Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1958 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1957 - 1958

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 4 Nollaig, 1958.

Thursday, 4th December, 1958.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the chair.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (Secretary and Director of Audit), Mr. K. M. Fowler (Deputy Director of Audit), Mr. C. J. Byrnes and Mr. P. S. Mac Guill (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 27—AGRICULTURE.

Mr. J. C. Nagle called and examined.

211. Chairman.—We have only Vote 27, Department of Agriculture, to consider today and we have the pleasure of welcoming Mr. Nagle, the Accounting Officer, who appears before us for the first time.

Mr. Nagle.—Thank you, sir.

Chairman.—There are a number of paragraphs by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the first of which appears on page xv. Paragraph 31 reads as follows:—

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

31. Reference was made in paragraph 30 of the report for the year 1955-56 to the purchase of property at Backweston, Co. Dublin, to be operated as a seed production and propagation farm by the Department of Agriculture. An adjoining farm of 110 acres was acquired in October 1957, at a cost of £10,500. It is proposed to erect laboratories and glasshouses and to provide drying, processing and storage facilities at an estimated cost of £136,000. The capital cost of the project is met from National Development Fund moneys and operational expenses are charged to this subhead.”

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The expenditure in the subhead includes the operational expenses of the Department’s farms at Lucan for the production of foundation stocks of seed. The capital cost of the scheme estimated at £181,000 is being met from National Development Fund moneys, and, as shown in paragraph 8, £42,463 has been expended to 31st March, 1958.

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

“Subhead J.—National Stud

32. The National Stud Farm at Tully, Co. Kildare, became vested in the Minister for Agriculture under Section 6 of the National Stud Act, 1945. Since August 1946 the property has been occupied by Cólucht Groighe Naisiúnta na h-Éireann, Teoranta, under annual licence granted under Section 8 of the Act. The farm comprises some 870 acres of which 674 acres were held on a yearly tenancy at a rent of £813 per annum, and the company has recouped the Department each year the rent and Land Commission annuity. During the year under review the landlord’s interest was acquired for a sum of £17,000, provision having been made by supplementary estimate.”

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I am not aware whether the terms of the licence under which the company operates the farm have been changed in the light of the capital expenditure referred to in the paragraph.

213. Chairman.—Do you happen to know, Mr. Nagle, is there any change in the terms of the tenancy?—That question is under discussion with the Department of Finance as to the nature of the future arrangements that should be made, in consideration of the fact that the sum of £17,000 has been paid to buy out the interest of the gentleman who, up to recently, owned the greater part of these lands. It was contemplated that a suitable arrangement would be made with the National Stud Company, but the details have not yet been finally settled.

214. Deputy Haughey.—Who acquired the landlord’s interest?—The State.

Not the company?—No, not the company.

Chairman.—Then I take it, Mr. Suttle, that paragraph will remain over until such time as these discussions with the company have been completed?

215. Deputy Haughey.—Is it Land Commission land?

Chairman.—How is the land held for the National Stud?—Might I describe how it was held before this recent purchase?

Yes?—Part of the lands, amounting to approximately 170 acres, was and is held in fee simple subject to a land purchase annuity of £53 odd. Another part of the lands, consisting of approximately 22 acres, is held in fee simple—

And not subject to land annuity?—No, not the 22 acres. We come then to the greater portion of the holding on which most of the buildings are situated. This totals 674 acres, as mentioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and this was previously held on a yearly tenancy. We were apprised by the legal advisers that it would be very advisable to buy out this particular parcel of land. Because of the importance of the work carried on at the National Stud, it was felt the land should be held on a much more firm basis than a yearly tenancy. That transaction was put through and the State is now the owner of the entire lands of the National Stud and these lands, under the relevant Act, are leased to the National Stud Company.

216. So the position now is that whereas the company used to recoup the Department for rent and land annuity, hereafter the Company would have to recoup only the land annuity because the rent has been extinguished?—It has, Sir, but there may be a question of other financial arrangements between the company and the State.

And it is these that are under discussion?—Yes.

Deputy Haughey.—The paragraph of the Comptroller and Auditor General might have been a little clearer.

Chairman.—I think any possible ambiguity may arise from the fact that discussions were in progress, and are still in progress, as to the exact basis on which the new arrangement should be made in the light of the purchase of the landlord’s interest.

217. Deputy Haughey.—The purchase price of £17,000 for an annual rent of £813 is 21 years’ purchase approximately. Is that not rather high?—This is a very valuable holding and we were advised that the purchase price was not unreasonable and was certainly not excessive.

Deputy Haughey.—If we take that one step further why were we advised to buy it out?

Chairman.—I think that would be a matter of policy. If the Minister decided to buy it out, it would be Mr. Nagle’s duty to carry out his direction.

Deputy Haughey.—I think the Accounting Officer said they were advised by their legal advisers that they should purchase it.

