Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1956 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1953 - 1954

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé hAoine, 9 Márta, 1956.

Friday, 9th March, 1956.

The Committee sat at 10.30 a.m.

Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Miss M. Bhreathnach, Mr. M. Breathnach and Mr. J. F. MacInerney (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 50—INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.

Mr. J. C. B. MacCarthy called and examined.

1008. Chairman.—Paragraphs 66 to 68 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read as follows:—

Vote 50.—Industry and Commerce.

“Subhead J.1.—Food Subsidies.

The expenditure charged to this subhead is made up as follows:—

The flour subsidy, paid to Grain Importers (Éire) Limited, was the amount required to control the price of flour, and to regulate the earnings of the milling industry. Prior to 25 April, 1953, these were limited to a percentage of an agreed figure representing capital employed together with the cost of any capital provided in excess of the agreed figure. As from 25 April, 1953, the subsidy was adjusted to ensure that, over the industry as a whole, millers would earn remuneration equivalent to 4/6 per sack of flour produced after charging all admissible expenses. The expenditure comprised £5,789,727 in respect of losses incurred on the sale of imported wheat for periods up to 27 February, 1954, offset by £47,887 being the balance due from the company in final adjustment of subsidy for the cereal year 1949-50 following examination of the millers’ accounts by officers of the Department; payments on account amounting to £406,000, being £400,000 in respect of provisional adjustment of subsidy for the cereal years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53, and a further advance of £6,000 for remuneration of importer-distributors for the 15 months to 31 March, 1951.

The subsidy on wheaten meal for the cereal year 1952-53 was paid to millers at varying rates representing the difference between the average cost of production together with a profit of 2/6 per sack and the controlled selling price.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla. — These paragraphs simply record a change in the method of paying subsidy. Under the superseded system, the allowance worked out at about 2/6 per sack. Now that has been stepped up to 4/6, but it includes an allowance in respect of depreciation.

1009. Deputy A. Barry. — What does that mean?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—There was a revision of the whole system of assessing subsidy, and as a result of representations the allowance was stepped up to 4/6. An appreciable part of that, I think, covers depreciation.

Mr. MacCarthy. — There is an allowance for depreciation on fixed assets.

Mr. Ó Cadhla. — The precise subsidy for any year cannot be determined until the millers’ accounts have been examined by the officers of the Department. In the year 1953-54, they had completed examination of the accounts for 1949-50. It was necessary in respect of the subsequent years to issue advances until such time as the precise subsidy for a particular year was ascertained.

Deputy A. Barry.—There is always a considerable time lag.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes.

1010. Chairman.—What is the present position regarding the final adjustment of the subsidies for the years subsequent to 1949-50?

Mr. MacCarthy.—That depends on the submission of the accounts. According to a note I have, the accounts have not yet been furnished for the year ended September, 1955, but our estimate is that, at the 31st March, 1955, there was probably a sum of £130,000, approximately, due to the millers over and above the advances already made. We cannot be definite about that until we get in the new accounts.

1011. Deputy A. Barry. — Is the payment of subsidy accomplished within a year?—No, only of advances. We keep making advances. First of all, the accounts take some time to come in; when they do come in, the detailed examination is a very lengthy process and we never quite catch up on the backlog.

1012. These advances are made on an estimated basis? When does the knife finally cut down on that year?—The only thing I can point out is that we did not finalise the year 1949-50 until the fourteen-week period ended 1st August, 1953, so that there was almost a three-year lag there.

1013. Chairman. — Paragraph 69 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead K.—Fuel Subsidy.

The sum of £240,000 charged to this subhead was paid to Fuel Importers (Éire) Limited, being £147,152 in discharge of the unrecouped losses of the company as at 31 December, 1952, to gether with the sum of £92,848 on foot of the loss incurred in the year ended 31 December, 1953. The total payments of subsidy to the company amounted at 31 March, 1954, to £10,046,373.”

1014. Deputy Sheldon.—Could we find out if the £240,000 was insufficient? In the succeeding year, 1954-55, it went up £10,000. Was it as a result of what happened in 1953-54?—These losses arise where they sell coal at a price which yields a lower return for them than their actual outgoings. Up to, I think, April, 1955, these sales were pretty continuous, but the Minister decided in April, 1955, to discontinue all sales by Fuel Importers, Limited. The Cork stocks had been disposed of; there is a stock in the Phœnix Park and, at the present time, the activities of the company are confined to looking after that stock. They have, of course, a very large accumulated loss. What the eventual position will be, I do not know. Coal prices are increasing and the more they increase, the better are the chances of recouping to some extent the losses of Fuel Importers, Limited. But you cannot associate any particular provision with any particular sale for that reason. They have been holding these stocks for years. They started doing it years ago and there has been a progressive increase in losses.

1015. Chairman.—What fuel is being subsidised and on what basis is the subsidy calculated?—There is no fuel whatever being subsidised at the present time and, as I said, we cannot even say that coal would be subsidised in the future. It may be. The only coal in question is the stock in the Phœnix Park. If it is possible for Fuel Importers, Limited, to sell that coal at a price which not merely covers the purchase of the coal but makes good the accumulated losses, there will not be any need for further subsidy. If, on the other hand, the price is not sufficient to do that, then at the stage at which Fuel Importers, Limited, is being wound up or possibly earlier, these losses will have to be met by a payment from the Vote. That is the present situation.

There is still a big stock to be disposed of?—It is not big by previous standards, but it is pretty substantial, being almost 100,000 tons.

1016. Chairman. — Paragraphs 70 and 71 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:—

“Operations of Bord na Móna.

Subheads M.1., M.2. and M.3.

The issues from the Grants-in-Aid during the year comprised £20,000 for experiments and research (subhead M.1.), £179,880 for grants for housing (subhead M.3.), and £111,545 for cost of turf production under local schemes (subhead M.2.).

Section 52 of the Turf Development Act, 1946, as amended by Section 2 of the Turf Development Act, 1950, provides for the payment out of voted moneys of grants towards the expenses incurred by Bord na Móna on experimental and research work, subject to a limitation of £250,000. The issues under this head amounted at 31 March, 1954, to £199,800.”

1017. On paragraph 71, what is the nature of the experiments and research work carried on?—Broadly speaking, it consists of measures designed to facilitate the use of turf, but it is not confined to that. I can give you some details. A good deal of attention has been devoted to mechanisation of production processes, and indeed the Board have themselves helped in designing some of the machines that are used. There are also researches designed to secure economies in the use of manpower. They have carried out research in relation to drainage operations. They have designed and are experimenting with the construction of machines of various types. They have gone quite a lot into experiments and research in domestic heating appliances which would be fired by turf; and some Irish manufacturers have now adopted the designs suggested by the Board and have gone into commercial production of these. Then, of course, they have to concern themselves with the production of turf by the hydro peat methods and another rather interesting one is the extraction of wax from peat.

1018. Deputy Sheldon.—What progress have they made with the extraction of mona wax?—I cannot answer that specifically. I do not think it has reached the commercial stage yet. How successful they have been, I do not know.

1019. Chairman.—Paragraph 72 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Section 6 of the Turf Development Act, 1950, provides for the payment to Bord na Móna of grants of such amounts as the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may fix, towards the expenses incurred by the Board under approved schemes for the building of houses for occupation by servants of the Board. The maximum grant payable under Section 6 for any particular house was £180 and the total amount of such grants was not to exceed £360,000. Section 3 of the Turf Development Act, 1953, increased the maximum individual grant to £570 and the total to £420,000 and the charge to subhead M.3. is in respect of the additional grants paid. The issues to 31 March, 1954, amounted to £264,480.”

1020. Could you say how many houses have been erected for which grants were payable? — The total number of houses erected was 552. There is a slight complication about it when you use the word “house” because six of these were constructed as shops and a reduced grant was paid in these cases, but my figure includes all building in respect of which grants were paid.

1021. I see that you had 2,000 houses in mind. What led to the change of plans? You now seem to be providing 750?—It is not really any positive change of plan. It is rather more that Bord na Móna have been slightly complicated in their operations by the need for the provision of schools. If they erect any large number of these houses, they have the problem of schools and a church. They have been in negotiation with the Department of Education about schools, but that has not advanced very far; and the question of the church is an even more complicated problem. So their immediate prospect is, as you say, about 700. There has been no decision, if the other matter can be got over, to reduce the over-all target.

1022. Would you have any information as to what is the average of the cost per house?—Yes. We do have that. These operations are carried out by Bord na Móna. They are an autonomous body and we cannot insist on figures, but we do get a lot of information in arriving at the grant we make. The average cost is about £1,600.

