then we put it in our waistcoat pocket and lost it.

Chairman.—Exactly.

Deputy A. Barry.—I think the tax-payer would be very interested if the vouchers were always very small.

Deputy T. Lynch.—I think that is where a lot of them went. The first issue of dockets comprised very small dockets

547. Chairman.—A great many of them will never turn up?

Mr. Ó Broin.—I imagine so. As time goes on, the trickle will peter out.

548. Chairman.—Paragraph 33 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead P.—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 1/6 per gallon for the period 1 to 30 April, 1952, and 1/4 per gallon for the period 1 May to 4 July, 1952. These allowances ceased from the latter date following the increase in the retail price of butter to 3/10 per lb. in accordance with the Butter (Maximum Prices) Order, 1952 (S.I. No. 199 of 1952). The allowances on creamery butter produced in the period from 1 April to 4 July 1952 amounted to £1,059,544 1s. 9d. of which £1,058,867 10s. 1d. was paid from this subhead and £676 11s. 8d. from the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund.

In addition to £2,731,049 8s. 6d. paid in the year 1951-52 as allowances on creamery butter produced in that year, further payments amounting to £176,870 14s. 2d. were made during the year under review, bringing the total allowances for the production of the year 1951-52 to £2,907,920 2s. 8d., as compared with £2,763,183 2s. 2d. for the year 1950-51. The remainder of the expenditure charged to the subhead comprises £52,482 9s. 0d. paid to creameries in connection with the Department’s scheme for the cold storage of creamery butter, £24,120 2s. 4d. for subsidy on farmers’ butter, and £586 5s. 10d. for printing of butter wrappers.”

I suppose the last item is a carry-over from the previous year, Mr. Ó Broin?—It is, Sir.

549. Is this butter wrapper business disposed of?—We have disposed of the parchment paper. We have not yet disposed of the printed wrappers. We tried several times to get rid of them and we have not given up hope of selling them.

550. Chairman.—Paragraph 34 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Extra Receipts to Exchequer.

In the autumn of 1950 the supply of bacon on the home market exceeded demand and the Minister for Agriculture, with a view to affording relief to the industry, arranged with the Pigs and Bacon Commission to operate on his behalf a scheme for the purchase and storage of bacon. The statement of account furnished by the Commission showed expenditure on the purchase and storage, etc., of bacon to be £11,950 16s. 2d. and the proceeds of sale £12,725 8s. 1d. The surplus of £774 11s. 11d. has, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, been brought to account as an exchequer extra receipt.”

You do not audit this account, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I do not audit the accounts of the Commission. We had to accept the statement submitted by the Commission and sent to the Department.

551. Chairman.—Does your Department investigate the accounts, Mr. Ó Broin?—The Commission’s accounts are audited by their own auditors. We accept the certificates of the auditors of the Commission.

Deputy T. Lynch.—I did not know that the Pigs and Bacon Commission was still in operation. What do they do?

Chairman.—I think you had better ask that question in the Dáil.

Deputy T. Lynch.—I will.

552. Chairman.—Paragraph 35 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund.

The income of the Fund, £575,372 19s. 7d. consisted of levies, mainly on home sales of creamery butter and raw cheese.

The payments out of the Fund included issues to the butter Marketing Committee of £8,251 to meet administrative expenses and £180,332 3s. 9d. in recoupment of the balance of a deficit of £480,332 3s. 9d. in the Committee’s trading account for the year ended 31 March, 1952. Payments on account amounting to £300,000 (£101,000 from the Fund and £199,000 from the Vote) were made in the previous year in respect of this deficit which was due mainly to losses on sales of imported butter and expenditure on cold storage of butter for winter consumption. £299,667 16s. 3d. was also issued to the Committee in respect of an anticipated deficit in the Committee’s accounts for ‘the year 1952-53. The remainder of the expenditure comprised £3,016 0s. 11d. paid to creameries in connection with the Department’s scheme for the cold storage of creamery butter, £676 11s. 8d. for allowances on creamery butter produced after 1 April, 1952 (see paragraph 33) and £352 8s. 5d. for subsidy on farmers’ butter.”

Have you a nett figure of the losses on imported butter?—We have not. In fact, it is not clear that the final outcome of the transaction will be a loss. It may show a profit but we do not know yet because the completed accounts are not yet available. We have still a small quantity of imported New Zealand butter in store

553. I presume that raw cheese is distinct from processed cheese?—Yes.

554. Chairman.—Let us now turn to the Vote itself. I would draw the attention of members to the very full notes which Mr. Ó Broin has given on the various subheads. With regard to subhead M.M.5.—Special Temporary Scheme of Loans for the Purchase of Cattle and Sheep—has this scheme come to a conclusion?—Yes. The time expired some time in 1952. The total sum advanced in loans was £302,466. That has all been repaid now with the exception of £32.

555. That is very satisfactory. With regard to subhead M.9—Land Rehabilitation Project and Water Supplies—I see you had trouble about the cost of imported drainage pipes. I suppose it was impossible to get a firm tender?—When we were preparing the Estimate we thought they would cost about £20 per 1,000. The actual cost worked out at about a couple of pounds more than that.

556. Was that due to any increase in the original price or were the charges not appreciated, or something?—There might have been a slight appreciation in charge: I am not quite sure. We were not able to estimate quite accurately what we would be able to get ‘the pipes at. We had to make contracts with people, and so forth

557. Did you make direct tenders with the people abroad?—Yes, with the people in Holland.

558. Deputy T. Lynch.—Subhead 0.4. —Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Acts, 1930 to 1938, Pigs and Bacon Acts, 1935 to 1940, and Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts, 1934 to 1936—shows an expenditure of £68,764 11s. 7d. and a grant of £67,016. What was that for?