Chairman.—I think the Accounting Officer will indicate that the matter was fully discussed and that the Minister was so advised. The Minister accepted this advice and it then became the Accounting Officer’s duty to carry out the Minister’s direction. We cannot question him on the prudence of the decision.

Deputy Sheldon.—The price was bound to be determined by the landlord’s knowledge of just how valuable the property was to the National Stud. It is a case where a willing buyer and a willing seller are willing to meet.

Deputy Lynch.—If it were put on the open market and if the Minister for Agriculture were the sitting tenant it would make a lot more than £17,000.

Chairman.—Does that dispose of your inquiry?

Deputy Haughey.—Yes.

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

“Subhead M.3.—Payments to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, Limited, in respect of loans

33. In pursuance of an undertaking given by the Minister, instalments amounting to £6,848 (Principal, £2,087; Interest £4,761) in repayment of advances of £115,000 made by the Agricultural Credit Corporation, Limited, to the Co-operative Fruit Growers’ Society, Ltd., Dungarvan, were paid from this subhead during the year, the Society being unable to meet these charges owing to its financial position. Payments on foot of the Minister’s undertaking to 31 March 1958 amounted to £37,931 (Principal, £14,902; Interest, £23,029).

An agreement which was completed in April 1957 provides for the repayment by the Society to the Department in ten equal annual instalments commencing on 1 May 1958 of the net amount of principal paid to the Corporation on the Society’s behalf. A sum of £4,977 was repaid by the Society to the Department in 1956-57 leaving a balance of £9,925 outstanding.

The agreement also provides for the waiving of recovery from the Society of the interest amounting to £23,029, plus any further interest payable by the Department to the Corporation up to 1 May 1959—and for the charge of 6 per cent. per annum on the balance of principal not repaid by the Society to the Department by that date.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing to add except to say that the first instalment, under the agreement referred to in the second part of the paragraph, has been paid by the society.

219. Chairman.—How is this Society getting on? Is it showing any prospect of becoming viable?

Mr. Nagle.—I am glad to report that certainly in the year 1957-58 it was quite successful, as is evidenced by the fact that it is beginning to meet its obligations. However, I would have to enter a slight word of caution as regards 1958-59, because of the exceptional harvest conditions this year for the apple crop, which was rather light. It is clear, however, that, in 1957-58, the Society did quite well. It has paid the amount which it agreed to pay to the Department, under the settlement, and it also met its payment to the Agricultural Credit Corporation. That, of course, is since the close of the financial year.

So that we may live in hope?—Yes.

220. Chairman.—Paragraph 34 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead M.6 — Farm Buildings Scheme and Water Supplies

34. The expenditure is made up as follows:—

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—No, except to state that there are similar grants in respect of byre reconstruction in subhead M. 11—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme. These are double grants, one here and one under subhead M.11.

221. Chairman.—Paragraph 35 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead M.7.—Land Project and Subsidy on Home Produced Super-phosphate.

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

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—No, except to indicate that the grants to farmers are increasing as against the direct work carried out by the Department. In other words, the farmers are doing more of the work themselves now than when the scheme started.

222. Chairman.—Paragraphs 35, 36 and 37 go together. They are all in the same category. Paragraphs 36 and 37 read as follows:—

“36. Under Section A of the 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 £1,323,022 in the year 1957-58 as compared with £1,403,577 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 contribution of £12 per acre. Work estimated to involve a charge on public funds in excess of £30 per acre may be undertaken only if the agricultural potential of the land warrants it and if the occupier agrees 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 were £498,555 as compared with £641,160 in the previous year.”

223. Chairman.—Paragraph 38 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“38. The arrangement introduced in December 1956, whereby superphosphate was made available on the home market at world prices continued in operation in the year under review. Subsidy paid in the year to home manufacturers of superphosphate amounted to £147,757, made up as follows:—

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle. — The superphosphate scheme started in 1956. Test checks of accounts and records of the factories concerned have been carried out by officers of the Department, and their reports have been examined by my officers with satisfactory results.

224. Chairman.—Paragraph 39 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead M.11.—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradiction Scheme

39. The Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme, introduced in September, 1954, to assist farmers in the eradication of tuberculosis in their cattle herds, continued in operation during the year under review. The special measures for the eradication of the disease available to herd-owners in Clare, Sligo and the Bansha area were extended during the year to Cavan, Cork, Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Limerick, Mayo, Monaghan and Roscommon.

Expenditure on the scheme during the year was as follows:—

In accordance with the arrangements made for financing the scheme gross expenditure of £704,050 was charged to this subhead while sums of £326,372 received from the sale of reactors and £259,230 recovered from the American Grant Counterpart Special Account were credited to Appropriations in Aid. (See Paragraph 46.) The balance of the expenditure (gross £279,854, less receipts from sale of reactors £58,377) was paid out of moneys provided from the National Development Fund (Winding up) Account.”

