Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1957 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1955 - 1956

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 9ú Deireadh Fómhair, 1957.

Wednesday, 9th October, 1957.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the chair.

Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) Miss M. Bhreathnach, Mr. C. J. Byrnes and Mr. P. Mac Guill (Department of Finance) called and examined.

VOTE 63—HEALTH.

Mr. P. Ó Cinnéide called and examined.

214. Chairman.—Subhead L. relates to the National Blood Transfusion Service (Grant-in-Aid). How does the National Blood Transfusion Service manage to function without any subvention from the State?—They make a charge for the blood they supply to hospitals and other institutions. As a result of the demand for the blood, they are able to keep solvent now. In fact, I understand that they have accumulated an appreciable sum of money which I believe they are expending on the expansion of their premises.

215. Deputy Haughey.—With regard to “Notes”, I suppose the expenditure of approximately £1,693 in respect of staff temporarily lent, without repayment, to the Advisory Body on Voluntary Health Insurance will not be recouped when the Board is in full operation?— No.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 27—AGRICULTURE.

Mr. J. Dempsey called and examined.

216. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I might mention that a few years back, at the suggestion of the Public Accounts Committee, the question of revising the format of the Estimates for Agriculture was reviewed. It was decided that the time was inopportune as it was anticipated that many of the functions of the Department would be transferred to the proposed Agricultural Institute, regarding which a Bill was introduced last December.

Chairman. — I take it that, in the present situation, we had better wait to see what the Minister may have to say on that subject when the Dáil reassembles.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I think so.

Chairman.—A Bill was introduced. Senator Moylan may proceed with that Bill or introduce a new Bill. Have you any advice to give us on that matter, Mr. Dempsey?—The Minister is considering the matter at the moment. It will probably come before the Dáil in the coming session.

217. Chairman.—I think it might be as well to let that matter stand over until Senator Moylan has had an opportunity of mentioning the matter in the Dáil. We now come to paragraph 30 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which reads:—

“Subhead E.1.—Seed Testing and Propagation.

30. Property at Backweston, Co. Dublin, containing 283 acres, was purchased in May 1955 for the purpose of establishing a seed production and propagation farm to be operated by the Department. Outlay of a capital nature in connexion with the establishment of the farm, including the cost of erection and equipment of laboratories, glass-houses and plant for the drying, processing and storage of seed, is met from the National Development Fund and the expenses incurred in running the farm are charged to this subhead. Capital expenditure in 1955-56 amounting to £29,556 (see page 77) included £24,417 for the property and £5,139 for implements, tools, etc. Expenditure on labour, seeds, etc., was £7,657. Receipts from grazing lettings and sales of produce totalling £2,761 are credited to subhead R.—Appropriations in Aid.”

Is there anything you want to add to that, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—As stated in the paragraph, the capital expenditure on schemes is met from the National Development Fund while the Vote bears the running expenses. Prior to the acquisition of this station, the only facilities available were at the Albert College which had not sufficient land for propagation on a large scale and at Ballinacurra, in Cork, which specialises in barley.

217a. Is the work proceeding, Mr. Dempsey?—Yes. The certification schemes are in operation in respect of wheat, feeding barley, oats and rye grass. The bigger stocks are being produced at Backweston. The initial breeding of oats, rye grass, barley and wheat is being carried out there.

218. Is it anticipated that seed testing will be at Backweston?—At present it is in the science buildings. It would be an addition to have it attached to a field station but that will not happen for some time.

219. Paragraph 31 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead E.6.—Peatland Experimental Station, Glenamoy, Co. Mayo.

31. Reference is made in paragraph 80 to the winding up of Min Fhéir, Teoranta, and to the undertaking by the Departments of Agriculture and Lands of the development of approximately 2,400 acres of bog-land in the Bangor Erris area which had been acquired by the company. A sum of £25,000 was provided by supplementary estimate for expenses in connexion with an experimental station established at Glenamoy for the development of some 900 acres of the bog-land taken over by the Department of Agriculture. The charge to this subhead comprises £12,813 for equipment, including £12,579 for that purchased from Min Fhéir, Teoranta, at an agreed valuation, £3,487 for labour and £722 for general maintenance.

It was decided that the cost, estimated at £45,000, of providing and furnishing the station buildings should be borne on the National Development Fund and, as will be seen from the statement appended to the account, the expenditure to 31 March 1956 amounted to £1,144.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have no further information to offer beyond what is contained in the paragraph.

220. Deputy Haughey.—Is Glenamoy a completely different scheme or is it part of the Bangor Erris scheme?—It has been taken over partly by the Department of Lands who are operating there. The Department of Agriculture is carrying on extensive trials on an area of approximately 200 acres at the present time. The Department of Lands is carrying out forestry operations and the Department of Agriculture has an extensive series of trials regarding methods of drainage, types of fertilising for various varieties of plants, and so on. It is also proposed to introduce livestock. Arrangements have been made to try out various types of treatment with a view to determining the best method of reclaiming and improving blanket bog which prevails in that area.

221. Chairman.—Paragraph 32 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead M.1.—Miscellaneous Work.

32. The sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained for expenditure of £2,000 in connexion with the participation by the Department in a trade exhibition in England in September-October 1955. As the amount expended was approximately £3,000 I have asked that covering sanction be sought for the excess.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The approval of the Department of Finance has since been obtained for the additional expenditure.

222. Chairman.—What particular Fair was this, Mr. Dempsey?—Birmingham.

I believe they had a very remarkable success. I think they were very civilly referred to in the English newspapers?— As an exhibit, it was very successful. It certainly attracted attention.