Chairman.—This is supervision of the dead meat trade.

Mr. Ó Broin.—The cost of veterinary inspection in the bacon and meat factories.

559. Deputy A. Barry.—What does subhead 0.5.—Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Acts, 1933 to 1939, and Wheat Order, 1951, etc.—relate to?—That is the fertilisers credit scheme.

Chairman.—The dockets?

Mr. Ó Broin.—We were talking about it a few minutes ago.

560. Chairman.—The details of subhead Q.—Appropriations in Aid—are to be found on page 61. Mr. Ó Broin, there is an apparent contradiction in these receipts with regard to vaccines. Under item No. 2 we see that “Receipts from the sale of vaccines”, etc., were greater than anticipated and then under No. 19 we see that “Receipts from sale of vaccines” were much less than anticipated. Can you explain that to us?—The surplus arose from the increased demand for blackleg vaccine. They make various vaccines at the Veterinary Laboratory, but the vaccine under No. 19 is not made there.

561. Deputy Bartley.—How are these vaccines distributed?—The veterinary surgeons who are in practice around the country pay the laboratory for vaccines that the laboratory manufactures. There are special arrangements by which the veterinary surgeons get supplies of the anti-abortion vaccine from the people who make them.

562. I wonder is it cheaper that way than to buy them in a chemist’s shop?— They could not get the vaccines we make in the laboratory except from the laboratory.

563. The vaccines for blacklegoids are sometimes supplied by the farmers themselves?—Yes, they are bought in the shops.

564. You get a small packet for 8/-. I do not know how the costs are based but they seem to be very expensive?—The blackleg vaccine we supply is sold at 6d. a dose.

I cannot say how many doses would be in this small packet. There might be a good many.

Deputy T. Lynch.—It is better to get them from the Department because you might get them in the shops and find them ineffective. It is the same with the contagious abortion vaccine.

VOTE 28—FISHERIES.

Seán Ó Broin further examined.

565. Chairman.—Paragraph 36 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead F.5.—Compensation, etc.

Compensation amounting to £12,150 was paid to owners of nets under section 35 of the Fisheries Act, 1939, which provides for the restriction of the use of nets in freshwater and for payment of compensation to the owners. Also, £3,209 4s. 2d. was paid in respect of interest on the amounts of the compensation awarded as provided by sections 3 and 4 of the Freshwater Fisheries (Prohibition of Netting) Act, 1951. Sections 2 and 4 of the Act of 1951 authorise the Minister for Agriculture, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to make grants in certain circumstances to persons not entitled to compensation under the Act of 1939. Pursuant to these sections ex-gratia grants amounting to £18,729 10s. 0d. were paid to owners and lessees and £756 0s. 5d. to employees. The remainder of the charge to this subhead, £468 8s. 7d., represents sums paid under sections 3 and 4 of the 1951 Act to applicants for compensation towards the cost of proving their title to such compensation.”

I take it that is for information?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes.

566. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Have these claims for compensation now been finished with or are some outstanding still?—They are not all disposed of yet. The total number of claims was 342 and there are about forty-eight claims still under consideration. We think the bulk of them will be disposed of very soon.

567. Chairman.—Paragraph 37 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Sea Fisheries Association and An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.

Subhead G.1.—Grants-in-Aid of Administration, etc.

37. The Sea Fisheries Act, 1952, provided for the establishment of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to replace the Sea Fisheries Association and for the transfer of the property and liabilities of the Association to the new body. The relevant provisions of the Act were brought into operation as from 24 April 1952 by the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952 (Commencement) (No. 1) Order, 1952 (S.I. No. 100 of 1952). An Bord is authorised to exercise the functions formerly exercised by the Sea Fisheries Association, and to engage in any business or transaction directly or indirectly conducive to the development of the sea-fishing industry or to the interests of sea-fishermen.

The charge to the subhead comprises issues of £9,775 to the Sea Fisheries Association and £15,875 to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.”

I take it that is for information?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes.

568. Chairman.—Paragraph 38 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead G.2.—Repayable Advances to Sea Fisheries Association for Boats and Gear.

Including advances of £15,000 charged in this account, the total advances for boats and gear to 24 April, 1952, the date of dissolution of the Sea Fisheries Association, was £408,500. The half-yearly instalments of the annuities set up to repay these advances amounted to £227,928 18s. 9d. at 31 March, 1953, whilst the sums transferred to the Department in payment of the instalments amounted to £179,728 7s. 3d. including £13,937 2s. 1d. credited to appropriations in aid in the year under review. The repayments were, therefore, in arrear on 31 March, 1953 to the extent of £48,200 11s. 6d. as compared with £33,525 4s. 10d. on 31 March, 1952.”

569. Deputy A. Barry.—Has this arrear been overtaken or is it developing? —No. This subject has been referred to here on previous occasions. There are factors in it that make it almost impossible to have the full amount of half-yearly annuities collected. I think this matter is actually under discussion between the Department of Finance and the Board.

570. Chairman.—You have not reached any finality, Mr. Breathnach?

Mr. Breathnach.—No. A problem arises when boats change hands. The first man who gets ‘the boat has not cleared the account. He is not working satisfactorily and the boat is taken from him and issued to a new operator who has to take over the account. He cannot be charged with the full amount and there is a loss in the switch-over which we have to deal with.

571. Deputy A. Barry.—Has the first man established any right to property in view of what he has paid?

Mr. Breathnach.—No. It is partly a hire-purchase arrangement. He could, of course, be proceeded against but we have not much chance of getting the loan back.