225. Deputy Haughey.—I remember we had some discussion last year on the question of veterinary surgeons’ fees. Can the Accounting Officer tell us what is the present position in relation to that? There was some suggestion, by some members of the Committee last year, that the amount paid in fees seems to be excessive.

Chairman.—That is in reference to the figure of £264,230 as mentioned in the paragraph?

Deputy Haughey.—As against compensation for cattle slaughtered, £531,440.

Chairman.—Could you give us your view, Mr. Nagle? It appears that Deputy Haughey thinks that the fees amounting to £264,230 seem to be high in relation to the figure for compensation for cattle slaughtered.

Deputy Haughey.—That is not really the point. Obviously there would be cattle that were not slaughtered.

Deputy Lynch.—It is a good record that more of them were not slaughtered.

Deputy Brennan.—It is a very low percentage.

Chairman.—Does it seem that fees of £264,230, paid to veterinary surgeons, are disproportionate to the volume of work actually done?—I must say, first of all, that the present scale of fees has remained unchanged since the autumn of 1954, when it was first introduced as a result of discussions with the Veterinary Medical Association. There has been no increase since that year. The average amount of fees, considering the amount of work done, could not, in our opinion, be regarded as unduly high. It is true that in a small number of cases a substantial amount of money is earned which, at first sight, seems to call for some further thought but, on the other hand, if one looks into any such cases, one finds the position is that the veterinarian concerned usually has found it necessary to appoint one, two, or three other veterinarians to assist him. He generally pays for a certain amount of lay assistance connected with the tattooing of the animals and, finally, our arrangement with the veterinary profession is expressed to cover all their travelling expenses, whereas in Britain and the Six Counties, I think, separate arrangements are made to recoup actual travelling expenses. All in all, I would venture to say that I would not describe the fee as a low one but neither do we believe, from our experience, that it is a very high one. I may mention that a veterinarian who is busy on the scheme has to work from early morning until late at night. Sometimes he has, to a certain extent, to sacrifice part of his ordinary practice, that is, the kind of work which he would be doing if there were no bovine T.B. scheme, and that is a rather serious matter for a practitioner.

226. Chairman. — Deputy Haughey, would you like to have a schedule of the fees agreed with the veterinary profession?

Deputy Haughey.—I would.

Chairman.—Perhaps, Mr. Nagle, it would be convenient for you to send us a note at your convenience giving us the terms of the agreement with the veterinary profession and setting out the fees payable in respect of the various categories of work?

Mr. Nagle.—I think I could give these figures now, Sir. First of all, there is £1 to cover the two visits involved in the testing of a herd, plus 5/- for each of the first ten animals and 4/- for each animal over ten. The two visits are necessary first of all to inject the tuberculin and then to read the result in 72 hours. So, the £1 is really 10/- per visit plus 5/- for each animal up to ten and 4/- for each animal after that.

Deputy Lynch.—That is very cheap. Unfortunately, I have some experience of this. I had a tuberculin-tested herd back in 1931 and 1932 and it used to cost me about 20 guineas to get it done then, and 20 guineas was much more money then than it is now.

227. Deputy Sheldon.—One point might enable us to get this £264,000 into perspective. Would Mr. Nagle be able to tell us how many cattle were tested in respect of that sum?

Chairman.—I think I should tell you, Mr. Nagle, that the Committee fully appreciates that it may not be possible to answer every query of this character from the notes you have with you. If, at any moment, you feel we have reached a point of detail where it would be more convenient for you to prepare a considered note, we shall be very happy to accommodate you in that respect.

Deputy Brennan.—What constitutes a visit? When a veterinary surgeon goes out he sometimes has to deal with a number of herds, and under the scheme a herd may consist of one cow. When he visits a number of assembled herds, is that regarded as a visit; or would each herd constitute a visit?—Each herd constitutes a visit.

So he could get several £s in the one day for just going out to one townland?— If things worked out so neatly that would be possible, but very often they find it difficult to arrange matters so that they can do the work for neighbours together and so forth.

228. Deputy Haughey.—Could we have an idea of the amounts which any one veterinary surgeon would earn in a year?

Chairman.—In view of the interest in this matter, Mr. Nagle, I think it would be more reasonable if the Committee suggested to you that you would prepare a note for us and furnish us with this information. If any specific question arises, the Clerk of the Committee will let you know the details of the questions actually raised.

Mr. Nagle.—I could just give you the answer to one of the questions. The average amount paid to the veterinary surgeons engaged on the scheme was £855.

Chairman.—Deputy Haughey feels he would prefer to get a few sample fees, including the maximum and the minimum and some intermediate figures. Mr. Nagle has been good enough to say he will prepare a note of information for the Committee.* If we want any further information, we can address a further query to him.