Deputy A. Barry.—Including development?—Yes, taking the development and allocating it over the houses, the cost works out at £1,600. The local authority would, of course, have to take care of any services that would be provided. If there were a water scheme for the district, my £1,600 would not include the cost of that, but it includes the cost of ordinary site development.

1023. Chairman.—Paragraph 73 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“Production of turf under local schemes was confined to machine-won turf and receipts from Bord na Móna in respect of sales amounted to £112,700 which is credited to subhead X.—Appropriations in Aid. During the year under review it was decided that these schemes, which were taken over from county councils in January, 1948, should be discontinued and the Board was instructed to proceed with winding-up operations, including the disposal of the equipment and stores. A sum of £16,648 in respect of equipment sold was received from the Board and brought to account as Exchequer extra receipts.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla. — The disposal of the equipment and stores was completed in the next year and a further sum of £16,000 was received from the Board.

1024. Deputy A. Barry. — How was that equipment disposed of?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—It was disposed of by tender

1025. Deputy T. Lynch. — Was it second-hand or new?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Some machines had not been used. I think there was a question raised in the Dáil about these particular machines.

Deputy T. Lynch.—There was a substantial loss on some of the machines, a sum of £50,000.

Chairman.—Yes, we had a loss.

Mr. MacCarthy.—There was a question in the Dáil on the 15th December, 1954, in which the Minister indicated that approximately 40 of these machines, called Ackermann machines, had been sold and that included 31 unused machines. The cost of these was £55,336 and they had to be sold as scrap for £904, so there was a loss of £54,462.

1026. Deputy Sheldon. — Did the Auditor General say there was a further sum of £16,000?

Mr. Ó Cadhla. — Yes, received in the next year.

1027. Chairman.—I presume the Board could not have found any other way of disposing of them?

Mr. MacCarthy.—No, they did everything possible. They asked the manufacturers would they take the machines back, but the manufacturers could not do that. They had no possible use for them themselves. These were semi-automatic machines. They had been bought for use on what was known as the special turf production scheme under the county councils. The Board were now on the completely mechanised type of production and these machines were useless to them. Tenders were invited and the only tenders received were those from the purchasers of scrap.

1028. Deputy A. Barry.—It does seem to display a certain lack of foresight in the general policy of turf mining that this expenditure should have been incurred. A change of policy surely was apparent over some period of time which should have prevented that great proportion of loss?—This had been going on for quite some time since the end of the war and, while the future policy seemed like emerging about 1948, we later ran into difficulties arising from the Korean war and it was decided to postpone the change over from the semi-automatic to the automatic system of production. I do not think any blame can be attached to Bord na Móna in that matter because it was general policy that was involved in trying to keep our supplies going. It would be far worse from the point of view of the State to keep on using these machines and producing the turf by the semi-automatic method, the likelihood of disposing of the product being far less than the likelihood of disposing of the automatic product. It would mean you would save the loss on the machines but the State would be producing a lot of turf which it might not be able to dispose of.

1029. Deputy Bartley.—These machines were all quite serviceable when sold?— Thirty-one were quite new.

I think it is true to say, as the Accounting Officer has indicated, that it was not a change of Bord na Móna policy, because there was a discussion in the Dáil on it. Is there not this aspect of it, that you cannot use the fully automatic machine in all the bogs, particularly in the places where you have the heaviest population, and that these semi-automatic machines were an absolute sine qua non if Bord na Móna were to produce all the turf wanted in times of emergency? Is it not a fact that you cannot use the fully automatic machines in the light mountain bogs where you have out-croppings of rock?—Yes.

Deputy Bartley.—They are only effective where you have large expanses of deep virgin bog. These bogs had, in fact, been exploited during the emergency by the county councils and Bord na Móna then came along and took up this work subsequently. That happened in Donegal. The loss cannot be attributed to any lack of foresight on the part of Bord na Móna.

Deputy J. Brennan.—We had a few of these machines in Donegal.

Deputy Bartley.—We had them down in the West, too.

1030. Chairman. — Paragraph 74 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“The Exchequer extra receipts also include a sum of £118,455 received from Bord na Móna being an annuity of £18,455 in respect of the advances made from voted moneys for the development of certain bogs and a sum of £100,000 as a capital repayment. The amount outstanding at 1 April, 1954, in respect of these advances was £150,565 and, with the agreement of the Minister for Finance, this amount is being repaid by means of an annuity of £11,090 over a term of 23 years, interest being calculated at 5 per cent.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—These repayments are in respect of advances made to the Turf Development Board for the development of certain bogs. The assets and liabilities were taken over by Bord na Móna.

1031. Chairman.—Paragraph 75 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“Section 41 (3) of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1945, provides that one moiety of the moneys advanced out of the Central Fund to the Electricity Supply Board for rural electrification shall be repaid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas at such time or times as the Minister for Finance shall direct. The moieties of advances made in the calendar years 1947 and 1948 were, in accordance with the direction of the Minister for Finance, repaid from the Vote for Industry and Commerce to the Central Fund in the financial years 1948-49 and 1949-50, respectively. The subsidy portions of the advances for the calendar years 1949 and 1950 are, by direction of the Minister, being repaid from voted moneys by annuities over a term of 50 years, interest being calculated at 3¼ per cent. The first instalments were paid in the financial years 1950-51 and 1951-52, respectively.

In the year 1952-53 the Minister for Finance decided to revert to the earlier procedure whereby the subsidy moiety of advances in a calendar year is repaid to the Central Fund from voted moneys in the financial year commencing on the following 1 April and £450,000 being one-half of the amount advanced in 1951 was repaid in the year ended 31 March, 1953. The sum of £904,810 charged to this subhead comprises annuities of £25,375 and £29,435 in repayment of the subsidy moieties of advances made to the Board in 1949 and 1950, respectively, and £850,000 being one-half of the amount advanced during the calendar year 1952.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No, sir.

1032. Chairman.—Paragraph 76 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“The Grass Meal (Production) Act, 1953, authorised the Minister for Industry and Commerce to promote a limited company for the acquisition, drainage and cultivation of bogland in the Bangor Erris area, the processing of grass and other plants and the carrying on of kindred and incidental activities. The company, Min Fhéir Teoranta, was incorporated on 5 March, 1954, and by warrant dated 20 March, 1954, the Minister for Industry and Commerce appointed the first directors. Section 14 of the Act authorises the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance to make grants to the company out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas to be applied in defraying capital expenses, the aggregate amount of such grants being limited to £165,000. In the year under review grants amounting to £12,000 were issued out of a provision of £50,000 made by Supplementary Estimate.”

Have you anything to add on that?

Mr. Ó Cadhla. — The relevant statute provides that the audited accounts of the company should be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. A decision has recently been taken to wind up this company.

1033. Chairman.—What was the nature of the assets to be disposed of?

Mr. MacCarthy. — I do not know the exact nature of them, but they were disposed of by an arrangement with the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture was to take over these assets at an agreed valuation and the valuation was agreed between the company and the Department. A liquidator has now been appointed in respect of Min Fhéir Teoranta. I could not describe the physical assets.

Deputy J. Brennan.—Drainage machinery possibly.

Mr. MacCarthy.—I understand they were items of drainage equipment.

1034. Chairman.—Paragraph 77 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Paragraph 67 of the last report referred to the liability of Mianraí, Teoranta, for advances and for interest thereon. The total liability of the company amounted at 31 March, 1954, to £206,172. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 11 (2) and 12 (3) of the Minerals Exploration and Development Company Act, 1941, and Section 8 (2) of the Minerals Company Act, 1945, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, agreed to postpone to 1 April, 1955, payment by the company of interest on advances and of instalments of advances which fell due on 1 April, 1953, 1 October, 1953, and 1 April, 1954.”

1035. This company has been in operation for some years now. Has it met with any degree of success?

Mr. MacCarthy.—The initial part of their activities was related to exploration and research at Avoca, and I think the answer to that is “Yes”, in the sense that, on the basis of the results of their exploration and development, this Canadian company have taken a lease of the property. They propose to continue exploration for a period and, although the indications are now very favourable, we must wait until the final exploration is completed. If it is successful, it is hoped to have quite a substantial industry there. As far as the operations at Slieveardagh are concerned, you know these were transferred during the year under review to a private operator, the Ballingarry Collieries. Outside these areas, there was no considerable exploration done by Mianraí Teoranta. They did operate in a small way in one or two places as agents for the Geological Survey Office. Their two big jobs were Avoca and Slieveardagh.