572. Deputy A. Barry.—If you take the boat on which a fisherman has paid 40 or 50 per cent. of the advances, does he own anything? Have you to recoup him?

Mr. Breathnach.—No, he does not own the boat.

Deputy A. Barry.—It seems an unsatisfactory set-up.

573. Deputy Bartley.—Do you have difficulty on account of the fact that a man has calculated that he has repaid the capital cost of the boat? It seems to me that where a man gets a boat costing £7,000, over the repayment period there would be a considerable amount for interest and insurance.

Deputy A. Barry.—You mean, bringing the sum up to £10,000.

Deputy Bartley—I do not know what the figure would be on £7,000. They pay off the liability by having their fish marketed and the Board deducts a certain amount. Some of the fishermen whom I know have said: “I have paid £7,000. I have paid for the boat, and it is now my property. I do not owe any more.” I am just inquiring as to what extent that type of attitude would account for the arrears in the repayment. I do know cases of it myself?

Mr Ó Broin.—No doubt there are cases of that sort, but I think there is an inherent difficulty in the whole scheme arising from the factor that Mr. Breathnach has mentioned and also from the fact that some of the best fishermen repay all their advances very quickly and there is still standing against the Association or against the Board a sum of money in respect of interest on those advances and there is nobody to pay that at all. He is out of it.

574. Deputy A. Barry.—I do not grasp that. If I buy a gramophone or a house on hire purchase, at some stage I own it. At what stage does the fisherman own the boat?—Let me put it this way. If the fisherman gets a boat worth, say, £8,000 from the Association and the Association borrows from the Exchequer, the Exchequer sets up an annuity which is calculated to repay that with interest over a period of 20 years in respect of that particular sum. The man clears out of it after five years, and there is still interest payable on that advance that has been originally made by the Exchequer.

Deputy A. Barry.—But he has paid for five years presumably. He has paid 25 per cent. of what he has undertaken.

575. Chairman.—No. Mr. Ó Broin means he has paid the Sea Fisheries Association the lot. It is now between the Association and the Exchequer. There must have been something odd in the original arrangement between the Exchequer and the Sea Fisheries Association?—These defects only become apparent in the working out of the scheme.

576. May I take it that as between the Exchequer and the Sea Fisheries Association there was this definite 20 years’ purchase, but as between the Sea Fisheries Association and the individual fisherman there is no definite period. He would pay it as fast as he could?—Yes. He might have paid it faster than the period provided.

Deputy Bartley.—Ten years is the period. The average fisherman should repay in ten years; many repay in less.

577. Chairman.—There is no hard and fast rule?—It is taken from his earnings as he fishes.

578. Deputy T. Lynch.—That is where the trouble is. You cannot have a hard and fast rule. You are depending on wind and weather?—It depends on the takings of the fisherman.

Deputy Bartley.—Three out of every four make good, and I believe it is this 25 per cent. that is responsible for this. You have the job of assessing the human element. You are depending on the suitability of the man.

Chairman.—I assume the Department of Finance will thrash something out to get this matter settled.

Deputy T. Lynch.—If you try to protect yourself and lay down a hard and fast rule nobody will get a boat. Risks will have to be taken.

579. Chairman.—Paragraph 39 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead G.3.—Repayable Advances to Sea Fisheries Association for General Development.

The total advances for general development made to the Sea Fisheries Association up to 24 April, 1952, amounted to £63,215, including £23,750 charged in this account. The advances are repayable over a period of twenty years by half-yearly instalments covering principal and interest, and the instalments amounting to £3,428 17s. 2d. which fell due in the year under review are included in the Appropriations in Aid.”

That, I take it, is for information?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes

Mr. Ó Broin.—The repayment of advances is up to date under that subhead.

580. Chairman.—The human element does not come in quite so much there?— No.

581. Chairman.—Paragraph 40 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead H.—Foyle Fisheries.

The fisheries of the River Foyle, which were declared forfeit to the Crown following the Flight of the Earls, were entrusted to a body styled “The Society of the Governor and Assistants, London, of the New Plantation of Ulster within the Realm of Ireland.” In order to resolve the practical difficulties of fisheries administration in the border area and to end the legal proceedings by which the Society sought in recent years to establish its exclusive right to these fisheries, the Minister for Agriculture and the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland agreed to acquire jointly from the Society all rights of fishing in the tidal portions of the Lough and River Foyle and of its tributary the River Faughan. The terms of the agreement are incorporated in the Foyle Fisheries Act, 1952. The Society was paid £100,000 for fishing rights, £2,485 for buildings and lands, £4,400 for the Green Brae fishery, and interest at the rate of 3 per cent. on £102,485 from 1 March, 1951. The share of the purchase moneys and interest payable by this Administration amounted to £55,140.

The Foyle Fisheries Commission consisting of four members, two appointed by the Minister for Agriculture and two appointed by the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland, was set up to manage the fisheries. It was not found necessary to give any financial assistance to the Commission during the year under review.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That also is for information.

582. Chairman.—Paragraph 41 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Fishery Loans.

As stated in a note to the account, sums amounting to £16,042 18s. 9d., being the balance due in respect of outstanding loans, were written off with the consent of the Minister for Finance under the Fisheries (Revision of Loans) Act, 1931.”

Chairman.—That is the end of that? —Yes.

583. Deputy A. Barry.—With regard to the fishmeal plant in the North—it was not in existence at this time?

Deputy Bartley.—It was not. It was opened in 1953.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—It will probably appear in the next account.