229. Chairman.—Paragraph 40 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead M.12.—Grants for Pasteurisation of Separated Milk

40. The scheme referred to in paragraph 33 of my previous report for the payment of grants to creameries towards the cost of approved pasteurising plant was continued during the year under review. Payments amounted to £76,277, bringing the total of grants paid to 31 March 1958, to £158,623. The amount paid in the year was recouped to the Department from the American Grant Counterpart Special Account and was credited to Appropriations in Aid. (See Paragraph 46.)”

230. Chairman.—Paragraph 41 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead M.13.—Payments to Pigs and Bacon Commission

41. The scheme, introduced in April 1956, to support the price of Grade A bacon exported to the British market, continued in operation during the year. It is administered through the Pigs and Bacon Commission and is financed from the proceeds of a levy on bacon pigs purchased by curers together with a State contribution. The original provision was £70,000, but due to a slump in bacon prices in Britain in the year 1957-58 the subsidy payable was greater than was anticipated, and it was found necessary to increase the contribution from voted moneys by supplementary estimate to £787,000.”

I understand that the price of bacon has materially improved and the burden of the export subsidy tends to dwindle, Mr. Nagle?—It has. There has been a remarkable improvement since 12 months ago when prices were as low as a little over 200/- in the London market, but there has been a considerable rebound of prices since then. We hope that this will affect the total amount of subsidy payable in the current financial year. Of course, the number of pigs has tended to increase as well, and that would be a limiting factor on the other side.

Chairman.—But a very welcome limiting factor, Mr. Nagle?—Certainly, yes.

231. Chairman.—Paragraph 42 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead M.14.—Marketing of Agricultural Produce (Grant-in-Aid)

42. A committee was established in December 1957, to advise and assist the Minister for Agriculture in carrying out an investigation of export markets for agricultural produce and to make recommendations for their development.

The £250,000 provided was paid into a Grant-in-Aid Account, and under conditions approved by the Minister for Finance payments are made from the account to defray the committee’s expenses and to finance such projects as are approved by the Minister for Agriculture.”

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—A statement of account appears on page 78. The only expenses during the year were £213 in respect of travelling expenses.

232. Chairman.—Have you any news that anything will emerge from this Committee, Mr. Nagle? This appropriation of £250,000 is outstanding now for nearly two years and so far nothing much has emerged?—The Committee really got going only about 12 months ago, but it has recently presented two reports—one on pigs and bacon and the other on eggs. We expect that quite soon the Committee will be in a position to submit further reports on dairy produce and poultry.

That would represent satisfactory progress. Is it the intention of the Minister to publish these reports or are they being regarded as highly confidential documents? Or perhaps no decision has been taken about them?—I do not think any decision has been taken. I think there was a question in the House about it recently.

233. Chairman.—Paragraph 43 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead N.1.—Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1954

43. Further outbreaks of swine fever occurred during the year under review and a sum of £62,000 was provided by supplementary estimate for expenses in connection with the eradication of the disease. The policy of slaughter of all affected and in-contact pigs was continued and their carcases were destroyed. Compensation on the basis of full market value was paid to the owners and amounted to £54,903. Miscellaneous expenses, including the cost of disposing of carcases, disinfection of premises and travelling were approximately £5,900.”

I believe we have not had an outbreak of swine fever for some considerable time?

Mr. Nagle.—Not since May of this year.

But still I understand it is necessary to maintain some precautions as there have been outbreaks in Northern Ireland?— That is the real difficulty. There have been more recent outbreaks in the Six Counties. While that situation continues there is a certain danger for us.

234. Chairman.—Paragraph 44 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead O.6.—Grain Storage (Loans) Act, 1951

44. 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 loans advanced to 31 March 1958, including £65,250 in the year of account, amounted to £563,200. Instalments in repayment of the loans amounting to £42,164 which fell due in the year were received and credited to Appropriations in Aid.”

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—These loans are repayable over a period of 20 years in the case of erection and equipment and of 15 years where equipment only is concerned. The repayments to the 31st March, 1958, were £30,000 principal and £57,000 interest.

Chairman.—None of these loans have fallen in arrears?

Mr. Nagle.—No, they have all been paid up promptly.

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

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

45. Following the termination on 9 May 1957, of price control of creamery butter, payment of the production and sales allowances referred to in previous reports was discontinued.

The expenditure borne on this subhead is made up as follows:—

In addition to the amount shown above, a sum of £310,000 was paid to the Committee from the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund on account of 1957-58 expenditure on cold storage, etc. (See Paragraph 47).”

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—As explained in the note, the subsidy ceased in May and the only charge to the subhead in future will be the loss on exports by the Butter Marketing Committee.