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

“Subhead M.4.—Loans for the Purchase of Cattle and Sheep, Agricultural Implements, Milking Machines, Fertilisers, Ground Limestone, Fodder and Fuel, and Advances to the Co-operative Fruit Growers’ Society, Limited, Dungarvan.

33. Reference was made in paragraph 31 of the previous report to the arrangement whereby the Department of Agriculture undertook to pay, in certain circumstances, instalments of principal and/or interest due to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, Limited, by the Co-operative Fruit Growers’ Society, Limited, Dungarvan, on foot of advances totalling £115,000 made to the Society by the Corporation.

Interest amounting to £5,173 fell due for payment in the year under review and payment was made to the Corporation from this subhead in accordance with the undertaking as the Society was unable to meet the charge owing to its financial position.

The Society was also unable to meet instalments of principal, amounting to £3,847, which fell due in the year and the liability was met from this subhead. This amount, together with £4,937 paid from the vote for the previous year, is repayable by the Society after 1 May 1957. An agreement between the Department and the Society covering the terms of repayment has not yet been concluded.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Agreement has now been reached between the Department and the Dungarvan Society governing the repayment of the advances. I understand that nearly £5,000 was received from the Society in 1956-57.

224. Chairman.—How was the Society getting on, Mr. Dempsey?—The fact that they were able to make a payment last year of approximately £5,000 is an indication. They have got into additional lines such as blackberry juice. The apple crop should be more successful this year. Extended planting of dessert varieties is going on in the area. We have a good deal of cookers but not enough dessert types.

225. Deputy Haughey.—Under what circumstances did the Department enter into this arrangement with the Co-operative Society, in the first place?—Previously there had not been any organised system of marketing apples. Various small organisations had been doing what they could. However, the preservation of apples by modern methods, that is, by gas storage, is an expensive process and takes some time. The apples must be very carefully handled and stored for several months. Only by storing them from October-November to the following May can we cover the whole season. No commercial undertaking was prepared to undertake that type of work unless it got help. The Co-operative Society got loans and were induced to set up this establishment at Dungarvan which is doing good work. The planting work is slow. It takes four or five years for an apple tree to start bearing and development is therefore a slow process. In the years to come when the new orchards are in production the Society should be in a much better position than they are now.

226. Deputy Haughey.—Is the position that the Department encouraged these people to do this and in return guaranteed the loan they got from the Agricultural Credit Company?—Yes, they got a loan from the Minister to start this undertaking as well as technical assistance and advice.

Deputy Carty.—Normally are advances made by the Agricultural Credit Corporation guaranteed by the State?

Chairman.—No, this is an exceptional scheme.

Mr. Dempsey.—That is so.

227. Deputy Donegan.—How much of this money, if any, was given to people to help them to establish orchards? Was any of this money spent in that way?—No, it is under a different scheme.

This is entirely for the commercial end? —Yes, the Dungarvan Co-operative Fruit Growers Society Ltd.

228. Chairman.—Have they succeeded in exporting some of the apples?—Yes, they did sell on the English market last season. Very few apples were imported into this country this year.

229. Deputy Haughey.—The Comptroller and Auditor General said that agreement was reached regarding the terms of repayment. Is that a realistic agreement?—The society has actually made a first payment under that agreement.

The position in the future will be that the Society will have to pay its principal and interest instalment to the Agricultural Credit Corporation and then they pay so much to the Department in respect of these arrears?—That is the position.

230. Chairman.—Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:—

“Subhead M.8.—Farm Buildings Scheme and Water Supplies.

34. The expenditure is made up as follows:—

The scope of the several schemes and the conditions attaching to the payment of the grants are set out in the reports for the year 1953-54 and previous years.

Subhead M.9—Land Project.

35. The expenditure on this service is as follows:—

Deputy Carty.—Has the percentage cost of the administrative expenses in the scheme been determined?—It has not been worked out exactly. Of the £2,697,297 provided, £1,226,000 was paid to farmers and £796,000 to contractors. That is approximately £2 million paid to farmers and contractors. In addition, there are payments to the Office of Public Works and also for direct labour.

Deputy Carty.—The administrative costs are very low. It is very satisfactory.

231. Chairman.—Paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read as follows:—

“36. Under Section A of the Land Project an occupier of land who undertakes approved work himself is entitled, when the work has been completed to the satisfaction of the Department, to a grant amounting to two-thirds of the estimated cost subject to a maximum of £30 per statute acre. Grants to farmers under this section of the project amounted to £1,226,228 in the year 1955-56 as compared with £861,897 in the previous year.

37. Under Section B of the project the Department carries out the work on the occupier’s agreeing to pay two-fifths of the estimated cost plus the cost of lime and fertilisers required, subject to a maximum of £12 per acre. It was decided that from May 1953 work under this section would not be undertaken where the estimated cost to public funds exceeded £30 per acre, or £35 per acre where the application was made prior to May 1953. The conditions were further amended to provide that, from February 1955, work estimated to involve higher expenditure might be undertaken if the agricultural potential of the land warranted it and provided the occupier agreed to contribute 50 per cent. of the excess. Work under this section of the project is, except in certain areas in Galway, Mayo and Donegal, entrusted by the Department to contractors. Payments to contractors in the year 1955-56 were £796,340 as against £812,925 in the previous year.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—These paragraphs give a description of the manner of financing the scheme. Paragraph 36 deals with Section A of the scheme under which the work is carried out by the farmers themselves and paragraph 37 deals with Section B under which the work is carried out by the Department.

232. Deputy Carty.—Was there some change in the method of carrying out that scheme? Have the contractors been dispensed with?—No, Sir.

Chairman.—There was one change. There was a change that the conditions were further amended to provide that since February, 1955, work estimated to involve higher expenditure might be undertaken if the agricultural content of the land warranted it and provided the occupier agreed to provide 50 per cent. of the excess.