584. Chairman.—There is one point I should like to make to you about your Votes. It is a very large Vote, the total being over £7,000,000 and I was wondering if you would give consideration to breaking the Vote up in the way in which the Votes for the Department of Justice and the Department of Education are broken up. For instance, salaries, wages and travelling expenses are lumped and pooled with all sorts of things and yet odd bits crop up through other subheads. From the accounting point of view, it might be simpler if the same system were used as is used in the Department of Justice, where the different Courts are under separate Votes so as to avoid confusion? —They are self-contained services. In our case, there is a good deal of inter-locking between various services.

585. There is, for instance, agricultural development, the land project and allied matters and then there is research?— Some of the people on research would be doing other work and, even in the case of the land project, expenditure on the farm water supplies except in relation to staff was borne on the land project subhead.

Chairman.—That happens with other Votes, too. The Department of Justice have the same court reporters cropping up in different courts and Votes and it does not seem to cause any great trouble there. It is merely that the size of the Department has possibly become somewhat unwieldy from the accounting point of view. I have not got any hard and fast ideas on the subject but I thought I would mention it.

Deputy Bartley.—Does subhead A.— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—cover all the salaries and wages paid out by the Department of Agriculture?

Chairman.—No.

Deputy Bartley.—Is that the point you are making?

586. Chairman.—They are neither all in the one nor are they all completely separated out. There is a bit of both systems involved?—That has grown up over the years. Subhead A. was originally intended to cover what we would regard more as headquarters staff then staff engaged in the country, but sometimes the line of demarcation is not very clear between the man who is a headquarters officer and the man who is not. We try so far as possible to put all headquarters staffs in subhead A. and the staff on the services covered by the other subheads which are exclusively on these services are shown under the particular subhead. In the case of the Dairy Produce Acts, for example, we have headquarters staff borne on subhead A. and a number of Dairy Produce inspectors who are stationed in the country are borne on the particular subhead which relates to the Dairy Produce Acts. I think the idea there is that it was thought advisable to try to show the expenditure on a particular service as completely as possible. The expenditure would be still more masked and difficult to explain if the salaries of the staff on that particular service were to be transferred to subhead A. and merged with the expenditure on head quarters staffs.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—From my point of view, it would be far better if subhead A. showed all the salaries payable by the Department and likewise subhead B. all the travelling, the total charge.

Chairman.—And in the subheads for the various services you would have the effective expenditure on the service.

587. Deputy A. Barry.—Is there any reason why that position should be difficult to achieve?—think it might be done that way, but I am wondering whether it would be just as satisfactory as the existing system. You would have a lot of subordinate staff in our various institutions. Would they be shown in the particular subhead relating to the institutions or in subhead A?

588. Chairman.—We are not accounting experts—at least, I am not—but it struck me that the Vote had got very big. Perhaps there might be a discussion on the matter between ‘the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Department of Finance and yourselves to see what is best?—We can do that.

Deputy Bartley—There is one thing that strikes me. I think that all established staff should be under the one heading, whether located in Cock, Donegal or Dublin. If you have non-established staff, their salaries might be grouped with the cost of the particular service. It seems to me that if a man is a Department of Agriculture official or gives his lifework to it, we ought to accept the fact that his salary should be included in subhead A. showing what the staff salary bill for the Department is.

Chairman.—My own interest is related merely to the size of the Vote.

Deputy A. Barry.—Such an arrangement would give a more easily looked at picture.

Mr. Ó Broin.—We would be very anxious to do anything to make the picture more easily understood, but I have some doubts whether that arrangement would not make it even more confusing. We can go into the whole question, however, with the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Department of Finance.

VOTE 47—LANDS.

Mr. T. O’Brien called and examined.

589. Chairman.—Particulars of charges under the heading of Losses are given on page 129 of the Appropriation Accounts.

Deputy A. Barry.—What about the last item?

Chairman.—We discussed that two years ago.

Mr. O’Brien.—That case has been concluded. The officer in question was dismissed, prosecuted and imprisoned.

590. Chairman.—On page 132, there are particulars of amounts written off. One of them seems to be very large, that in respect of the estate of Cooper, S.6403, Co. Clare, £388. Was there a particular difficulty with it?—I think there was. I can give you the exact information That was a very bad old arrear case where the Land Commission had occasion, owing to default in the payment of the annuity, to apply for an order authorising them to enter into possession of a holding of 175 acres. It happened that the holding had been previously assigned to a local labourer without means who was unable to make any payment at all towards the amount of instalments in arrear. We had to take possession and re-allot; we had to incur considerable expenditure on improvements because there were embankments surrounding the property which was near the Fergus estuary. Ultimately, we disposed of the property.

591. Chairman.—This amount would be the net loss?—Actually, the £388 was in addition to the amount of the annuity written off.

592. There were other losses?—Not losses, strictly speaking; there were the improvements carried out to the lands in question after we entered into possession in order to make them fit for re-allotment. The holding had lain derelict for several years.

593. Was there any conacre letting made while it was not tenanted?—Not conacre. We made an attempt to recover the arrears from the people to whom we were going to allot the land though we anticipated that there would be no hope at all of that. That is, in fact, what happened. In 1942 we let the holding under grazing agreements. Though there was a credit balance of £106 17s 4d. for the letting period there was a net loss as is shown here due to arrears previously accumulated.

VOTE 48—FORESTRY.

Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.

594. Chairman.—Paragraph 55 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead C.2.—Forest Development and Maintenance, etc.