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

“Subhead R.—Appropriations in Aid

46. An agreement dated 17 June 1954 between the Governments of Ireland and the United States of America provided for the use of a balance of some £6,000,000 in the Grant Counterpart Special Account for certain purposes for the benefit of the Irish economy. It also provided for the negotiation of subsidiary agreements which would contain detailed specifications of the nature of the projects agreed on, including a budget and a plan of expenditure in each case. The amounts allocated under the various subsidiary agreements in respect of projects sponsored by the Department of Agriculture together with recoupments from the Special Account up to 31 March 1958 are shown in the following statement. The amounts recouped were credited to Appropriations in Aid.

Payments from the Fund were as follows:—

In addition to the amount shown above a sum of £2,761,315 was paid to the Committee from subhead P. on account of losses on exports of butter (see paragraph 45).”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This sets out the position regarding grants from the American Grant Counterpart Special Account for schemes administered by or on behalf of the Department.

237. Chairman.—Paragraph 47 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund

47. The income of the Fund consists of levies, mainly on home sales of creamery butter. Due to increases in the rates of levy the income for the year amounted to £438,653 as compared with £17,287 in the previous year.

238. Chairman.—We may turn now to the Vote itself on page 62.

Deputy Sheldon.—In regard to subhead E.1. the note on it refers to a claim made by sub-accounting officers not included in the expenditure in the subhead. References of this type occur in other places in the notes. Did something special turn up in this year to bring these to notice? In so far as they are intended to explain a difference between grant and expenditure, I would have thought if they were normal they would not give such an explanation because they would appear every year and could be taken into account in estimation?

Mr. Suttle.—This arises on the question of putting forward the date for the submission of accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit. It has been agreed that some accounts for the month of March need not be included in the accounts for this year. In fact, there may be only eleven months expenditure in these accounts but, in future, there will always be twelve months because you will have the overlap of one year to another.

Deputy Sheldon.—That is why they are noted here?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes, and they will not occur again because you will have 12 months’ expenditure in each account.

239. Chairman.—Is it proposed to transfer the seed testing to Backweston?

Mr. Nagle.—That matter has not yet been finally decided. The whole question of what precise activities should be transferred is still being considered, but ultimately I would think that would be the position.

240. Deputy Lynch.—In regard to subhead E. 3, could Mr. Nagle tell us is this the section of the Department to which veterinary surgeons would send up specimens for analysis and testing?

Mr. Nagle.—That is so.

What is the position regarding that section of the Department? Is it fully staffed?—There are some vacancies on the establishment of the veterinary research laboratory at the moment.

Deputy Lynch.—I do not know whether it comes within the province of this Committee, but I would only say that there is great dissatisfaction down the country about specimens being sent up and returned saying they have not been able to deal with them owing to shortage of staff.

241. Chairman.—Have you heard of any cases in which specimens have been returned?—A number of cases have occurred, as Deputy Lynch has stated. More staff are required in the laboratory but certain difficulties over the past year or two have unfortunately prevented our recruiting the full number of staff we should like to have at the laboratory. But I am glad to say we think the problem is well on the way to solution. We hope during the next year not only to bring the staff up to strength but perhaps increase the present numbers.

242. Deputy Haughey.—For what kind of staff do vacancies exist?—Generally speaking, it is in what is called the basic grade of research officer, that is, the recruitment grade.

The Estimate shows provision for ten research officers? It is in that grade?— Yes.

243. Deputy Lynch.—I should like to draw Mr. Nagle’s attention to the fact that there were samples sent up and returned without having been dealt with. It is a very serious matter to have specimens sent back. Goodness knows what disease might be involved. However, apart from that, one of the excuses, in one of the letters I saw, was that members of the staff had to be sent out on inspections and other duties, so it would seem that there are sections of the Department understaffed. I have also been informed that 19 officers who joined the Department’s services in the past year or so have resigned. I prefer to raise this matter in private than to create a scare. It would be better if the Minister’s attention were drawn to this fact, that it is necessary that the Department be fully staffed in all sections.

Chairman.—We must not ask Mr. Nagle to draw the Minister’s attention to anything. We must only ask Mr. Nagle questions. If we wish to direct the Minister’s attention to anything we must do that in Dáil Éireann.

Deputy Lynch.—I hope you will bear with me when I raise it here because anything we say here will not appear for some time. I do not want to embarrass those engaged in the campaign for T.T. testing the Department are carrying out.

Chairman.—I think it fair to say we know the difficulty Mr. Nagle reports to us and also note with satisfaction the hope expressed by him that these difficulties are well on the way to resolution.

244. Deputy Sheldon.—The Estimate discloses that 14 research officer posts are listed as temporary. Would Mr. Nagle not think this might be one of the reasons why there is difficulty in getting staff? It is not much encouragement to anyone to go into a job that is listed as temporary, although it seems to me veterinary research is something one could hardly call temporary?—The majority, if not all, of the present research officers are established officers, but the posts are subject to review, I think, by arrangement with the Department of Finance. The men who are actually occupying the posts are established officers.