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

“38. Prior to February 1955 the Department undertook to carry out work under Section B of the project on a holding of 124 acres at an estimated cost of £5,808, approximately £47 per acre, towards which the occupier agreed to contribute at the rate of £12 per acre. During the progress of the work, which was being carried out for the Department by a contractor, it was found that additional works estimated to cost £1,580 were necessary and these were completed by the contractor under a supplementary contract. I have inquired whether the need for the additional works could not have been foreseen when the original Estimate was being prepared.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The cost of the work was about £60 per acre. If it had been correctly assessed originally it is unlikely it would have been undertaken. The standard contract form includes a clause which reads: “The Minister undertakes to do only such work as is shown on the plan and specifications. The cost of any additional work not described in the plan and specifications which may be found to be necessary will be your sole responsibility.” In the course of a detailed reply to my inquiry, the Accounting Officer pointed out that the intention of this clause was to prevent farmers looking for an over elaborate finish to the work done and, secondly, that the difficulties which caused the increased expenditure could not have been foreseen at the time of the survey. It appears that some sub-surface pockets of peaty material were encountered which were too soft to support a pipe in alignment with a graded pipe line. Thirdly, the Department, having undertaken the work, was committed to the proper completion of the contract. That is a summary of a very detailed reply sent in by the Accounting Officer. If the Committee wishes, that reply can be submitted as evidence.

Deputy Jones.—I was going to ask if a reply had been received and if the Comptroller and Auditor General was satisfied with it. That covers the point.

234. Chairman.—Would the Committee like to have the detailed report incorporated in the Minutes of Evidence?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The reply to my inquiry is as follows:—

“The plans and specifications for land reclamation are based on the reasonable expectation that sub-surface conditions will be normal and that drain cutting to the usual depths (2’ 6” to 3’ 6” approx.) will be through clays and gravel of different densities and probably interspersed with some stones of a size that can be handled and removed by a workman without assistance.

There will always be exceptional cases where surface conditions give no indication of a sub-surface of unusual formation in which drain cutting or rock clearance may be very difficult and costly. Difficulties may be encountered which arise from a single cause or from a combination of causes and the cost of working will rise as the difficulties multiply. Any one or any combination of the conditions enumerated hereunder are abnormal, but nevertheless they are met with frequently in farms on which reclamation work is carried out.

(i)Bed rock extending towards the land surface and cutting across drainage lines: trenches through the rock have to be cut by the usual quarrying processes;

(ii)Boulders of large dimensions which almost invariably have to be lifted and removed by hand or by machinery from across drainage lines before work can proceed;

(iii)Sub-surface pockets or strata that are unstable, e.g., fine sand or peat, where special treatment is necessary preparatory to pipe laying;

(iv)Springs tapped by drain cutting machinery and presenting problems that necessitate changes in plans and additional piped lines and conduits;

(v)Old drainage systems that may completely nullify the effect of a super-imposed system and require special planning and work to bring two systems together and have them function as one all-embracing scheme;

(vi)Areas covered by high growth of rushes interspersed with scrub are difficult to survey with a high degree of accuracy due to parts being inaccessible prior to reclamation. In such circumstances gradients cannot be established at the planning stage and provision is necessary for an accurate assessment of requirements at a stage when partial reclamation has been effected.

As these impediments are hidden from view when the outline schemes are planned and estimated for, they could not be provided for, specifically, in a specification and estimate of cost.

The present method of covering unforeseen items of work by a factual supplemental specification and detailed estimate is the only practical and satisfactory way of meeting these difficulties as they arise.”

235. Deputy Carty. — As a matter of interest, what is the average cost of reclamation?

Chairman.—Is there such a figure available?—There is not. There is an average for Section A work, which works out at about £12; in respect of Section B work it is over £30. It varies from year to year. The jobs done under Section B are much more elaborate than those done by the farmers themselves directly under Section A.

236. Deputy Carty.—It would be to the advantage of the scheme if most of the work was carried out under Section A if possible?—It depends on the type of job. Because of the equipment required a farmer is often slow to undertake an elaborate job of deep drainage, the removal of heavy timber and such like work.

Chairman.—Would Deputy Carty like to ask Mr. Dempsey to give us a note on that question of the average cost of reclamation per acre, in so far as it may be possible to arrive at it?

Deputy Carty.—I would.

Mr. Dempsey.—I will arrange for that.

Chairman.—Let us have it at your convenience. You will give us a figure for Section A and Section B?—Yes.*

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

“39. It was noted also that reclamation works estimated to cost £3,119 and £1,176 were undertaken by the Department in February 1953 on two holdings of 94 acres and 19 acres, respectively. The works were carried out by the Department itself, and it appeared from further estimates which were prepared after they had been in operation for some 18 months that their ultimate cost would amount to approximately £23,000 and £5,000, respectively. I have inquired regarding the expenditure actually incurred on these holdings and the reasons for the wide variations between the original and later estimates.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—This paragraph relates to work undertaken before May, 1953, on two separate holdings in the same area. It consisted of drainage work and the removal of sub-surface rock. In the first case, the cost per acre was originally assessed at £33 per acre but ultimately worked out at £263 per acre. In the second case the cost was originally assessed at £62 per acre but the work ultimately cost £306 per acre. It appears from the Accounting Officer’s reply to my inquiry that the amount of sub-surface rock to be removed was very much underestimated, but the Department was committed to carrying out an effective job.

238. Chairman.—I think this was a tricky case which arose in Co. Wexford. Would I be right in saying that no matter who was responsible, it is the kind of job which we might have inevitably stumbled into and it was one from which we learned a lesson of which the Department made good use thereafter?—Fortunately, it is the only one of its kind which occurred out of the 7,000 jobs done under Section B.