In connection with the provision of houses for the accommodation of forester staff, the relative merits of concrete and prefabricated timber houses have been under consideration in the Department. Three houses have already been erected, one in concrete and two in timber, and I have inquired regarding the respective construction costs.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The Accounting Officer has given me figures to show the cost of three houses, two timber houses and one of concrete. The cost of the timber houses was £1,200 and £1,500 approximately and the cost of the concrete house was about £2,200.

Mr. O’Brien.—Yes, that is correct. I have more recent information on that. We have by now erected eight houses, five in concrete and three in timber. One of the concrete houses cost £2,285 and four others cost between £1,700 and £1,710; two cost £1,700, one £1,705 and another £1,710. In regard to the three timber houses one cost £1,266, another £1,521 and the third £1,760. As I said the dearest concrete house cost £2,285; that was due almost entirely to a very poor site. Inevitably, in these remote, isolated and mountainous areas the sites are very poor. Very heavy expenditure was incurred in preparatory work in this case, site clearance alone costing £300. There was further difficulty in connection with the supply of water; we proposed getting water from a stream near the site but at the point where we expected to be able to get it we found the water was polluted and had to go 300 yards up stream. That cost an extra £100.

595. Chairman.—Would you not think that timber houses would look better in a forest than concrete houses?—There seems to be two schools of thought on that matter, the one in favour of the timber houses holding that we should use the commodity which we produce ourselves, viz., timber, and the other that concrete is more lasting and that there is nothing more permanent than a forest.

596. Deputy Bartley.—Is there any difficulty in regard to fire insurance?— The question of fire insurance scarcely arises. We carry it ourselves. In ordinary outside concerns it is very difficult to insure a timber house.

597. Are there greater maintenance costs in regard to timber?—Yes.

598. Chairman.—There is also the aesthetic point of view?—From the aesthetic point of view, I agree that a timber house is better to look at.

599. Deputy T. Lynch.—What kind of timber do you use?—Scots pine and oak.

600. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—What is the roof made of?—The roof is made of ruberoid tiles.

601. Chairman.—It is a pity you could not get cedar?—We do not grow cedar in any quantity ourselves.

602. Deputy Bartley.—Was the use of prefabricated timber designed to produce a sort of standardised cost of construction?—Yes.

603. The difficulty of finding water and such incidentals defeats your purpose?— It does.

604. Chairman.—Paragraph 56 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead H.—Appropriations in Aid, Rents (grazing, shooting, etc.)

It was noted that in certain cases rents receivable had not been collected. I have been informed that the amounts in question have since been received and that steps are being taken to improve the system of collection and record.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—In the course of the current audit the system of collection will again be reviewed.

Mr. O’Brien.—Only one property was affected in that particular case, and that was inadvertently overlooked. Actually, we have now introduced a new record system. The error cannot recur.

605. Deputy Bartley.—Are these rents payable by employees?—No, they are payable by lessees. The case in question related to Lisloughrey House.

606. Chairman.—Paragraph 57 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Stores.

It appeared that a quantity of building materials, which had been purchased in 1951 for the construction of a new forestry school, was still held in store. I understand that the proposal to erect a new school has been abandoned and I have inquired regarding the disposal of the materials.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have been informed that about 200 cases of wallboard purchased for the construction of the proposed school are still held in stock and that they will be used in the construction of foresters’ houses.

Mr. O’Brien.—That is so.

607. Chairman.—Will the wallboard last a considerable time?—Yes; in fact, it was bought in 1950 at a cost of 3½d. per square foot. It now costs 5d. per square foot.

Chairman.—That is very satisfactory. Let us now turn to the Vote itself.

608. Deputy A. Barry.—How is the timber actually sold?—Big lots are sold by advertisement in the public Press, tenders being sought. Smaller lots are sold locally by auction. There are also local sales of firewood, etc., at fixed prices.

609. Chairman.—What is the idea of bringing in this Extra Exchequer Receipt, 10/3? It looks very odd?—That related to a little cottage on our property which we had, in fact, sold. Unfortunately, the title deed was missing, and the person to whom we sold was very anxious to take up possession. We agreed with him to lodge the money on deposit in a bank. When the title deed was found, we collected both the purchase price and the deposit interest of 10/3.

610. Why does it come in as an Extra Exchequer Receipt instead of coming into the Miscellaneous items in the Appropriations in Aid?

Mr. O’Brien.—Only the purchase price itself is a receipt under subhead C.1.— Acquisition of Land (Grant-in-Aid).

611. Chairman.—Does the amount realised for payments by trainees indicate you got more trainees? It does not mean fees were put up?—No, it does not. That amount is just a contribution by trainees for the cost of cooking food, and accommodation.

VOTE 49—GAELTACHT SERVICES.

Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.

612. Chairman.—Paragraph 58 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead H.3.—Grants under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts, 1929 to 1949.

Section 2 of the Housing (Gaeltacht) (Amendment) Act, 1949, provided that the aggregate amount of grants and loans issued under the Acts should not exceed £900,000 but this limit was removed by section 4 of the Housing (Gaeltacht) (Amendment) Act, 1953.

The amount of grants paid to 31 March, 1953, including £36,152 in the year under review, was £613,849; the amount of loans issued was £186,686 of which £3,867 was issued in the year 1952-53.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have no further comment to make, Mr. Chairman.

613. Chairman.—Very well. We will now pass to the Vote itself and take the subheads in groups. Under Rural Industries, subheads D.1. to D.11, there has been a considerable saving?

Mr. O’Brien.—Our surrender that year was about £180,000. It was mainly due to a policy decision not to engage in further stockpiling and to use materials we had already stockpiled.