Deputy Sheldon.—I took that from the Estimate myself, that they were established officers, but even established officers serving in what are called temporary posts could hardly feel as happy as if the posts were called permanent. I am quite sure Mr. Nagle will realise I am stiffening his arm against the Department of Finance.

Chairman.—The fact is that while these posts continue to be described in the Estimate as temporary, most of those who hold them have established status?—That is the position.

Perhaps the Clerk to the Committee could make a note of that, so that if the Committee desires to make a recommendation in its Report, we can consider it?— The real reason for being under strength in the veterinary staff is simply the difficulties that prevented recruitment.

Chairman.—I think that in the present delicate situation it is the general view here that the Committee might be well advised to pursue this matter more closely next year, when the situation has clarified itself.

245. Chairman.—On subhead E.3.— Veterinary Research—have the reconstruction and other building work which was proceeding at Abbotstown been completed?—All the laboratory adaptations have been completed except for a very few minor details, and the transfer has been taking place from Thorndale, Drumcondra, to Abbotstown, over the past few months. I think about half the services previously in Thorndale are now at Abbotstown, and we hope the transfer will be completed within a very few months from now.

246. Deputy Flanagan.—On subhead E.6. — Miscellaneous Investigations, Inquiries and Reports—that seems to be an odd kind of heading. We find that cattle which it was intended to purchase were not bought. I do not know how you could describe the purchasing of cattle as being an investigation or an inquiry.

Chairman.—Perhaps you could tell us how do cattle enter in as the subject of an investigation?—The reference here is to the scheme at Derrybrennan and Clonsast Bogs on which it was proposed to put a number of cattle after treating the surface suitably. The investigation would consist in seeing how the cattle fared after this treatment. However, the processing of the land took rather longer than was expected originally and hence the necessity to purchase the cattle did not arise as early as was expected.

Am I right in saying these were minor schemes of investigation carried out in collaboration with Bord na Móna on cutaway bog?—Yes.

247. On subhead E.7.—Pig Progeny Testing Station—are any steps being taken to embark upon the construction of the second testing station?—Yes. We have almost reached a conclusion as to the site of the new station but it is necessary to consult an advisory committee which has all the time advised us about this project.

248. How many tests have actually been completed at the Cork station?—It began, of course, rather later than we had hoped because of the swine fever position but quite a number of groups have been reported on and the total number of pigs in the station at the moment is just under 200, which is divided into 48 groups of 4 each. We are making every effort to try to obtain at least 4 litter groups from each boar we test and it is hoped at an early date to publish the first results of the tests.

249. Deputy Haughey.—On subhead F.3 —Veterinary College—I notice that right along the line, in subheads E.3., E.6., F.1 and F.3., there are savings on research and experimental work. I would like to ask the accounting officer to comment on that.

Chairman.—If you look at the note, in respect of these subheads, you will find there is some explanation in each case.

Deputy Haughey.—That is what I am looking at. Take subhead F.3: “Saving due to staff vacancies and to smaller purchases than expected of laboratory and surgery equipment . . . .” subhead F.1., “… a saving of £3,144 on salaries, wages and allowances was due to vacancies mainly in the soil science staff …”, subhead E.6. “Expenditure on investigations into cutaway bog reclamation was lower than estimated …”, and subhead E.3. “Savings … due to staff vacancies at the Veterinary Research Laboratory…”

Chairman.—We have had an explanation in respect of subheads E.3 and E.6 but, in regard to subheads F.1 and F.3, Deputy Haughey notes that the savings resulted at least in part, from failure to fill vacancies or from staff considerations. Is that desirable or why is it that the staff has not been kept up to strength?—As regards subhead F.3—Veterinary College—the reason has been the same as the one I already mentioned in connection with the veterinary laboratory. We were unable to recruit staff to fill the vacancies. In the case of the other subhead mentioned there has been, so to speak, a shortfall to some extent in filling posts due to the unavoidable delay arising from the rather complicated machinery of recruitment. We were too optimistic when preparing the Estimate as to the number we could physically put through the public competitions in the ensuing financial year.

In fact it is attributable to the rather complicated procedure of the Appointments Commission?—Yes.

Deputy Haughey.—My only point is that all the subheads seem to add up to the same result which is that we have been less active in this whole field than we might be or that we even estimated.

Deputy Brennan.—It seems to be simply overestimation under those heads.

250. Chairman.—To put it plainly to you, would there be any ground for believing that savings both in respect of staff and laboratory and surgery equipment arose from a reluctance to seek the staff or to authorise the purchase of the equipment which was required?

I would not think it was due to a reluctance to seek the staff but to the fact that there is ordinarily a certain length of time required in which to recruit staff. I am afraid that when the Estimate was being framed it was assumed that the staff would be appointed sooner than has proved to be the case.

Deputy Haughey.—Anything else I may have to say will be said on the Estimate.