1036. We were discussing the position regarding Slieveardagh coal mines here last year I remember; what is the position now?—When we were discussing it previously, a balance remained to be paid of the purchase money and the instruments had not been finally signed and sealed. All that has now been finalised and what remains to be done is for the Minister to approach the Dáil with a view to regularising, by way of Supplementary Estimate, the excess expenditure which was incurred beyond the limit permitted under the Act. At the time the Minister could have brought forward an amending Act, but there were reasons for not doing so, because negotiations were in progress. He indicated, when speaking on the main Estimate for last year, that he would introduce a Supplementary Estimate. It was hoped to introduce that Estimate in the last session of the Dáil. It was postponed then because, with the developments at Avoca, it might well be that some other matter might have to be provided for.

1037. On subhead B—Travelling Expenses—these expenses include the expenses of the Mining Board, I presume? —The Mining Board is provided for under a special subhead.

1038. Deputy J. Brennan.—In regard to subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—under which expenditure was £15,000 less than granted, and to the Note thereto, could you tell us what proportion is due to either circumstances— vacancies or retrenchment?—They are very largely, with us, the same thing, sir, because, when a vacancy occurs in the ordinary course of events, the first step is to see is it possible to retrench the post. If a vacancy remains unfilled for a considerable period of time, it may be said to be automatically retrenched. I cannot say in respect of that particular year what proportion would be due to ordinary vacancies awaiting filling, but I should say it would not be very large because, in the ordinary course of events, if a vacancy had to be filled, we would try to get it done quickly. The only exception to what I say is in the very junior ranks, like writing assistants and clerical officers. It is the custom, and has been for the past few years, not to extend examination lists. Therefore, if you get a vacancy, you have to wait until the next examination has been held. That could account for a saving over a fairly long period, but that would be a relatively small factor in the total, I think.

1039. Has there been any real retrenchment in so far as vacancies have not been filled at all?—Most decidedly. Just about the year of this account and, indeed, in the year or two before that, we made the most extraordinary reductions in staff. In order not to claim too much credit, I should say that we were facilitated in that by the fact that we were dropping controls according as the situation eased, but, independently altogether of that, we put on quite a squeeze and, in one year alone, we reduced expenditure by £40,000 even out of the figure in the Estimate which had already been reduced. We have the organisation and methods system in operation which, while it does not cater very much for savings at the higher levels, certainly does help at lower levels because streamlined processes are introduced.

Deputy J. Brennan.—That is very interesting.

1040. Chairman.—On subhead E— Advertising and Publicity—I presume that most of this work is done through the Stationery Office?—I could say almost exclusively to that. I cannot think of any single instance where it was not, but I think we would reserve the right, if we had something very special, that might involve perhaps designing a poster, or that kind of thing, to do that separately, but I can recall no such case.

1041. You show a saving on the subhead. Was it due to an alteration of plans or policies?—There were two reasons for that. One was that in that particular year, we changed the whole method of making price announcements. Up to then, there had been a very elaborate notice of the maximum prices of a large range of commodities which used to published monthly, then quarterly and eventually was abandoned. That introduced a saving there. We also achieved a very substantial saving by appointing one man, whose job it was to look at all proposed advertisements. We are a very big Department and we had advertisements from many different sections. We got one man to look at all these and to cut out any unnecessary verbiage. In that way, we saved quite a considerable amount of expenditure.

1042. Deputy J. Brennan.—Have you had to pay the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for the wireless announcements on price control?—No. These are regarded as news items. Radio Eireann do not issue advertisements on our behalf, but make the news item corresponding with the news items in the paper. Usually if you have an advertisement of any interest, you will find something in the news columns referring to the same advertisement.

Deputy J. Brennan.—Such as the code marking of eggs.

1043. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead F —Fees to Certifying Surgeons Etc.—I should be glad to know what happened that the fees went up to £10. I think it continued at that level?—I think I can give you the answer to that. I think the rate of fee was increased.

1044. There are not many fees, obviously?—No, very few. The Estimate explains that. He only comes in, I think, in cases where there is an actual dispute and it is necessary to have a certificate. It is very rare.

1045. Deputy A. Barry.—On subhead H, what is our subscription to the International Wheat Council?—£300.

1046. Chairman.—On subhead L.1— Payments to Mianraí, Teoranta, for Prospecting—the exact amount provided was paid out. On what basis are payments made?—There is a note in the Estimate on that. The payments are issued by the Accounting Officer to Mianraí, Teoranta, as required. Any balance which is unexpended by the company remains in their hands, but any balance remaining in the Vote not having been issued is surrendered at the close of the financial year. In fact, this company was spending up to the full extent possible. There was no question of any saving in that.

1047. On subhead L.2—Compensation for Mineral Rights Acquired—how is the amount of compensation fixed?—What happens, in the first instance, is that an endeavour is made to reach agreement with the parties concerned. If agreement is not possible, the party from whom the rights have been acquired may refer the matter to the Mining Board and the Mining Board have a sitting, take any evidence offered, including expert evidence, make out an award, notify the award to the Minister and the Minister then must undertake the compensation. In fact, nearly all awards are on the basis of a royalty. So that there is no actual expenditure unless and until the minerals are ever worked and if the minerals are ever worked, the person to whom the award was made then gets his share of the royalties. It is only in a most limited number of instances that it is possible to make a lump sum payment.

1048. On subhead L.3—Minerals Exploration—you had not any use for this provision. Are reports of surveys available to the public?—Oh, yes. Anybody can call to the Geological Survey Office and inspect documents or can write to the office, and if it does not involve any undue labour on their part in getting out the information, they will write back answering the question.

1049. Deputy Bartley.—What is the precise difference between the provisions in L.1 and L.3?—The provisions under L.1 are payments under statute—the Minerals Exploration and Development Act, 1947—which provided a sum of, I think it was, £85,000 a year for a period of seven years and which also provided for Slieveardagh and limited the expenditure there. L.3 is something extra statutory. The Geological Survey, in the ordinary course of its duties, does exploration work of a rather simple kind for the purpose of knowing where various occurrences are in the country. That was a scheme which it had been intended that they should carry out but they did not in fact get round to it in that financial year because technical assistance was provided and they did other schemes under technical assistance. I could perhaps illustrate.

1050. That is all right. I take it the provision under L.3 is allocated entirely to the Geological Survey?—Absolutely, yes. It was in fact under L.3 that that big scheme was done in the Cavan-Monaghan area—the gypsum exploration. That was done as a geological survey and financed out of that subhead.

1051. In regard to the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, can the Accounting Officer give us any information as to the extent to which the results of the research carried out by this Institute are adopted by manufacturers and others to whom it would be of concern?—I am afraid that is rather a broad question. The annual report of the Institute sets out the researches in which they are engaged. How far, where they did complete a research and made the results available, these results were utilised by industry, I am afraid I could not say offhand, but I can say that there has not been any great recourse to the Institute by industrialists, in other words, they have not been using the Institute to any marked extent. Indeed, successive Ministers for Industry and Commerce have referred to that in the Dáil from time to time. In fact, some of the researches on which the Institute were engaged were of a rather special kind. They did some of this heating of plants business and fuel conservation, I think, and they finished off the seaweed researches.

1052. Deputy J. Brennan.—Do they test roofing tiles and set standards?— They do. They will test for anybody. They have tested saws and electric bulbs were also tested by them.

1053. Chairman.—In regard to the Industrial Development Authority, who audits the accounts?—The Comptroller and Auditor General.

1054. On subhead T.1 there is a large saving by An Foras Tionscal, due to money not being taken over?—Oh no; it is not quite that. The difficulty with An Foras Tionscal is that figures of expenditure can convey a completely false impression. They only make payments as and when the work reaches specific stages. If it is a grant for a factory, for instance, they may have entered into commitments involving quite a large sum, but it is only on the basis of instalments accruing as the work progresses that expenditure falls on this Vote. In fact, in the year 1953-54 they approved of grants amounting to £159,000. The actual payments against the grants approved in 1953-54 and paid up to the end of March, 1955, were only £44,000, so that you see in that particular year only 25 per cent of the grants approved had fructified even at the end of the following financial year.

1055. Deputy A. Barry.—But was there no carry-over from the previous period?—Yes, in the previous period, in 1953-54, the actual expenditure in that year would have included about £70,000, I think—no, £40,000—in respect of grants approved by them in 1952-53.

1056. On subhead U., Frankfurt Fair, there was an under-estimation there of the cost of erecting that pavilion at Frankfurt?—Oh, yes.

1057. Chairman.—On what basis is display space allocated to industrial concerns?—Do you mean how do we pick industrial concerns or what charge do we make to them?