614. That was a decision reached after the Estimate was framed?—Yes.

615. Deputy Bartley.—On the Gaeltacht Housing group of subheads I am anxious to ascertain if in the administration of the Gaeltacht Housing Schemes special difficulties have arisen in recent years in connection with the getting of supplies of material for the applicants. For instance a man gets sanction for a house and formerly—I do not know whether I am correct on this point—the housing section ordered the goods or sufficient of them to enable the man to commence operations. Has there been a change in that respect? Is the Department finding difficulty in getting these supplies from recognised suppliers? Have in fact most of those who entered into agreement with the Department allowed these agreements to lapse and are they now refusing to supply on the former terms and conditions? If so, can we be told what the reason for that is?

Chairman.—If there is a change of policy that does not concern us.

Deputy Bartley.—It is business policy on the part of the suppliers I am referring to.

Mr. O’Brien.—We leave it entirely to applicants themselves to order their own materials.

616. Deputy Bartley.—How long is that the case?—I think that was always the case but we have in the interests of applicants tried for a number of years to get what are called approved contractors. Ü think for about two years running we were not able to get one in Galway but I believe that has been corrected and we have an approved supplier in Galway at the moment.

617. The point is this: when a man gets a sanction does the approved contractor now issue a certain quantity of materials to enable the applicant to begin building on a credit note received from Gaeltacht Services or does the Gaeltacht Services office leave the provision of these materials entirely to the applicant himself?—Yes. Provision of the materials is left entirely to the applicant himself, but we pay the contractor when he has supplied if the applicant has authorised us to do so.

Deputy Bartley.—I understand that.

Mr. O’Brien.—The contractor knows that the Department will reimburse him for the materials out of the grant when payable.

618. Deputy Bartley.—And the invoices are in fact sent to the applicant to check up on the materials delivered?— That is so.

619. I may be under a misapprehension but it seems that formerly when an applicant was approved an intimation was sent to the approved contractor that he might now issue materials to a certain value and the applicant was not under the difficulty himself of establishing his creditworthiness to the supplier which seems now to be the position and which seems to me to have retarded operations. One contractor who got out of business told me that his reason for it was the slowness in dealing with those accounts when they were submitted. I am not myself accepting the truth of that unless the Department verify it. They themselves would know best as to whether there was undue delay. I only wanted to inform the Department through you, Mr. Chairman, that that statement was made to me, and if there is anything in it perhaps this is a suitable occasion to draw attention to it.

Mr. O’Brien.—I will undertake an examination of that point, but my information is that we do not pay for the materials until the actual work is gone some distance. If a person orders the materials and does not use them we just cannot help it. If he takes five or six months to proceed with the erection of the building having ordered the materials so much in advance we certainly will not pay until the job is going on.

620. Deputy Bartley.—But my point is: was there a practice up to some time ago of issuing the materials and the contractor sending the materials to the applicant on receipt of a credit note from Gaeltacht Services? That is the net point I want to make. Has that been changed and, if so, what are the reasons for the change? I know the change has created difficulties. That is why I referred to it. I think the scheme will bring better results if we could get back to the previous position.

Chairman.—It still seems a bit like policy to me.

Deputy Bartley.—It may be a changed policy—on that I am in doubt. To me it seemed there was a change of policy on the part of the business people, and if that is so the Department cannot help.

Mr. O’Brien.—I will look into it and send you a note.* I am not aware that it was ever the practice of the Department in fact

Chairman.—Will that satisfy you, Deputy?

Deputy Bartley.—Yes.

621. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—On subhead H.3.—Grants under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts, 1929 to 1949—there is a big drop in the amount of expenditure. I see a note on the subhead says that applications for grants were not received to the extent anticipated. Does that mean that people did not actually apply for as many grants as formerly or that the Department did not sanction these people as suitable for getting grants?

Mr. O’Brien.—It means they did not apply for as many. A new Gaeltacht Housing Act was on the stocks affording better terms, and there was some stalling by applicants waiting for those better terms.

622. Deputy Bartley.—There was another reason: the county council supplementary loan was not available for applicants under the Gaeltacht Housing Acts at first and that was subsequently rectified.

Mr. O’Brien.—That position was corrected in the general Housing Act, 1952, when the applicants under the Gaeltacht Housing Acts became eligible for the local authorities supplementary grant.

623. Chairman.—On subhead J— Appropriations in Aid—there is an arrangement to transfer to Extra Exchequer Receipts an amount of £35,000, but it does not occur unless Appropriations in Aid are greater than estimated. I think it would be clearer if the adjustment were shown at the foot of the explanatory note relating to the subhead rather than under item No. 1 in the note, because on the face of it, the realisation was greater than the estimate. In future perhaps you would bring it down to the end of the explanatory note?—I have already given a direction to that effect.

Chairman.—There are no further queries. Thank you, Mr. O’Brien.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 60—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL WELFARE.

Mr. P. J. Keady called and examined.

624. Chairman.—On subhead I.— Health Embarkation Certificates—is this the final appearance of this subhead?— It is, yes.

625. What does subhead K.—Transport and Compensation—represent, Mr. Keady?—It represents the cost of maintenance of motor cars and compensation for damage and injury in cases of accident in which social welfare vehicles are concerned. It had its origin in a fleet of cars owned by the National Health Insurance Society which we took over.

626. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—There is one matter which seems to arise in practically every Department, and that is that they have not got their full complement of staff, yet are all able to lend staff to other Departments. How does that happen?

Chairman.—I think that is a matter of convenience between Departments. It saves Departments having too much staff all the time. Occasionally they need extra staff and borrow from others. It is a considerable saving to the State in the long run.

VOTE 61—OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. P. J. Keady further examined.

627. Chairman.—Paragraphs 101 and 102 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead A.—Pensions and Supplements.