Chairman.—I hope the Committee will note the date on which the job was undertaken. I think Mr. Dempsey will agree with me that, whoever was in charge at the time, exactly the same thing could have happened?—The underground rock proved to be quite different from what we thought it would be. It had to be blasted by the hand process. We thought we could do it with machinery

239. Chairman.—I think we might say that if a mistake was made, it is one that was not made twice. Paragraphs 40, 41 and 42 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:—

“Subhead M.13.—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme.

40. The Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme, introduced in September 1954 to assist farmers generally in the eradication of tuberculosis in their cattle herds and to provide special measures for the eradication of the disease in three selected areas, namely, County Clare, County Sligo and the Bansha area, continued in operation during the year under review. In addition to the facilities mentioned in paragraph 36 of the previous report, herd-owners throughout the country are entitled to grants at double the normal rates payable under the farm buildings scheme (subhead M.8) for the erection or improvement of cow-byres.

41. An agreement concluded on 31 March 1955 between the Governments of Ireland and the United States of America provided for the use of funds standing to the credit of the American Grant Counterpart Special Account to meet expenditure up to a limit of £700,000, incurred after the date of the agreement, on intensive measures adopted for the eradication of the disease in County Clare and general measures taken in areas other than the three selected areas. The expenditure charged to this subhead includes £72,952 for compensation to herd-owners in County Clare for 2,126 cattle which failed to pass the tuberculin test and were disposed of for slaughter, £106,715 for fees to private veterinary surgeons who carried out the tuberculin tests, £18,177 for supplementary cow-byre grants to herd-owners in County Clare and £11,969 for miscellaneous expenses. The amount recoverable from the American Grant Counterpart Special Account under the agreement was £144,770, of which £139,200 was received in the year under review and credited to Appropriations in Aid. Receipts totalling £55,681 in the year from the sale for slaughter of cattle from County Clare were also credited to Appropriations in Aid.

42. The intensive measures carried out in County Sligo and the Bansha area continued to be financed by issues from the National Development Fund. Expenditure in these areas was £92,978 and comprised £51,340 for compensation to herd-owners for 1,459 cattle disposed of for slaughter, £14,905 for fees to private veterinary surgeons, £13,333 for supplementary cow-byre grants and £13,400 for miscellaneous expenses. Receipts from the disposal of cattle for slaughter totalled £43,675, the net expenditure defrayed from moneys provided from the National Development Fund being £49,303. Supplementary cow-byre grants to herd-owners in areas other than the three selected areas were also made from moneys provided from the National Development Fund, the amount expended in the year under review from a separate allocation for this purpose being £9,241 (see page 77).”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Paragraphs 40, 41 and 42 set out the expenditure incurred on the scheme, the receipts and the method of financing the scheme. It will be noted that the National Development Fund moneys were used to finance expenditure in Co. Sligo and the Bansha area while expenditure on the special measures in Co. Clare and the general measures elsewhere were financed out of moneys made available from the American Grant Counterpart Fund.

240. Chairman.—What is the present position? Has the intensive scheme been extended beyond the two counties and Bansha?—Yes, it is in operation in Leitrim, Roscommon, Mayo, Kerry, Sligo, Clare and the Bansha area. In Counties Monaghan, Cavan, Galway and Donegal the inspectors are organising the collection of stock. It is also proposed to extend to Cork and Limerick in the near future.

Chairman.—That is very satisfactory. When was it made intensive in these counties?—In September.

Deputy Haughey.—Note the date.

Chairman.—I hope to do that. I am sure we will all join in wishing Mr. Dempsey success in that extension of his activity.

241. Deputy Carty.—It has been represented to me, Mr. Chairman, that the fees we are paying the veterinary surgeons are excessive. I wonder is there any basis for that statement?

Chairman.—You give me pause for a moment.

Deputy Carty.—That is paragraph 41.

Chairman.—That is a border-line question, do you understand? I think we will ask Mr. Dempsey to comment on that?

Mr. Dempsey.—The fees have been agreed upon between the Department and Veterinary Medical Association. They are lower than the fees charged, we understand, by the veterinary profession prior to the introduction of this scheme, and lower, we understand, than the fees being charged in the Six Counties or in England. They are agreed fees.

Deputy Carty.—While the fees may be agreed, Mr. Chairman, I have been told in my area that veterinary surgeons outside their private practice, are making quite a lucrative amount of money out of the Department of Agriculture and in fact I have been told that veterinary surgeons have had to get assistants to help them to cope with this work and they have been in a position to pay these assistants.

242. Deputy Haughey.—The note here mentions £106,715 for fees to private veterinary surgeons to carry out T.B. tests— is that in one year?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes.

243. Deputy Haughey.—And how many veterinary surgeons would be involved in that, could we know?

Mr. Dempsey.—There are about 300 or 400 veterinary surgeons in the country.

244. Deputy Haughey.—This is only in Clare. Or is it?—No, all areas except Bansha and Co. Sligo.

245. Deputy Carty.—Paragraph 41 says “compensation to herd-owners in Co. Clare for 2,126 cattle which failed to pass the tuberculin test and were disposed for slaughter, £106,715 for fees to private veterinary surgeons …” I presume all those apply to Co. Clare?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The expenditure charged to this subhead includes £72,952 for compensation to herd-owners in Co. Clare whose cattle failed to pass the T.B. test; £106,715 for fees to private veterinary surgeons—that covers the total charge to the subhead in respect of fees paid to veterinary surgeons in all areas outside Co. Sligo and the Bansha area. The fees paid in respect of work in these areas was £14,905 (para. 42).