Deputy A. Barry.—How do you pick them, first?—In the first instance, various organisations such as the Federation of Irish Manufacturers or the Association of Woollen and Worsted Manufacturers, people engaged in the production of the goods of the kind for which this fair caters, had the existence of the pavilion brought to their notice and were invited to apply for space. In succeeding fairs anybody who was previously an exhibitor has his attention drawn specifically to it and the associations are again notified. We have a standard size of stand all around the sides of the pavilion and special ones in the middle. The special ones in the middle are reserved more or less for tourist publicity, external affairs and that sort of thing. All the others have uniform charges for each stand; everybody pays the same.

1058. Deputy J. Brennan.—I take it that Coras Trachtála co-operate in notifying firms of the space available?—Very decidedly.

1059. Chairman.—Is it considered that the Exhibition has justified itself?—Oh, yes.

1060. Deputy A. Barry.—I am not grumbling about that, but have the stands all been occupied? Have the receipts improved?—Yes. We had a little trouble in the early stages in getting them occupied. I think there are two of these fairs in the year and one seems less popular than the other and we had some difficulty, but I think the situation has improved a good deal.

1061. Deputy Sheldon.—Are the associations or firms who take space taking it from year to year?—Yes, from year to year.

1062. Deputy A. Barry.—Would it not be possible in future to relate the selling of space to the actual expenditure by the State on the Pavilion?—Oh, that is the general intention, but, of course, if you increase the charges, you will find it more difficult to get them to take space.

1063. Deputy J. Brennan.—I take it that Gaeltarra Eireann avail fully of the advantages?—They do, and while I cannot say it is due solely to taking part in the fair, Germany is a country with which Gaeltarra Eireann has developed quite a trade in its products.

1064. Chairman.—On subhead W.— Technical Assistance—we spent only a small portion of the provision—a number of the projects were not proceeded with? —Some of these died a natural death; others had to be postponed. I can tell you briefly what was in the total, if you wish. The first was peat gasification and indeed we spent six times what we had provided for tentatively. Minerals exploration—some of these schemes did not go ahead and we spent about one-third of what we had in mind. The sulphate of ammonia project was deferred. Coras Tráchtála had about five of these schemes, group canning, carrageen, peat moss, handling of stout and market surveys. Coras Tráchtála completely dropped peat moss, handling of stout and market surveys and deferred group canning and carrageen. We also had beet seed development for the sugar factories and that was dropped. Fuel conservation was postponed. On milled wheat we spent a little and that developed later on. We introduced a new one, meat by-products, on which there was a small expenditure.

1065. Deputy J. Brennan.—I thought gasification of peat and those other things in relation to peat would come under the Estimate for Research for Bord na Móna? —It is precisely the same position there as in relation to the provision in L.3 of the Estimate. There is what you would call the normal type of expenditure falling on the Vote. There is the Bord na Móna expenditure under Bord na Móna subheads and there is the geological research in subhead L.3, but when these technical assistance schemes became available, they were regarded as something additional and it was decided, I think, by the Minister for Finance that the entire expenditure on technical assistance should come in one subhead, instead of enlarging the provisions under various subheads.

1066. Deputy A. Barry.—But is there no danger of waste of money and effort by having these almost analogous types of activity going on where Bord na Móna might have proceeded a certain distance along the road and then this man would be doing something akin to it? Is there any danger of overlapping?—I think the immediate answer to that is that the investigator would be one and the same person in the case mentioned.

1067. Deputy J. Brennan.—It would merely mean the provision of extra money? Yes, extra money.

1068. Deputy A. Barry.—On subhead W.W.1—Loans to Min Fhéir, Teoranta, for Expenses of Formation, etc.—that was an ordinary commercial flotation?— Yes, flotation expenses.

1069. Chairman.—What is the nature of the contribution under item No. 2 of the Appropriations in Aid?—The Department of Industry and Commerce has an awful lot of functions under the Gas Act, checking up on thermal quality, checking up on safety and so on, and under the Acts the Department is entitled to recover from the Gas Companies the expenses of administration. An Order is made each year and signed by the Minister fixing the rate of contribution which is really the total expenditure divided by the number of therms produced and you arrive in that way at a figure per therm. The companies must pay that.

1070. There is a big increase under item No. 5 of the Appropriations in Aid. Is there any special reason?—There are two reasons. In the first place, in common with all fees there was a 50 per cent. increase in the rate which would have accounted of itself for increased receipts. Then, of course, these trade loan fees include a fee which is a percentage of the capital sum involved. The large receipt in that year is an indication that there was a large number of applications and that the capital sum involved was large. That is all it means.

1071. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to item No. 9 in Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer—what happened the transfers in question which were not made from the Counterpart Special Account?—That, I think, would not be a matter for me. I have been asked in effect why was the agreement not signed and I think that is a question I could not answer.

1072. The fact that the agreement was not signed is the answer. How does item No. 6—Fees under the Sugar (Control of Import) Act, 1936—come to be so swollen? I take it it is only a token provision of £5 and the realisation was £6,402?—I think it was just a large number of applications and fees for renewal in that year. These are renewal fees and there would not be any great regularity—or should not be—in the amount.

1073. That situation was not foreseeable?—Well, it would be foreseeable, I suppose, in a way, but it would mean an enormous amount of clerical work on our part. All that happens is that a person applies for and gets a licence; it is time dated and it is his responsibility to apply for renewal. If he goes over the period the Guards will be after him. We could certainly have a bring-forward system but I do not think the labour would be justified.

1074. Does the Act in this case provide that fees are to be surrendered to the Exchequer?—Yes, it is in the Act.

VOTE 51—TRANSPORT AND MARINE SERVICES.

Mr. J. C. B. MacCarthy further examined.

1075. Chairman.—Paragraph 78 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead A.2—Córas Iompair Eireann.

The total amount paid to Córas Iompair Eireann in the year 1953-54 by way of non-repayable grant towards the operating losses and revenue charges of the company was £800,000. Further payments of subsidy were suspended pending the re-examination of the allocation as between revenue and capital of certain expenditure charged in the company’s accounts. I understand that it has been established that overpayments of subsidy were made in the years 1952-53 and 1953-54 and that a claim for refund has been presented to the company.”

Have you any thing to say on this paragraph, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The over-payment of subsidy has been agreed at £829,000. This amount has been received and paid into the Exchequer.

1076. You get the audited accounts of the company. A non-repayable grant of £800,000 was issued. What is the present position?

Mr. MacCarthy.—There is no provision whatever now. In fact, in the year 1955-56 that part of the subhead was put in italics in the annual Estimates. It has passed out of the subsidy class now.

1077. Then you will not have to continue issuing non-repayable grants?—We are being hopeful that the situation will not deteriorate in the future. They had got out of the loss-making category and so long as they stay out of that, there will be no question of a grant.

1078. Chairman.—Paragraph 79 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“The charge to this subhead also includes a sum of £477,000 which was repaid to the Central Fund in recoupment of the amount advanced to Córas Iompair Eireann in the year ended 31st March, 1953, in accordance with section 30 of the Transport Act, 1950, to meet payments of interest on transport stock.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No. This paragraph is for information.

1079. Chairman.—Paragraph 80 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Paragraph 65 of the report on the accounts for the year 1949-50 referred to an advance of £2,462,369, made in that year to Córas Iompair Eireann to meet capital expenditure. The determination of the terms and conditions of repayment was deferred by the Minister for Finance until the end of May, 1953 and I have inquired whether any decision has yet been reached.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I was informed that it was intended to treat this amount as a free grant. Actually, the Dáil has now approved of the treatment of the amount as a free grant in the recent Transport Act—passed either in 1955 or 1956, I am not sure.

Mr. MacCarthy.—It was passed by the Dáil immediately before Christmas. Section 5 of the Act provides that the sum of £2,462,369 is to be treated as a non-repayable grant.

1080. Chairman.—Paragraph 81 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead A.3—Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland).

Subhead A.7—Great Northern Railway Board.

Reference was made in previous reports to the agreement reached between the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister of Commerce, Northern Ireland, regarding the payment and apportionment of the operating losses of the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland). The sum of £260,338 charged to subhead A.3 was paid to the company towards operating losses and revenue charges incurred in the period from 1 April to 31 August, 1953. The undertaking was transferred on 1 September 1953 to the Great Northern Railway Board established under section 6 of the Great Northern Railway Act, 1953.