In accordance with Section 77 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, old age pensions and pensions to blind persons were increased by 1/6 a week from 4 July, 1952. As from 2 January, 1953, new means limits were introduced and the rules for calculating means were modified.

With the authority of the Department of Finance expenditure amounting to £35 5s. 0d. has been included in the charge to this subhead in respect of pensions paid for which vouchers could not be produced. As alternative evidence of payment was available I have admitted the charge against the vote.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That is for information. I have no further comment to make.

Chairman.—I presume that if the Comptroller and Auditor General is satisfied it is all right.

628. Deputy Bartley.—What are the vouchers in this particular instance? Are they the pension paying orders?—Yes.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The payments were made by the Post Office and in the case of a particular sub-postmistress the investigators were quite satisfied that the pensioners had received payment, though the vouchers were missing and could not be traced.

VOTE 62—CHILDREN’S ALLOWANCES.

Mr. P. J. Keady called.

No question.

VOTE 63—UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Mr. P. J. Keady called.

629. Chairman.—Paragraphs 103, 104 and 105 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:—

“Subhead A.—Payment to the Unemployment Fund.

Exchequer contributions to the Unemployment Fund under section 5 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, as amended by the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1933, ceased as from 5 January, 1953 From that date these Acts were repealed by the Social Welfare Act, 1952, and the Social Insurance Fund was established. Payments to the latter Fund are provided for in the Vote for Social Insurance (see paragraph 112).

Subhead D.—Unemployment Assistance.

Under the provisions of section 9 (1) of the Unemployment Assistance (Amendment) Act, 1935, as amended by the Social Welfare Act, 1952, a person is not entitled to receive unemployment assistance while he i in receipt of, or entitled to unemployment benefit. Pending determination of entitlement to unemployment benefit claimants are paid unemployment assistance provided they fulfil the necessary statutory conditions, and if entitlement is established the decision already made authorising payment of unemployment assistance is revised. The Social Welfare (Assistance Decisions and Appeals) Regulations, 1953 (S.I. No 9 of 1953) provide that, in the case of revised decisions, payments of assistance already made may be treated as payments on account of any other assistance or benefit properly payable. During the year under review a sum of £18,458 16s. 7d. was credited to this subhead in respect of payments of unemployment assistance subsequently treated as payments on account of unemployment benefit. This amount was determined on an estimated basis in the absence of definite figures as to the amounts so paid. I was informed that the amount to be credited in respect of 1953-54 will also be estimated but that arrangements have been made to have exact figures available for 1954-55 and subsequent years.

Subhead F.—Unemployment Benefit.

The rates of unemployment benefit were increased by the Social Welfare Act, 1952, as from 3 July, 1952, and higher rates of contributions became payable from 6 October, 1952. In accordance with the provisions of the Act a sum of £51,624 was paid from this subhead to the Social Insurance Fund in respect of the resulting additional charge for the period 3 July to 5 October, 1952.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No. Most of these paragraphs are for information.

VOTE 64—WIDOWS’ AND ORPHANS’ PENSIONS.

Mr. P. J. Keady called.

130. Chairman.—Paragraphs 106 and 107 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:—

“Subhead B.—Payment to Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Fund.

Under the provisions of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, the rates of widows’ and orphans’ contributory pensions were increased as from 4 July, 1952, and higher rates of contributions became payable from 6 October, 1952. A sum of £98,044 in respect of the additional expenditure thus incurred became payable to the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Fund under sections 103 and 104 of the Act. The Act further provided for increased rates of widows’ and orphans’ non-contributory pensions as from 4 July, 1952, and under sections 105 and 106 a sum of £298,435 became payable to the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Fund in respect of the additional expenditure on these pensions from that date to 1 January, 1953.

Of the total amount thus payable, sums amounting to £160,000 were paid to the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Fund and the balance, £236,479, was paid to the Social Insurance Fund following the transfer to that Fund of the assets and liabilities of the former Fund.

Subhead C.—Widows’ and Orphans’ Non-Contributory Pensions.

Non-contributory pensions became payable from voted moneys as from 5 January, 1953, in accordance with section 61(1) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, and have been charged to this Vote from that date. As stated in the previous paragraph the rates of both contributory and non-contributory pensions were increased from 4 July, 1952. Owing to the urgency of implementing these provisions of the Act, books of supplementary pension orders were issued which did not indicate whether they related to contributory or non-contributory pensions and it became necessary to apportion on an estimated basis the total amount paid in respect of the increases. The Social Welfare (Determination of Expenditure on Pensions) Order, 1953 (S.I. No 310 of 1953) provided for the apportionment, and a sum of £63,143 11s. 0d. has accordingly been charged to this subhead in respect of increases of non-contributory pensions paid during the period 5 January to 31 March, 1953.”

I take it these paragraphs are for information.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes.

VOTE 65—NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. P. J. Keady called.

631. Chairman.—Paragraphs 108 and 109 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead B.—Grants towards Benefits Expenses of Administration and Supplements.

The rates of sickness and disablement benefits were increased by the Social Welfare Act, 1952, as from 7 July, 1952, and higher rates of contributions became payable from 6 October, 1952. In accordance with the Act a sum of £253,169 was paid to the Social Insurance Fund in respect of the additional expenditure on benefits during the period 7 July to 5 October, 1952.

Subhead C.—Investment Return.