246. Deputy Carty.—That is in Clare, and all areas except Co. Sligo and Bansha?

Mr. Dempsey.—Yes.

Deputy Haughey.—Everything else in the paragraph refers to Co. Clare.

247. Chairman.—We can now turn to paragraph 43 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which reads as follows:—

“Subhead O.O. 5.—Grain Storage (Loans) Act, 1951.

43. The Grain Storage (Loans) Act, 1951, empowers the Minister for Agriculture to grant loans for the provision and equipment of storage for grain. Loans may be granted upon such terms and conditions as to time and manner of repayment, rate of interest, security, etc., as the Minister, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, may consider proper, the total of loans under the Act being limited to £2,500,000. The approved terms of issue are set out in paragraph 40 of the report for the year 1954-55. The total amount of loans advanced to 31 March 1956, including £111,750 in the year of account, was £402,950. Repayments amounted to £15,906 of which £12,226 was attributed to interest and £3,680 to principal. The repayments were credited to subhead R. —Appropriations in Aid, £468 in the year 1954-55 and £15,438 in the year under review.”

I think this paragraph is for information.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—It is for information. These are long term loans repayable on an annuity basis.

248. Chairman.—Have we got many complaints this year about inadequate storage and drying facilities?—No, Sir, not many complaints in regard to storage but about sprouting. There have been delays in intake too, largely the result of the extension of combine harvesting. It creates a great rush.

It is more a question of the size of the door than of the accommodation inside it? —There is something in that. There are some driers in the country that are not in use.

249. Have you heard any complaints that some driers which were available are not being used?—That may be so but some mills have now so equipped themselves that they are capable of handling the total quota. Previously, some of these mills engaged other private driers. In many cases the mills themselves are now so equipped that they do not require to use outside driers.

250. I take it that any individual grower who has the grievance that he could not get his corn dried, which corn is in danger of deteriorating, would be referred to a drier if he got in touch with the Department?—Yes. Fortunately the moisture content is not such a big problem this year. It is not as troublesome as it was in some previous years.

251. Are there any outstanding applications for loans?—Very few. Few loans have been approved in the current year. The drying accommodation is fairly elaborate now.

252. Are you satisfied that the drying accommodation is now approaching adequacy?—The combine harvester has changed the pattern.

253. I think it is so that an offer has been made that any group of farmers who wish to form a co-operative to undertake drying on their own would be given a wheat dealer’s licence?—Yes. There is now great scope for drying barley which introduces another feature. Fortunately the barley harvest came in advance of the wheat harvest this year.

254. Deputy Haughey.—Are all the repayments up to date?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—All the repayments are up to date.

255. Chairman.—Paragraph 44 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:—

“Subhead P.—Subsidies, Allowances, etc., for Dairy Produce.

44. Reference was made in paragraph 41 of the previous report to the arrangement by which, following a reduction of the retail price of butter from 4s. 2d. to 3s. 9d. per lb. from 23 August 1954, allowances at the rate of 46s. 8d. per cwt. were payable to creameries on sales from that date. The charge to the subhead includes £1,832,945 in respect of these allowances. Production allowances at the rate of 3s. per cwt. paid to creameries in respect of increased profit margins allowed to wholesalers and retailers, to which reference was made in paragraph 44 of the report for the year 1954-55, amounted to £113,862. The remainder of the charge comprises £96,478 paid to creameries in connexion with the Department’s scheme for the cold storage of butter and £155,486 paid to the Butter Marketing Committee.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That is for information.

256. Chairman.—Paragraph 45 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“45. The deficit on the Committee’s trading account for the year ended 31 March 1955 amounting to £215,486, is attributed to expenditure on the cold storage of butter for winter consumption and to a loss of £70,632 incurred on the export of surplus creamery butter during the year. Payments amounting to £130,000 on account of the deficit were made to the Committee in the year ended 31 March 1955 and the balance of £85,486 together with a payment of £70,000 to meet an anticipated deficit in the trading account for 1955-56 make up the sum of £155,486 mentioned in the previous paragraph.”

That is also for information.

Chairman.—Members should not hesitate to ask a question about any of these informative paragraphs if they wish to do so. They are just put there for the record.

257. Deputy Jones.—With regard to the loss of £70,632 incurred on the export of surplus creamery butter during the year, is there any estimate as to what that worked out per 1b. or how much butter was exported?—The deficit worked out at 21/6d. per cwt. which is approximately 2d. per lb.

258. Deputy Brennan.—Are cold storage charges included in those figures?—Yes.

259. Chairman.—Paragraph 46 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead R.—Appropriations in Aid.

46. Reference was made in previous reports to the arrangement whereby Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teoranta, undertook the importation and distribution of superphosphate and to repayable advances of £922,717 made to the company from voted moneys to finance the scheme. It was provided that these advances should be repaid by periodical remission to the Department of Agriculture of the proceeds of sale, less expenses. The amount repaid by the company to 31 March 1956, including £14,135 received in the year under review, was £451,135, leaving a balance of £471,582 outstanding at that date.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—This matter was discussed before the Committee last year and the Accounting Officer informed the Committee that the outstanding balance was a fair indication of the ultimate loss. It appears that the average prime cost was £12 10s. per ton; the expenses were £3 11s. and the average sale price per ton realised was £10 17s. 0d.—leaving a loss of £5 4s. 0d. per ton.

260. Chairman.—What did these purchases consist off?—I could not hear that.

We are looking at paragraph 46, Appropriations in Aid?—There is only one outstanding item. It concerns an insurance claim. That is the only item which is holding up the completion of this transaction. The losses were incurred through buying at a high price in a season when the prices ruling were high. In the following season the prices on the world market dropped and there had to be a reduction accordingly.

Chairman.—Have we details of what the purchases were?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—From memory, 90,000 tons.