Advances made to the Board up to 31 March 1954 towards anticipated losses, pursuant to section 30 (4) of the Act of 1953, amounted to £100,000 and were charged to subhead A.7. The issue of further advances was postponed pending the final apportionment between the two Governments of the company’s losses in the period from 1 January 1951 to 31 August 1953. I understand that the amount paid by this administration towards these losses was in excess of its liability and that it has been decided, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to permit the Board to retain the sum overpaid as a set-off against the State’s liability for the period commencing on 1 September 1953.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Over £740,000 was contributed towards the losses of the company in the period preceding the establishment of the Great Northern Railway Board. When the actual loss was determined, it was found that we had paid £214,734 in excess of our liability. This amount has been refunded by the Board and paid into the Exchequer in the current financial year.

1081. Deputy J. Brennan. — Was the amount actually refunded or set off in the payment of the following year?

Mr. Ó Cadhla. — It was actually refunded. The procedure set out in the last sentence of the paragraph was not followed as was originally intended.

1082. Chairman.—What is the basis of contribution towards anticipated losses of the Board?

Mr. MacCarthy. — It is, in fact, a highly complicated arrangement, but I will endeavour to simplify it as much as I can in my answer, which is a broad one. If the loss on rail is clearly attributable to losses in the Twenty-Six Counties, we pay; if the loss is clearly attributable to losses in the Six Counties, the Six-County Government pays; if it is a loss arising on cross-Border services, it is allocated on a mileage basis which works out at approximately 60-40.

Deputy A. Barry.—Against us?

Deputy Bartley.—60-40 in favour of us.

Mr. MacCarthy.—The 40 would be our side and the 60 their side. That applies only to a common service.

Deputy J. Brennan.—The reason being that in all the cross-Border services the major portion of the line is on our side.

Deputy Bartley.—Is that so? Public opinion is the other way.

1083. Chairman.—Who are the accountants?—An ordinary firm of commercial auditors—Messrs. Craig, Gardners.

1084. Deputy J. Brennan.—Before we pass from paragraph 81, I should like to ask a question.

Chairman.—I cannot allow the Deputy to go back. He was indulging in crosstalk while the paragraph was being discussed.

Deputy A. Barry.—But the question may be important.

Deputy J. Brennan.—I want to ask this question and if it is irrelevant, the Chairman can say so. By what means are the accounts of the Board of the Great Northern Railway available to the public?

Chairman.—I do not know.

Deputy Bartley.—You buy them in the Government Publications Sales Office.

Mr. MacCarthy.—It is a limited liability company and, though you would not have access to the full accounts, you could get the balance sheets issued in the ordinary way by any company.

1085. Deputy A. Barry.—By going to Dublin Castle?—We can check definitely on whether they are available at Dublin Castle. I will be able to let the Committee know before we finish.

1086. Deputy J. Brennan.—The reason I asked the question was that bodies which are appearing before the Tribunal are anxious to have this information at the moment and are finding difficulty in getting the full account?—I think they should not have. I am taking a chance on this answer but the accounts of the Sligo-Leitrim Railway were available under the Railway Acts though not, perhaps, the full commercial accounts. Under the Railway Acts, there has to be publication of certain statistical information gleaned from all sources and shown under each the name of each railway.

1087. Chairman.—Paragraph 82 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead A.6.—Passenger Facilities at Cobh.

As stated in paragraph 64 of the report for the year 1951-52 a payment of £19,000 was made to Córas Iompair Eireann in that year towards the cost of certain works on the railway premises at Cobh to afford improved accommodation for tourist traffic. The total cost of these works amounted to £35,835 of which £32,251 fell to be provided by the State and £3,584 by the harbour authority. The sum of £13,251 charged to this subhead represents the balance of the State contribution.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No. The paragraph is for information.

1088. Chairman.—What was the nature of the work carried out?—Broadly speaking, it was a scheme to make the place nicer looking for the American tourists coming in. The railway station was extended so as to have fully covered space for customs examination. A rather attractive waiting room was put up and the coverage was extended out to the point at which the passengers get off the tenders.

Deputy A. Barry.—It is a very good job.

1089. Chairman.—There seems to have been a long delay?—That was largely due to a strike of C.I.É. electricians. Córas Iompair Éireann did this job directly. The electricians’ strike held up the work and there was difficulty in getting some of the material for the rest of it.

By the way, the accounts of the G.N.R. are presented to the Dáil and Seanad.

1090. Deputy A. Barry.—That is the answer to Deputy Brennan’s earlier query on paragraph 81?—Yes.

Deputy J. Brennan. — They are presented to the Dáil?—Annually.

1091. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead A.1. — Payments in respect of Steamer Services—what is the total cost?—It is £5,613 6s. 1d.

1092. Deputy Bartley.—What exactly does the figure of £5,000 represent?—It represents the amount payable by the Minister under the consent to settlement which was negotiated in the action between the Minister and the Minister for Finance against the Galway Bay Steamship Company for the ownership of the Dun Aengus. The Minister agreed in that case in consideration of the vessel and the various stores, etc., being transferred to him to pay all the debts of the company at a certain date. The date, in fact, was July, 1951. In addition, he agreed to pay the costs of the litigation and also compensation to the shareholders in the company at the rate of 2/6 in the £ on their shareholdings. Córas Iompair Éireann were not in a position to take over this concern until August, 1951, and the Minister for Finance sanctioned the payment of the company’s debts as at that date. This provision was first made in the Estimate for 1952-53. We had to wait for the accounts and it was not until 1953-54 that it was possible to finalise the matter.

1093. What was the sum for the purchase of the former owners’ interest?— Do you mean the total sum or any expenditure met out of that particular year’s Estimate?

The Accounting Officer said that they acquired the former owners’ interest at the valuation of 2/6 per share. I want to know the total sum represented by that item?—I am afraid I have not got that. It has not been separately itemised, but we can get it for the Deputy.

Deputy Bartley.—That is all right.

Mr. MacCarthy.—I gather it is about £400.

1094. Deputy Sheldon.—Was that the net cost?—That would be the net cost.

1095. There is an Appropriation in Aid? — There should be a set off. In 1952-53 we had an Appropriation in Aid of £508 and in the year under review £239, giving a total of £747. That should be set off against the £5,613.

1096. Deputy J. Brennan.—Under subhead A.4.—Transport Tribunal—are the expenses of members of the public attending tribunals paid?—They may claim, I gather, for travelling expenses and reasonable subsistence but I do not think they get any allowance for loss of time.

1097. Does this also include payments of senior counsel?—I do not think there is any provision for coverage of legal expenses.

1098. Chairman. — Do you anticipate any further liability under subhead A.5. —Sligo, Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway Company?—I think that would introduce, possibly, questions of policy. I do not think I could go any further than did the Minister in a recent announcement when he said that subsidy had been provided which would be sufficient to keep the line open to the end of the current year.

1099. Deputy H. P. Dockrell. — Is dredging provided for under subhead B. —Grants for Harbours?—Yes.

I understand Dún Laoghaire Harbour has not been dredged for some considerable time?—Dún Laoghaire would not come under that because it is a State harbour. Any provision for expenditure there would be met out of the Vote for Public Works and Buildings.

1100. Chairman — From the note to subhead B. it would seem that you are meeting with a lot of difficulties in these matters?—It is most difficult to get these schemes going because you run into all sorts of difficulties and delays and there are troubles in getting the engineering reports and so on. We have got only five schemes in this actually—Cork, Dublin, Limerick, Rathmullen and Waterford. The Dublin Graving Dock took a considerable time.

1101. Deputy J. Brennan.—How was a sum of £44,000 more than that estimated spent? — I think I could tell you that. There were savings under various heads but in the case of Wexford there was an excess of £34,000 over the estimate of the civil engineer.

Deputy J. Brennan.—We seem to have been very extravagant in that?

1102. Deputy Sheldon.—Could we get the cause for this big over-expenditure and the percentage over the estimate?— I have not got it at the moment. I shall send out for it.

1103. Deputy J. Brennan.—What was the amount spent on Rathmullen?—The expenditure there was £17,000. Progress was very slow.

1104. Chairman. — On what basis do you issue the grants?—Once the scheme is approved, it depends on where the harbour is. In certain cases it also depends on who is doing the work. In some cases, we pay against progress certificates issued by the consulting engineer employed and in other cases against certificates issued by the Board of Works’ engineer. In Dublin we pay on certificates issued by the engineer of the Port and Docks Board.

1105. Deputy A. Barry.—What is the protective equipment mentioned in subhead L.?—It is degaussing equipment to protect vessels against magnetic mines.

1106. Has that been discontinued?— No. We are going ahead with it still. There has been a long delay in this matter because of technical considerations as to what would be the best way to design these things. There have been negotiations with the British about it, but the designing of the equipment is under way at the moment. The overall expenditure will be approximately twice that provided for in the Estimate. When the equipment is available it will simply be put in store and would not be used except in the case of another war. New ships now being constructed can have this equipment built in. That is the position in respect of new Irish Shipping vessels.