Chairman.—Would I be correct in saying that you might desire and contemplate, say under subhead F.3., that 12 staff vacancies would be filled, that these vacancies would be referred to the Local Appointments Commissioners and that, in the financial year, you might get only eight recruits and you would be left waiting for the other four with nobody to appoint them?—Exactly.

251. Deputy Booth.—Are we to assume that there is a sufficient number of applications for the jobs but that the only trouble is the machinery for selecting as between applicants or is there a shortage of technically qualified people in these jobs?—There, Mr. Chairman, we have to consider (1) agricultural experts and (2) veterinary experts. I have mentioned the peculiar difficulties that have arisen in regard to recruitment of veterinary staff which applied to that profession alone. In the case of agricultural scientists, the position is that, during the past year, anyhow, it is not so very difficult now as it was, say, two or three years ago to find suitable agricultural graduates because the output of the college has increased considerably.

Chairman.—So that we may assume that, at least in regard to subhead F.3, any shortage of staff is not due to an insufficiency of the number of applicants but rather to the operation of the machinery for choosing between them? Would that be correct?—It would.

Deputy Booth.—Is there any way in which the machinery could be oiled a little?

Chairman.—That is scarcely a question for Mr. Nagle. Mr. Whitaker is the Accounting Officer in relation to the Local Appointments Commission but it would be a matter admirably suitable to the debate on the Appropriation Bill, when it comes forward

252. Deputy Flanagan.—With regard to subhead F.9—Rural Groups Advisory Service—what is the nature of the incidental expenditure incurred by the Parish Agents?—These expenses refer to certain demonstrations and plot experiments carried out by the Parish Agent and would include, for example, the purchase of seed and fertilisers for these plots and other incidental equipment required for these demonstrations.

There are no travelling or other expenses of that nature in it?—The salaries and the travelling expenses of the Parish Agents are borne on subheads A. and B.

253. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead K.4.—Grants to certain Rural Organisations—which of the organisations for which money is provided in the subhead were responsible for this saving? —The two organisations were the Irish Countrywomen’s Association and Macra na Feirme.

Chairman.—And both of these actually sought much less than they had in previous years?. The note says: “Expenditure during the year by two of the organisations concerned was much less than the estimates submitted by them on which the provisions under the subhead were based.” Is that the position?—Yes. Certain moneys were provided for these two organisations and also for Muintir na Tíre in this subhead. In the case of the two organisations I have mentioned, their plans did not mature as quickly as they had hoped. The money was available but was not spent or only a small proportion was spent, resulting in this comparatively large saving.

254. Deputy Flanagan.—With regard to subhead M.1.—Miscellaneous Work—is a sum of nearly £28,000 not a large amount of money to be described as “Miscellaneous?”

Chairman.—Can Mr. Nagle give us the heads of the Miscellaneous expenditure? —I can. The outstanding item here is advertising and publicity, to which we allocate £19,000 out of the £27,000. The next one is certain salaries and wages. This refers to the Trade Inspectors in Great Britain. There is a post of Trade Inspector in London that is borne on this Vote and another post in Liverpool. There is another small item, then, of £1,300 in respect of casual labour at cold stores.

Deputy Haughey.—Poultry and rabbits.

255. Deputy Flanagan.—Would it not be better, then, to include separately the items of advertising and publicity as £19,000?

Deputy Sheldon.—Not on a Vote which involves the expenditure of £11,000,000.

Chairman.—Deputy Flanagan feels that this subhead might be segregated for the better information of the House and the Committee. What would your view on that be, Mr. Nagle?

Deputy Sheldon.—They answer that in the Estimate.

Deputy Haughey.—They are all detailed on page 117.

Chairman.—On the other hand, I think Deputy Flanagan is entitled to have his attention directed to that, if the miscellaneous subheads are segregated. Perhaps the Accounting Officer would direct Deputy Flanagan’s attention to where the segregation is made.

Deputy Haughey.—Page 117 of the Estimates.

Mr. Nagle.—I think it is on pages 114-115 of the Estimates volume.

256. Deputy Booth.—Could we have any information as to the duties of a Trade Inspector. It seems an odd title?—They are rather a miscellaneous collection of duties. In general, the Trade Inspector is, for example in London, expected to keep in very close touch with the developments in produce markets. He is expected to visit Smithfield and the great provision markets in London regularly, to keep in touch with price trends and to transmit regular reports on marketing conditions. If any difficulty arises at any time about a consignment of bacon, meat, eggs or poultry, for example, he is expected to look into this. For example, if there is a complaint on quality or if, on the other hand, there is a complaint by an exporter that he did not get fair treatment or that something went wrong, he is supposed to look into this too and, generally, to oil the wheels of trade, to sort out difficulties in a diplomatic way and to keep us informed on conditions generally.

257. And his total remuneration is something in the region of £750 per annum, is that right, or are two Trade Inspectors provided for in the Estimates? Are they on the same grade?—Only one post is filled at the moment, that is, London. The Liverpool post is vacant, although provision was made for the two of them. The salary would amount approximately to the figure mentioned.