Mr. Dempsey.—These were purchased in 1951-52.

261. Chairman.—There was originally a purchase of 83,700 tons. Perhaps the best thing would be for Mr. Dempsey to let us have a look at the details. Mr. Dempsey should send us a note on how this loss of £471,582 was ultimately arrived at and, if necessary, we will ask him to come back and discuss the matter with us when we have time to peruse the note.*

Deputy Carty.—That is the best thing to do.

262. Chairman.—Let us turn to paragraph 47 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report which reads as follows:—

“Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund.

47. The income of the Fund, £16,447, consisted of levies on home sales of creamery butter. Sums amounting to £7,966 were paid to the Butter Marketing Committee in respect of administrative expenses. The balance in the Fund at 31 March 1956 was £32,487, as compared with £24,030 at 31 March 1955.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have no further information on that paragraph.

Chairman.—I think that paragraph is purely informative?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—It is purely informative.

263. Chairman.—We can turn to the Vote itself on page 69. With regard to subhead E. 2—Veterinary Research—has there not emerged a result from the enquiry into oedema in pigs?—Yes, Sir. The reports have been published on it.

And a serum has actually been discovered?—Yes.

264. Deputy Donegan.—With regard to paragraph G. 1—Improvement of Milk Production—might we be told in what way that money is expended?

Chairman.—If the Deputy would look at the note on page 64 he would see there a very comprehensive explanation. I think the expenditure here is mainly in regard to providing premium bulls?—Yes, and also expenditure on cow testing and staff employed in these Associations. It is mainly for dairy bulls and cow-testing associations.

265. Deputy Brennan.—In the matter of dairy bulls the demand is never so great as is anticipated. In other words, more people want Aberdeen-Angus bulls which are often not available. In that event, do they go without any?—There is a complete saving.

Chairman.—I think that probably is in reference to special term bulls.

Deputy Brennan.—The point I am making is that emphasis is on dairy bulls and the premium encourages the use of dairy bulls much more than it does the Aberdeen-Angus. Where there was a saving, I take it that is due to the fact that the demand for dairy bulls did not exhaust the full provision made? When the demand was less than anticipated, I take it it was mainly due to more people seeking non-dairy types. Would they go without any or were there fewer bulls actually issued?—The price, of course, is a factor too. The saving is due in part to that.

Chairman.—There is, under subhead G.2, provision for other bulls.

Mr. Dempsey.—This subhead G.1 deals only with dairy bulls.

Deputy Brennan.—Therefore, there is no indication whether or not the alternative was taken?—That is correct.

266. Deputy Brennan.—On subhead M.4, does the Agricultural Credit Corporation circulate a statement annually, or is it laid on the Table of the House?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I think so.

Chairman.—They publish their annual report which is laid on the Table of the House.

Deputy Brennan.—It is not circulated to the members?

Chairman.—No, but if any member of the Committee would wish to have a copy of it I am sure it would be supplied on request to the Bill Office.

Deputy Brennan.—I often wonder do they give out money to anybody at all.

Chairman.—Would you like to have a copy of the accounts?

Deputy Brennan.—I would.

267. Chairman.—I notice the sum provided for subhead M.11 was not spent, Mr. Dempsey. Am I right in saying that is due to the fact that a lot of the veterinary surgeons are getting their serum direct from commercial suppliers instead of from veterinary research stations as heretofore?—I think this is a case of overestimating. The demand was not as great as in previous years. They may be getting their serum direct from commercial suppliers. Generally, the demand for the serum is not as high now.

This relates to the serum provided by the Veterinary Research Stations?—Yes.

268. Deputy Booth.—On what basis is the serum supplied?—It is on payment of a fee of 1/- a dose.

How does that compare with commercial suppliers?—It is difficult to say what commercial suppliers charge.

269. Chairman.—The question you have in mind, Deputy Booth, is whether the charge made by the Veterinary Research Stations is higher than the charge made by outside suppliers?—We do not know what independent research laboratories or independent research associations charge. Certainly, there are no complaints with regard to fees charged for vaccine supplied through the Department.

270. Deputy Booth.—Is there any other reason why the facilities are not being availed of?—In the initial year of this scheme there was a very great demand. Since then the demand has fallen off and it is rather static at present. Of course, the disease is not prevalent to any great extent now.

Is the disease more under control or is it purely by chance?—I believe it is more under control. The introduction of artificial insemination had an effect also.

Deputy Donegan.—My experience is what Mr. Dempsey has stated. The disease is under control and people mistakenly are not repeating the treatment. There is not nearly as much of the serum being used as there was in the first couple of years. Our Committee of Agriculture have tried to get the thing restarted but we have not been fully successful. The necessity might not be there but people are not doing it even as a precaution.

Chairman.—Perhaps we might all make a note to raise this on the Estimate and advocate methods of stimulating demand.

271. Deputy Haughey. — Surely the point is that some people are paying more for the serum than what they pay when they get it direct from the Department.

Chairman. — In certain areas there is that tendency but I think it is very hard to know with certainty what the true explanation is. However, Mr. Dempsey, it is certain that the serum is available for anybody who wants it. There is no shortage of supply?—No.

272. Deputy Booth. — Is there a surplus? Are we over-producing in view of the reduced demand?—The Department buy it directly from suppliers controlled by Weybridge. I do not think there is over-production.

Deputy Brennan.—It does not keep indefinitely?—No.

Deputy Booth. — That is what I was coming to—was there any danger of over-stocking?—No.

273. Chairman. — On subhead M.12 there has been a considerable saving in expenditure in proportion to the total on travelling expenses. Would you say the scheme was unduly hampered due to these vacancies in staff not being filled?—There was delay in recruitment of veterinary surgeons.