As stated in previous reports section 21 of the Social Welfare Act, 1950, empowered the Minister for Social Welfare to make payments out of the National Health Insurance Fund in respect of expenditure on the acquisition of lands, premises, furniture or equipment, or the construction or reconstruction of premises. It also provided that an investment return in the form of contributions to the Fund should be made in respect of such payments at rates to be agreed upon from time to time between the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Finance. Such contributions fell to be made out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Payments made out of the Fund under this section during the period from 1 April, 1952, to 4 January, 1953, amounted to £188,682 19s. 1d. bringing the total payments so made to £882,545 18s. 8d As shown in the account, the amount of the investment return paid to the Fund from this Vote in the year under review was £21,800 (See Also Paragraph 113).”

VOTE 66—MISCELLANEOUS SOCIAL WELFARE SERVICES.

Mr. P. J. Keady called and examined.

632. Chairman.—On this question of school meals, have you been able to make any regulations?—We have not amended the existing regulations, but we have been in correspondence with the Department of Finance on the matter. The position at the moment is that the matter is being considered but nothing has been done yet in the way of amendment.

633. It is a difficult problem?—It is.

634. Deputy J. Brennan.—On subhead E.—Grants towards the Supply of Footwear for Necessitous Children—I see that the expenditure was almost £3,000 less than the amount of the grant.

Chairman.—There is a note giving an explanation of the cause of the variation. It says that the saving was mainly due to a restriction in grants to local authorities as a result of an increase in grants towards the provision of footwear to recipients of home assistance under subhead F.—Grants towards the Provision of Assistance in kind to Recipients of Home Assistance.

635. Deputy Bartley.—Could we be told what are the difficulties which have been referred to in regard to subhead A. —Grants under the Education (Provision of Meals) Acts, 1914 to 1930?

Chairman.—There is a long paragraph on this question of getting a contribution which appears in the report of the previous Committee. There was provision made for a contribution by parents, but this could not be enforced. The matter has been, and is still, under discussion. We can now take the next Vote.

VOTE 73—SOCIAL INSURANCE.

Mr. P. J. Keady further examined.

636. Chairman.—Paragraph 112 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead A.—Payment to the Social Insurance Fund under Section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952.

In accordance with section 39 (1) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, the Social Insurance Fund was established as from 5 January, 1953, the appointed day for purposes of the Act. Section 39 (9) (a) provides that the amount by which the income of the Fund for any financial year is less than its expenditure shall be paid into the Fund out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Section 39 (9) (b) provides that for this purpose the income and expenditure of the Fund for a financial year shall be determined by the Minister for Social Welfare on such basis as may be agreed upon between him and the Minister for Finance. Pursuant to these provisions a sum of £902,000 has been paid into the Fund from this Vote.”

637. Chairman.—Paragraph 113 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead B.—Investment Return.

As stated in paragraph 109, section 21 of the Social Welfare Act, 1950, empowered the Minister for Social Welfare to make payments from the National Health Insurance Fund for certain specified purposes. This section was amended by section 68 (5) (e) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, to enable such payments to be made from the Social Insurance Fund and for an investment return to be made to that Fund from moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

During the period 5 January to 31 March, 1953, the payments so made from the Social Insurance Fund amounted to £82,574 15s. 10d. which, together with sums amounting to £882,545 18s. 8d. paid from the National Health Insurance Fund up to and including 4 January, 1953, brings the total expenditure to £965,120 14s. 6d. as at 31 march, 1953. As shown in the account, the amount of the investment return paid from this Vote to the Social Insurance Fund was £8,068.”

This paragraph refers to the Store Street building which was built out of this Fund and the books carry an amount of money which the sum invested in the building would have drawn if invested otherwise. That is part of the agreement and that is called the investment return. The total amount paid was £29,868. There is, in addition, the rent paid for the premises?—In effect, that is so. We had to sacrifice certain investments in order to provide the capital for the building. The Exchequer is relieved of the cost of housing the insurance staff and in return for that they pay us the investment interest which we have lost through realising securities.

638. In other words, the Fund owns the building and the State pays rent for the use of it?—Yes.

639. The only point I see about it is why this building should be separated in this way. Mostly, those buildings are on the Public Works and Buildings Vote and there does not seem to me to be any good reason why the rent should not be borne by that Vote?—There is a provision in the Social Welfare Act that the expenses of administering the insurance side of the Act are to be borne out of the Fund itself. There is an Appropriation in Aid from the Fund for the expenses of the Minister and all other Ministers in administering the Act, So that the principle is there already.

640. In effect, however, it is not different from any other Government building. In fact, the Public Works and Buildings Vote bears the cost of Government Buildings and Departments?—There is that about it that our Department is, to some extent unique in having such large insurance funds at its disposal which may be invested and, usually, up to recently were invested in trustee securities. There is no reason why portion of them should not be invested in real estate.

641. I know but the interest is not borne by your Department but by the Exchequer, which pays in this rent?—Yes.

642. Most rents are borne on the Vote for Public Works and Buildings?—If we had not this provision, the same thing would happen with us. They would have to pay the rent.

643. Deputy Bartley.—Is the rent received more or less equivalent to the return which the investment of an equivalent amount would bring in?

Chairman.—Yes.

Mr. Keady.—It is 4 per cent. on buildings and 7 per cent. on equipment.

644. Chairman.—You do not occupy the whole building?—No. The ground floor is occupied by Córas Iompair Éireann.

645. Do they pay rent for that?—They are liable to us for the rental of that portion of it.

646. Is that rental off-set on this?—It will be paid into the Fund.

647. Has the amount been determined? —The effect of it is to reduce the amount which would be payable by the Exchequer because that portion of the building is excluded from the investment return.

648. Has the amount been determined?— It has not been finally determined yet.

649. Is the part of the building which is under your direct control all in use?—It is.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XVI.