1107. Why do not Irish Shipping, Limited, carry this cost themselves?— There are various reasons. In the first place, this cost has not to be borne by the merchant marine anywhere else in the world—certainly not in England—and our merchant marine, being in competition with the English, insisted furiously that they should not have to bear what the British Government bears in respect of the British merchant fleet. Then the companies will not get the equipment unless there is another war. It is just a case of having it.

1108. Deputy J. Brennan.—It is a very heavy insurance. Magnetic mines may be out of date?—That is a very lively risk, but on the other hand magnetic mines may still be used. It is some consolation that the British, who should be fairly well advised on that, are doing it for their ships.

1109. Deputy A. Barry.—On the same system — that the Government provided the equipment and storage?—Except in the case of newly constructed vessels where the equipment is built in.

1110. In that case who bears the cost? —In the case of Irish Shipping, Limited, we have not agreed to bear that cost since it is part of the actual construction, but of course there are certain arrangements for providing the capital. What the answer would be if it were the case of a private company, I would not like to guess. We still have not got the information asked for by Deputy Sheldon on subhead B., but we can give it later, if that is suitable.

1111. Deputy J. Brennan.—Before we pass from this Estimate, I should like to have some information about subhead I. —a token sum for the relief of distressed seamen. I refer to it because the amount estimated and the amount expended are so insignificant. I should like very much to know what it covers?—It covers this kind of thing: under the various Acts dealing with the welfare of seamen, countries assume certain obligations, and we are a party to these. It covers the case of a seaman who gets into real trouble abroad and has no money. If he is in real distress, he can go into the mercantile marine office in whatever town he is and they will fix him up with enough to get back to his ship. Much the same function is performed as is done by our embassies and consulates in regard to Irish citizens abroad.

1112. There is an association known as the Shipwrecked Mariners’ Association? —I do not believe we contribute to that.

They give very generously to their seamen?—We provide for cases where seamen go wrong.

1113. Under subhead M.1., are these contributory pensions now?—No. They deal with dependents and widows. Of course they also deal with seamen who might meet with a serious accident.

1114. Deputy Bartley.—In relation to services rendered during 1939 to 1946?— Absolutely.

1115. Deputy J. Brennan.—I take it that subheads N.1 to N.4 cover the lifeboat services?—That is right.

1116. Deputy Bartley.—Before we pass from that, is there not a voluntary association which, I understand, had provided practically all the lifeboats we have around the coast. Is that so?—That is so, but what this provision covers is the inspection of the services. We also pay the number one and number two men. The rest of the crew are voluntary. The people in charge of the crew would have to do such things as scurrying round collecting their crews. These people are paid a very small retaining fee.

1117. I know that, but what I want to find out is what is the connection or the co-ordination between this service and the voluntary coast life-saving service which is financed by annual collections? We see people going round occasionally with miniature lifeboats in their hands?—It is the life-saving service.

1118. Who controls it? Is it the voluntary association or the Department of Industry and Commerce?—There is twofold control. The actual service, the provision of the boats and the stimulation of interest in it is done by the Royal National Lifeboat Association, but the Department of Industry and Commerce appoint superintendents whose job it is to go round and see that the voluntary people are keeping themselves up to date and turning out for drill every week or fortnight.

1119. Let us say there is a boat in a particular station. What function is exercised by the superintendent in relation to the management and control and operation of the boat?—He would have no function in relation to the operation of the boat. He pays visits of inspection and would see that the boat is in condition. I wonder if the Deputy could put the question in a more specific way.

1120. That is just the difficulty. There is so little information available that in fact it is difficult to frame the question very intelligently. We all know in maritime counties that this service exists, and we also know there is a voluntary contribution to this service of saving lives and preventing sea tragedies. The most valuable part of the equipment for the service is, I take it, the lifeboats themselves and it seems to me that the superintendence of the boats is a matter not understood by the public. That is the most specific manner in which I can frame the question. For instance, who makes a decision about the ordering of the boat and crew to do any particular thing?— The coxswain.

Deputy A. Barry. — The local Civic Guards would get in touch with the crew, if the boat was wanted.

1121. Deputy Bartley.—Is that answer being given now with authority?

Chairman.—I have no authority.

Mr. MacCarthy.—I am afraid I cannot give the answer because of a certain lack of precision. In the case of an emergency, it is certainly the coxswain who gives the order to go out immediately. In relation to the ordinary exercise, the number one man can call the men together and, indeed, must, because there is a provision here that they get fees in respect of exercises—even the volunteers. An ordinary enrolled volunteer gets 10/- each time he turns out. A non-enrolled assistant gets 5/-. They can only turn out once a quarter for this. To that extent, the number one man is restricted. He cannot turn them out every ten minutes.

1122. Deputy Bartley.—That money is provided out of the public purse. That is what we are dealing with here. The service is so closely tied up with the provision of these boats and their operation that it naturally follows that questions as to the management of the boats and decisions in relation to their use would arise on this Estimate. A further question would be this: is it the coxswain or the superintendent or is it the chairman or some officer of a local voluntary committee who would decide as to what an emergency was?

Deputy Sheldon. — They would probably have a committee meeting.

Mr. MacCarthy. — You mean, is a vessel in distress or not?

Deputy Bartley.—Suppose there is no vessel in distress. Suppose the boat is being used for some other purpose and that it is decided that it is an emergency within the meaning of a service.

Deputy J. Brennan. — For instance, when the boat goes out to search for a body.

Deputy Sheldon.—I think the Deputy is thinking of something more frivolous.

Deputy Bartley.—I am not.

Deputy Sheldon.—A more frivolous occasion.

Deputy Bartley.—I was thinking of something about life and death.

Deputy Sheldon.—I was thinking of a boat being improperly used.

Deputy Bartley.—That also would arise. However, the fact that you would have improper use does not mean that the question is frivolous.

Deputy Sheldon.—I did not mean the question but the occasion.

Deputy A. Barry.—I think a very fine service is provided for the money.

Deputy T. Lynch.—It is a matter of urgency. If they report that something is floating, they have to go out to see about it. I have seen a boat used for a frivolous purpose and they all got into trouble about it. They used it for giving jaunts around the harbour. They charged 2/6 per person and put the money into the funds. They were hauled over the coals about the matter because the trippers would not have been insured. It was an unauthorised trip. As far as I can see, it is a great service if a signal of distress, or anything else, is given. It was not a matter of volunteers, in the boats I have been in, but a matter of selecting the men who turned up. They all run down to the pier to get a boat. I think this is a very great service. I do not know who has the power of ordering the boat to sea. The very minute any emergency arises, they all come and the boat puts out.

Mr. MacCarthy.—In order to be quite clear on this, there are the men who actually go to sea in the boat, the crew who actually take the boat to sea. They are not paid for out of this Vote at all. They are the Association people. The people we pay are: the number one men, the number two men, and so forth, in the stations. There are hawser stations, whip stations, places with whip ladders, and so forth, for signalling to distressed ships, semaphore signals, morse lamp signals, throwing the heaving cane. They also carry out bad weather watching. As to whether the boat should put to sea or not, there is a special provision here for the post-communication telephone service, including £40 for telephones at officers’ private residences. There is no difficulty in a coxswain’s immediately communicating by phone with the superintendent or inspector. Indeed, I know that they communicate directly with officers of the Marine Section of the Department from time to time.

1123. Deputy J. Brennan.—Are there any surcharges for improper use, in the year under review? — Not for the year under review.

1124. Deputy Bartley.—May we take it that the expense of the service is not affected by the number of times the boat goes to sea in a given year?—It would not, even though the initial cost would be on the Royal National Lifeboat Association. The crew is their responsibility. If they went to sea and involved the people we pay in turning out, then it would affect it because they get a payment for each time they turn out. If there is a wreck, they get 2/- an hour for every hour they spend near the wreck. They get 10/- if the service is arduous. If a life is saved, the sum of £2 is divisible among the men. They are really token provisions.

1125. Chairman.—Have we the information now regarding the marine works? —We have. The total expenditure on Wexford Harbour, including the excess, was £76,000. It was a dredging job and bad weather stopped the dredger. The dredger had to be paid for and the operations had to be suspended. They were interfered with by bad weather.

1126. Deputy J. Brennan.—Almost 50 per cent.?—Almost 100 per cent.—50 per cent. of the total expenditure was the excess. That was 100 per cent. increase on the Estimate.