Has that been overcome?—Partly, but not entirely.

This relates to artificial insemination services?—It has been got over by transferring staff from other branches of the Department to this work but there is a considerable shortage of veterinary staff at the moment.

274. I think it is true to say that all these artificial insemination services have now been transferred to co-operative societies?—All with the exception of Ballyhaise and Grange. All others are run by co-operative societies, etc.

275. Deputy Brennan. — On subhead M.13, there is a saving. It was anticipated that more areas would be intensified where compensation for reactors would be paid.

Chairman.—The note says there was a saving owing to fewer animals being surrendered than was expected?—That was due to the fact that the scheme was not extended as rapidly as was hoped, and secondly, the farmers were not prepared to dispose of these animals until it suited their convenience.

Deputy Brennan.—If you were not dealing with “an intensive area” compensation would not be payable anyway?— That is right.

276. Chairman. — On subhead M.14, there has been a number of these pasteurisation plants since. In the meantime there has been an insistence on installation before a certain date in the near future.

On subhead O.O.5, I expect all that money has been spent since?—Yes.

277. You will see there are a number of items under Appropriations in Aid. Item 16 covers the recoupment in respect of salaries of officers seconded to the Dairy Disposal Company, Limited, the Pigs and Bacon Commission, the Irish Potato Marketing Company, Limited, the Irish National Stud Company, Limited, and Córas Tráchtála. It may give you an idea of the extent of the interests of the Department of Agriculture over and above the matters referred to in the Vote. If there is no other question on this Vote I direct your attention to the fact that pursuant to a decision of this Committee many years ago we asked the Dairy Disposal Company to furnish us with a copy of its accounts. These have been circulated this morning, as they were only available to-day, and they will be incorporated in an appendix to our report.*

VOTE 28—FISHERIES.

Mr. J. Dempsey further examined.

278. Chairman. — Mr. Dempsey is Accounting Officer for this Department at the moment. Since these accounts have been completed Fisheries have been transferred to the Department of Lands so that in future years the Accounting Officer will be Mr. O’Brien.

Paragraphs 48, 49 and 50 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read as follows:—

“Subhead F.5.—Compensation, etc.

48. Compensation amounting to £11,350 was paid under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act, 1939, which provides for the restriction of the use of nets in fresh water and for payment of compensation to the owners. Interest paid under Sections 3 and 4 of the Fresh Water Fisheries (Prohibition of Netting) Act, 1951, on compensation awarded amounted to £115.

49. Sections 2 and 4 of the Act of 1951 authorise the Minister for Agriculture, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to make ex-gratia grants in certain circumstances to persons not entitled to compensation under the Act of 1939, the aggregate of such grants not to exceed £60,000. Including payments in the year amounting to £1,216 the total of the grants paid under the authority of these sections to 31 March 1956 was £32,602.

Subhead H.—Appropriations in Aid.

50. The Sea Fisheries Association was dissolved on 24 April 1952 under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952, Section 27 of which provided for the transfer of the liabilities of the Association at the date of dissolution to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.

The advances for boats and gear made to the Association to 24 April 1952 totalled £408,500 and the half-yearly instalments of annuities set up to repay these advances amounted to £306,917 at 31 March 1956. Sums transferred to the Department in payment of the instalments amounted to £214,172, including £4,500 credited to this subhead. The repayments were, therefore, in arrear on 31 March 1956 to the extent of £92,745 as compared with £72,206 on 31 March 1955.”

279. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—With reference to paragraph 48 of my Report, I understand there are still seven or eight cases to be dealt with under the 1939 Act.

Deputy Brennan. — This is compensation for people who have surrendered their right to net fish on estuaries?

Chairman.—No, on rivers and lakes. Is not that right, Mr. Dempsey? — Yes, Sir.

280. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—With reference to paragraph 49 of my Report, I understand that very few cases remain to be dealt with under the 1951 Act. Paragraph 50 shows the position regarding payment of advances issued to the former Sea Fisheries Association. Advances to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are made from the Central Fund. I understand the Board has so far met all its obligations.

281. Chairman. — An Bord Iascaigh Mhara took over the obligations of the Sea Fisheries Association?—Yes.

Is it anticipated that all these arrears will ultimately be collected? — I do not think so. The Department of Finance and the Department of Fisheries are discussing the matter at the moment. Some of the arrears are so long due that the prospects of collection are not good.

Would I be right in saying that some of them date back to the period after the 1914-18 war? — They date back a great many years anyway.

282. Deputy Jones. — Was there some reason why the arrears on the 31st March, 1956, increased to the extent of £92,745 as compared with £72,206?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Further annuities fell due. They had to be added on.

283. Chairman.—Are the arrears showing a tendency to mount or are the instalments being better paid? — I do not think so, and they are so long outstanding that there is not much chance of recovering them. Annuities are coming on year by year to be added. The debts are increasing.

Why are they described as arrears? Are they overdue?—Yes, definitely

Deputy Haughey. — There is a fixed payment of interest each year if they are not paid?—It is a hire-purchase transaction.

Chairman.—In so far as the instalments are not paid the defaulting instalments are added to the total of arrears?—Yes. It is hire purchase in default.

284. Deputy Brennan.—It would not be strictly correct to say that the returns on current loans are not coming in better than before?—I understand that they are quite satisfactory.

285. Chairman.—Arrears on which no payments are being made tend of their nature to grow and until they are either written off or repaid there will be that tendency for them to appear to grow in the accounts.

Deputy Brennan. — Old debts, dishonoured payments back to 1918 are still being carried forward?

Chairman.—I think it would be correct to say that old debts incurred as early as the early 30’s are still being carried forward?—Yes.

Probably debts prior to that have been written off or discharged?—Yes.

These arrears would go back right to the beginning of the Sea Fisheries Association? Is it the intention to deal with this arrears question and either have them written off or funded in some way at an early date? — I understand that matter is being considered just now in the Department of Finance.

Probably next year we might hear some word of the decision in the matter?— Yes.

286. Chairman.—Would I interpret the view of the Committee correctly in saying that the carrying on of these ancient arrears is not a procedure that appeals to the Committee?

Deputy Brennan. — I should like that they would be segregated in some way from current annual payments due.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—There are no current arrears in that sum. It refers to old loans.

287. Chairman.—If it would not be too much trouble, Mr. Dempsey, would you ask the Fisheries Department to let us have a note on the items that go to make up these figures of arrears of £72,000 and £92,000 referred to in the observations of the Comptroller and Auditor General?— Yes.*

Perhaps I should mention that on an earlier Vote Deputy Haughey directed our attention to the fact that notes received in two or three months’ time are not much use to us. We should be glad, therefore, to have a note as soon as the Department can conveniently provide it so that we can give this matter our consideration?—Yes.

288. Deputy Brennan. — On subhead E.3.—Sea Fisheries Protection—would it be correct to assume that the Garda authorities have ceased coastal protection? Is it still part of their function?— Yes. There has been no change in the situation there, though no claim was received.

They do not seem to pull out to sea too often these days?—There has been a claim in the subsequent year.

289. Deputy Brennan. — On subhead F.9.—River Erne (Tidal Waters): Ex-gratia payment of Balance of Compensation, including Interest—there is no note in this regard.

Chairman.—I think this was made the subject of a Supplementary Estimate on which there was a fairly full note. Would you care to have the note read for the record?

Deputy Brennan.—No. It is not necessary.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 29—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called and examined.

290. Chairman.—There is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Deputy Haughey. — On subhead F.— Film Censorship Equipment—the equipment cost considerably less than estimated?—The equipment in question was for screening cinemascope films. We had to get special equipment and we asked the Office of Public Works to estimate the cost. In the event we secured satisfactory equipment for less than half the estimate we were given. We are not ourselves experts in cinemascope equipment at all.

Chairman. — I suppose the Board of Works found some difficulty in leaping into the 20th century.

VOTE 30—GARDA SÍOCHÁNA.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called.

No question.

VOTE 31—PRISONS.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

291. Chairman.—There is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Deputy Brennan. — On subhead N.— Gratuities to Prisoners—under what conditions are gratuities granted to prisoners?—It is rather a long story, but in general prisoners whose conduct is good are rewarded by a trifling gratuity which increases every year. Perhaps I could illustrate it by specifying the gratuities we give to convicts, that is, prisoners serving sentences of penal servitude. The first year they get 2/- a month; the second year, 3/- a month; the third year, 4/- a month; and the fourth and subsequent years, 5/- a month. The idea is that a prisoner who has conducted himself well while serving his sentence should have a small nest egg to make a start in life on his release. The gratuities are trifling, as you can see. In the case of an eight year sentence, there is a maximum of £14 8s., which may be exceptionally increased to make £16 in all. So, it is not a very large sum, but it puts a premium on good conduct and is of humanitarian assistance to discharged prisoners.

292. Chairman.—When were these rates fixed, Mr. Coyne? — I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, I could not say with certainty.

Deputy Carty.—The middle of the last century.

Mr. Coyne.—They were last revised in 1953.

Deputy Brennan. — They would not induce people to seek admission to prisons.

Chairman.—Of course, that would not be their primary purpose, Deputy. It pains one to think what they must have been before they were revised.

293. Deputy Haughey. — In regard to No. 3 of the Notes, may we have some information as to the circumstances?

Chairman.—A sum of £345 was paid ex-gratia to a fuel contractor to offset an increase in the cost of turf to him, with Finance sanction, subhead E. (S. 9/7/52). Is that not correct?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That is correct.

Chairman.—Could you give us the circumstances surrounding that, Mr. Coyne? —The only answer that I am in a position to give would really throw no further light on it. I have not the file. I am informed that the contractor had to buy turf at a higher price, through no fault of his own, than he had expected to pay for it at the time he entered into the contract, but I am afraid that does not enlighten the Committee at all. I do not know why he had to do this and, if the Committee wish, I will give them a note on the particular case.*

Chairman.—Perhaps you could let us have a note on that, at your convenience?—I simply have not the file.

Chairman.—Quite. That will meet the situation all right.

VOTE 32—DISTRICT COURT.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called.

No question.

VOTE 33—CIRCUIT COURT.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called.

No question.

VOTE 34—SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

294. Deputy Haughey.—How is it that the amount estimated and expended on subhead D is so accurate? We have had cases of the volubility of the people concerned affecting the costs? — This is a proportion of actual salaries. The amount is paid to the Circuit Court Vote, as recoupment for the services rendered in the Central Criminal Court by the three Circuit Court stenographers who are officials paid a fixed salary and it is a proportion of these fixed salaries.

295. Deputy Haughey.—In regard to subhead G, are we keeping up to date in our law books?

Chairman.—That is a token sum, is it not, Mr. Coyne, for the contingencies that might arise?—Yes. Occasionally, but only rarely, lawyers’ libraries come on the market. Some of these books are out of print and practically unobtainable and the provision is put in to enable us to purchase rare books or books that are difficult to obtain, if the opportunity arises and if they are required. Particularly that is so in relation to some of the Law Reports for earlier years. They are mostly held very jealously by practitioners and hard to get.

VOTE 35—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called.

No question.

VOTE 36—PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XVI.

* See Appendix XVII.

* See Appendix XVIII.

* See Appendix XIX.

* See Appendix XX.