1127. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to item No. 2 in Appropriations in Aid, how does it happen that the expenditure on fees for the examination of masters, mates and engineers corresponds exactly with the Estimate? — The note I have here is that the amount varies with the number of candidates. It may be that they have some close idea of how many people would be offering themselves. That is only a guess.

Deputy J. Brennan.—Perhaps the entrance applications were received before the Estimate.

Mr. MacCarthy.—It could possibly be that.

1128. Chairman.—With regard to No. 7, what is the nature of these repayments?—That is a very old thing. When the Cork Tramway Company was wound up, the power part of it was taken over by the E.S.B. An arrangement was made that, out of voted moneys, the Minister would pay the compensation in the first instance and that, over a period of I think 20 years, both the E.S.B. and the Cork Corporation would repay on a 50-50 basis. The last repayment has in fact been made and that item has disappeared.

VOTE 52—AVIATION AND METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES.

Mr. J. C. B. MacCarthy further examined.

1129. Chairman.—Paragraph 83 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Reference was made in previous reports to the compulsory acquisition in 1945 of 23 holdings comprising 242 acres in connection with a scheme, which was subsequently abandoned, for the establishment of a village settlement in the vicinity of Shannon Airport. The reconveyance of these lands to the former owners has not yet been completed. Payments out of subhead E. on foot of compensation, legal costs and land annuities in connection with this project amounted to £268 and payment of £18 for rates on lands not yet reconveyed was made from subhead F. The net expenditure on the scheme to 31 March, 1954, was £4,966.”

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

1130. With regard to that paragraph, what was the reason for the delay in reconveying the remaining lands at Shannon to the former owners?

Mr. MacCarthy.—There is a difficulty there with the Clare County Council. I have a note on the matter. There is only one 3-acre holding. Negotiations have been going on with the Clare County Council for quite a long time. They have not yet been settled.

Deputy J. Brennan.—The main reason is that you are dealing with the Land Commission.

1131. Chairman. — Is £5,000 a fair measure of your loss on this scheme?— It is merely exaggerated to the extent of £34. The actual figure is £4,966.

1132. Chairman.—Paragraph 84 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“In paragraph 79 of the report on the accounts for the year 1952-53 I referred to expenditure of £28,368 on the acquisition of land for the development of Dublin Airport. Payments in the year under review for compensation, legal costs and the redemption of land annuities on the holdings amounted to £25,456 bringing the total expenditure as at 31 March, 1954, to £53,824 which is made up as follows:—

The acquisition of one further holding of approximately 5 acres was not completed at 31 March, 1954.”

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

1133. I understand this land is acquired for the extension of the runways. Has it been used for this purpose yet?

Mr. MacCarthy.—Not yet. Plans are still being worked out on it.

1134. What use do you make of it in the meantime?—Such of it as is available to us is let. We have not quite the whole of it. There is one holding of which we have not full possession yet. It is let after public tenders had been invited, to an organisation who produce grassmeal. The title, I think, is Provincial Crop Dryers, Ltd.

1135. Chairman.—Paragraph 85 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Expenditure during the year on constructional works, including furnishing of buildings, at Dublin and Shannon (Rineanna) Airports amounted to £55,346 and £18,808, respectively, bringing the total expenditure as at 31 March, 1954, to £1,254,556 for Dublin Airport and £1,944,577 for Shannon (Rineanna) Airport, exclusive of expenditure on the acquisition of land.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—This paragraph is for information.

1136. On this paragraph, we complained in the past about the practice of carrying on these works on a cost plus basis. Are you able to place all your contracts now on an inclusive lump sum basis?

Mr. MacCarthy.—Not really. We could do it but there are instances—in fact, there was one quite recently—in which that system of lump sum contract is not appropriate. It is a problem that arises rather more at Dublin Airport than at Shannon. It arises out of the fact that, if you are doing any inside work at the terminal building or outside work on the runways, you cannot very well have a fixed price contract if the work has to be interrupted every time a ’plane arrives. Arrivals are very frequent at Dublin Airport and any kind of work going on inside in places to which passengers have immediate resort is much better done if it can be done, we think, by maintenance men. They can be told to go back their maintenance for an hour, whereas no contractor could possibly work on that basis. That problem does not arise in the same acute degree at Shannon because the density of traffic is mainly at night or in the early hours of the morning when the work would not be going on, anyhow. The answer to the question is that our natural and logical preference is for the lump sum contract.

1137. Chairman.—Paragraph 86 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“The accounts of Aer Rianta, Teoranta, for the year ended 31 March 1954 showed the revenue from the management of Dublin Airport, including £69,877 for landing fees, £38,054 for rents and £3,863 for profit on catering, to be £120,862. The expenditure amounted to £96,661 leaving a surplus of £24,201 on airport management which has, I understand, been surrendered to the Exchequer in 1954-55.”

1138. We were discussing here last year the advisability of having capital works carried out by the maintenance staff at the airport. Have you set any limit to the size of such work?—In this sense, we do. No work whatever can be done unless it is approved in advance by the Minister. There is a special committee, on which Departments interested are represented, who consider all works. On any single occasion on which it is proposed to have the cost plus basis adopted, that is specially debated by the committee. The committee are, in fact, rather grudging in giving sanction to that type of procedure, so that there is a limit now. As to whether there is a money limit as well, I think we probably would not dream of doing a very big job that way because it would be too risky. The one I recall myself was a £10,000 job and it was agreed that should be done on the costplus system because of this danger of interruption of work by traffic movement.

1139. How do you ensure that the company does not retain hands longer than is necessary?—Of course, we have engineers. We have a resident engineer on our own staff and he is responsible for watching all that kind of thing. We have several architects and, while none is stationed at the airport, they are out there frequently since we are responsible for the airport in general.

1140. How do you control the creation of additional posts by the managements? —We would not control that in any detail. If, for instance, the management decided they would like to have a clerk of works, we would not control that. They are quite free to do that. Of course, if we had any reason to believe they had too many posts, we would obviously query them under the heading of “Expenses of Management.”

1141. Deputy A. Barry.—Has that query ever been extended?—I cannot answer that because I have not had any long connection with this. It has certainly not been queried in my connection with it, which is since March of last year.

1142. Chairman.—Paragraphs 87 and 88 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:—

“I have been furnished with a statement giving particulars of the recipts and payments for the year 1953-54 in connection with the management of Shannon Airport. This airport is managed directly by the Department of Industry and Commerce. The receipts amounted to £269,523, including £174,313 for landing fees, £32,975 for rents, etc., and £39,673 from the catering service and passenger hostels. The payments amounted to £155,340 leaving a surplus of £114,183.

These figures, while serving as a basis for comparison as between one year and another, do not purport to reflect the full cost of operating the airports since no account is taken of such factors as meteorological and radio services, air traffic control, interest on capital, etc.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—These figures were furnished in deference to the wishes expressed by the Committee when considering the previous year’s account. They are extracted from the Appropriation Accounts under review, in the absence of any separate account for the airports.

1143. Deputy A. Barry.—Is there a possibility of our getting a complete picture of the balance sheets of the two airports?

Chairman.—As the Comptroller and Auditor General says, we were discussing this last year.

Deputy A. Barry.—There is something up in the air yet.

Chairman.—Very much so. What is the position now? I take it, it is the same as last year, except that in the figures given here you do not show the catering account?

Mr. MacCarthy.—No, but we can of course do that. I think we have been in communication with the Comptroller and Auditor General on the subject and we can set out, without any difficulty, what the services excluded from the figures here amount to; and, of course, they are the big part of it. You have State services like the air traffic control, the meteorological services and the radio services; we could, I think, separately indicate without any difficulty what the catering service profits are.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have been furnished recently with two statements, one of which relates to Dublin Airport. It shows an excess of expenses over revenue of £206,000. That includes traffic control, meteorological services, radio services as well as the general expenses of running the port. In the case of Shan non, there was an excess of cost over revenue of £362,000.

1144. Deputy A. Barry.—So the two airports are roughly “in the red” to the extent of about £600,000?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes—roughly £600,000.

1145. Deputy T. Lynch.—In relation to the shops at Shannon, these are run by private individuals. They are rented?

Deputy A. Barry.—No.

Mr. MacCarthy.—There is only one shop and that is the shop operated by the Catering Controller. It is part of the catering service. Profits from that flow to the Exchequer through this Vote.

1146. Deputy T. Lynch.—Is it included in the catering?—It is part of the catering profit.

1147. Deputy J. Brennan.—They are rents that the company pays. I think Deputy Lynch is referring to the rather fantastic figures we sometimes get for the rather enormous sales from Shannon Airport. Are the profits set off against the figure you mention?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—These profits are reflected here: £39,673 from the catering service.

Deputy A. Barry.—It embraces restaurants and all that kind of thing.

1148. Deputy T. Lynch.—That is the gross for the two airports?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—This is the sum paid by the controller to Industry and Commerce. It may not necessarily agree with the profit for the year, because he has to retain a certain amount of working capital.

1149. Deputy T. Lynch.—What is the gross take of these shops?

Deputy A. Barry.—I understand that the shop is turning over something in the region of £2,000 per day.

Mr. MacCarthy.—The profit figure mentioned is hopelessly out-of-date. The actual profit is three times as high as the profit that has been mentioned, but that only applies to Shannon. The situation is entirely different at Dublin.

1150. Deputy A. Barry.—The shop at Shannon is a very considerable exporting unit. I would like at some stage to get rather closely approximated information of what the actual trading profits there are?—There is no difficulty about that because, in fact, under the agreement with the catering controller his remuneration is based on a sliding scale related to the profits made, so we must therefore determine the profit each year in order to pay him. There is no difficulty whatever in supplying such information.

1151. Chairman.—Under subhead C., where do you buy the teleprinters?—The Department of Posts and Telegraphs buys them for us.

1152. On subhead E.—Acquisition of Land, Buildings, etc.—have you any further large purchases in mind?—I think that question might involve me in something generally classified under “Policy.”

1153. Deputy A. Barry.—On subhead G —Constructional Works including Furnishing of Buildings, Shannon Airport— I want to refer back to the questions I have just asked. To what extent would the provision of premises, the provision of showcases and counters and all the other equipment of a shop be related to the balance sheet of the trading position there? Is this shop getting facilities which the normal commercial concern could not possibly enjoy in connection with the making of a satisfactory balance sheet?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—All the equipment is State property.

1154. Deputy A. Barry.—If it is State property, then the controller is simply an employee of the Department of Industry and Commerce. If there are payments made to the management there, which depend upon the profit-making ability of the premises, are these items, which can be regarded as capital expenditure, set off in the normal commercial manner against such profit?

Mr. MacCarthy.—Yes.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The accounts are prepared on an income and expenditure basis.

1155. Deputy A. Barry.—And the capital figure added?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes.

1156. Deputy Sheldon.—In connection with the note to subhead I concerning damage to runway lights, is the cost of repairing the damage recoverable from the companies whose planes cause the damage?

Mr. MacCarthy.—That very largely depends, I think, on the circumstances. There is no general rule. If there was gross negligence, easily recognisable as such, resulting in damage, then a claim would be made. If, on the other hand, it was caused by the natural reasonable hazard in bringing a plane in there would not be a claim.

1157. It is part of the service?—Part of the service, yes.

1158. Chairman.—On subhead K— Transport of Staff, Shannon Airport— this is a relatively large subsidy. You get back only £4,600. Do you have to provide special services?—We do, indeed. This is a most expensive operation. Transport has to be run at all sorts of awkward hours because of the continuous nature of the attendances at Shannon.

1159. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead Q —Equipment—I find it difficult to understand the explanation in the note which says that certain equipment provided for could not be obtained. I cannot see how that explains the saving of £7,000 because in the Estimate the amount provided for the purchase of new equipment was £2,700?—That seems to need a bit of explaining. The sum is £15,000. The purchase of additional equipment, £2,700; maintenance £12,300. I think the maintenance of equipment would cover replacements—the putting in of a new valve or something. Additional equipment is entirely new equipment. That would be the normal thing. Maintenance includes replacements and renewals, as it were, £12,300, and entirely new equipment, £2,700.

1160. It is not very clear?—It is not clear, I agree. I think it could be better expressed in future, certainly.

1161. Deputy Bartley.—On subhead R, has that anything to do with these Atlantic stations?—It is in connection with the conferences. It is the World Meteorological Organisation, and we are a member of that. They had a greater number of meetings than had been anticipated.

1162. Chairman.—With regard to item No. 2 in Appropriations in Aid, on what basis are landing fees charged?—There is a fee for so many thousand pounds. The fee 5/- for each 1,000 lbs. Then there are certain reductions. If the particular operator makes more than 15 landings in the week, he gets a 20 per cent. reduction. There are, of course, much smaller fees for private planes, either with or without passengers.

1163. On item No. 8—Receipts from Concession Fees—what are concession fees in the main?—The principal one is in respect of aviation spirit on which one-tenth of a penny is charged for each gallon sold at the airport. Then there are also display cases all around the walls, there are hire-drive car services, there is a branch of the Bank of Ireland, and there is a concession for a tobacco company which has a contract for the supply of tobacco to aircraft.

1164. Deputy J. Brennan.—On item No. 12 (a)—Receipts from en route Communications between Transatlantic Aircraft and Shannon Aeronautical Radio Station—is that a completely new charge? There is no estimate?—That is a new development. There are two types of things provided for. The Department of Industry and Commerce are responsible for maintaining a telephone communication and radio service with planes actually in flight and there is a certain charge for that. But the companies also naturally want to send telegrams themselves and passengers travelling with the company, when they come down at Shannon, want to send telegrams. The Post Office look upon that as their ordinary telegraph work but at Shannon they have only a tiny post office branch, which could not cope with it. Our radio operators do the business mainly with teleprinters but the Post Office said we were poaching on their preserves. Even though they could not deal with it themselves, they said it was their job. They claimed they should get the revenue and merely pay us an agency fee. We did not agree to that and the eventual compromise was that we split the revenue on a 50-50 basis.

1165. Will there be an amount shown in the current Estimate for that?—Certainly. I think this is the first year in which we showed that separately. Certainly it will be in the Estimate because it is a substantial item.

1166. Deputy Bartley.—With regard to item No. (2)—Receipts in respect of landing fees, etc.—these fees are calculated on a tonnage basis according to the Accounting Officer. How is the tonnage calculated? Is it on the same basis as is applied to ships?—The technical description of it is “laden weight.”

1167. Deputy A. Barry.—I take it there is an accepted standard for each type of aircraft?—There is a maximum for each type. No aircraft may carry more than a certain maximum weight. Even if the aircraft is not fully utilised they still have to pay on the basis of the weight of the aircraft. It might be travelling with only half a load but it must pay landing fees on the weight of the aircraft.

1168. Deputy Bartley.—This has nothing to do with loaded capacity?— Loaded capacity would affect the thing inasmuch as the larger the capacity the larger the landing fees.

1169. Deputy J. Brennan.—That would be the unladen weight?—No, the weight of the vehicle and what is in it. There are what are called load factors. They are able to calculate that at the time, so many tons for the plane, so many for the passengers, and so on.

1170. Even though the plane may not have its complement of passengers they put on the full laden weight?—Yes.

1171. Deputy A. Barry.—It simplifies control?—It caused some dispute with Aer Lingus because they do not have the full weight at all times but we still charge them the full fees.

VOTE 53—INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION OFFICE.

Mr. J. C. B. MacCarthy further examined.

1172. Chairman.—On subhead C—Expenses in connection with International Organisations—do we make contributions to these organisations?—We do.

1173. On the next item—Extra Receipts Payable to Exchequer—are the rights of Irish citizens who have taken out patents in this country protected abroad?—They are not automatically protected abroad. They must apply, but by virtue of our membership of the European Union in this matter, any Irish citizen who has registered a patent here gets a priority in the other country. Of course, conversely, any citizen of that country would get a priority here. All that means really is that he gets his application through more speedily than he otherwise might.

1174. Deputy A. Barry.—He would get it in front of the queue?—Yes.

1175. Chairman.—How long does, say, the grant of patent or the registration of design last?—For a patent it is 16 years and 15 years in the case of copyright of design.

1176. Are they renewable?—Yes.

VOTE 67—TOURISM.

Mr. J. C. B. MacCarthy further examined.

1177. Chairman.—On subhead A.— Grant to An Bord Fáilte—does An Bord get any contribution from local authorities towards the work mentioned in the note?—I will answer the question first, practically never. But I would like to submit to you that these being the type of grants they are, any information I have about the detailed operations is purely fortuitous. We do not interfere at all in such operations. The Board set up, An Bord Fáilte, have absolute discretion. I just happened to know it is most exceptional for them to get any contribution.

1178. Deputy Sheldon.—Would Mr. McCarthy know if some of the delays referred to arise because fees are not paid to the district engineers in respect of works carried out?—I am afraid I cannot answer that. Once the grant in aid is paid over we are finished. We only come in when a request for an issue of this tourism grant is made by the Board. We try to keep in touch with the general situation but we have no knowledge of the detailed operations.

The Witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.