Chairman.—I see the Estimate says that one Inspector receives £809 per annum, inclusive, and that the other post carries a salary of £703, inclusive.

Deputy Booth.—It does not seem as if they are overpaid for what seems to be a very difficult job, if they are doing it right, as I am sure they are.

Chairman.—Does Mr. Nagle want to make any comment on Deputy Booth’s inquiry as to the adequate remuneration of these officers?—I should like to say that my feeling would be that these posts should be—if I may say so—built up a bit. They are rather responsible posts. We have proposals under consideration at the moment to that end. I may mention that there are some allowances, but not very excessive, paid in addition to the salary. Speaking from memory, these would total about £150.

The matter of the remuneration of these officers is under review?—Yes.

Deputy Lynch.—These officers, I am sure, make reports to the Department?— Yes.

258. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead M.2.—Fees for Reports on Agricultural Conditions—I want to raise a minor point. I am wondering why the fees mentioned in the subhead turn into “honoraria”, as mentioned in the note. I presume there is no particular significance?—I do not think so. I think “honoraria” seems to be a traditional word in the Department of Agriculture. “Fee” is probably a more precise description.

It looks odd when attached to the word “earn”?—I must agree.

Chairman.—Do you wish to pursue the matter of this terminological inexactitude?

Deputy Sheldon.—I merely wanted to say that from the point of view of English. Anyway, it would cost less to print the word “fees”.

Mr. Nagle.—I can, here and now, undertake to convert the word into “fees” in future.

259. Chairman.—I regard that, Mr. Nagle, as a very rash undertaking. On subhead M.5.—Agricultural Production Council—is that Council going to meet or is it intended to suspend its activities?— I take it from the note that no meetings were held during the financial year under review.

Has any meeting been held since?—No, not since.

260. Deputy Booth.—On subhead M.12 —Grants for Pasteurisation of Separated Milk—might I ask whether these grants for plant, described in the Estimates as grants to creameries towards the purchase of plant, are purely for pasteurisation plants or do they also include can-washing equipment, and so on, which appears to be essential in that connection? Are they restricted purely to pasteurisation or do they include complete plants?—The grants are not restricted to pasturisation equipment. It is open to creameries to apply for similar aid for the installation of can-washing equipment, but there were only two or three cases in which they did so.

Chairman.—But such equipment is eligible for grants if considered appropriate?—Yes.

261. Deputy Booth.—Is it regarded in the Department as sufficient to have a pasteurisation plant without a can-washing plant, or is it that pasteurisation plants are installed only in places where they already have can-washing equipment?

Chairman.—I hope you will not take it amiss, Deputy Booth. Am I right in thinking you are engaged in this business?

Deputy Booth.—Yes.

Chairman.—I think the appropriate procedure then is to declare an interest —for your own protection.

Deputy Booth.—I think I declared an interest last year.

Chairman.—It would be better to declare a personal interest.

Deputy Booth.—I do so.

Mr. Nagle.—I understand the pasteurisation aspect is overwhelmingly more important, from the point of view of T.B. eradication, than can-washing. The can-washing would, I suppose, overcome the return of the infection to the particular farm from whence it came, but the pasteurisation of the separated milk prevents all the milk from infecting a parish by the bulking of the skimmed milk. There can be little doubt that the pasteurisation plant seems to be a great deal more important, but that is not to say that can-washing facilities, in themselves, are not very valuable.

Chairman.—Does that meet your point, Deputy?

Deputy Booth.—Yes, Sir.

262. Deputy Flanagan.—On subhead M.13.—Payments to Pigs and Bacon Commission—I cannot find any explanation of the supplementary grant of £717,000.

Chairman.—How was it that the original Estimate was £70,000, and in the course of the year there was a supplementary of £717,000?—The Estimate originally was framed not very long after the introduction of the scheme, and it became necessary to hazard an estimate as to the actual average prices which would be realised for bacon in the London markets, well over 12 months ahead, and for a period of 12 months. An unprecedented slump, unfortunately, occurred during the financial year and prices fell as low as 210/- a cwt. for bacon in the London market, and it was found necessary to make certain upward adjustments in the guaranteed export price for bacon.

Deputy Flanagan.—I was wondering why no note was put in to that effect.

Chairman.—In the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report?

Deputy Flanagan.—Somewhere.

Deputy Sheldon.—It is, in paragraph 41.

Chairman.—We had dealt with the point under paragraph 41 before the Deputy arrived.

263. Deputy T. Lynch.—On subhead M.14.—Marketing of Agricultural Produce —it says Grant £250,000 and Expenditure £250,000. Did we spend £250,000 on marketing our agricultural produce? I happened to look at page 78 and I found a total of £213, all spent on travelling expenses.

Chairman.—This is a Grant-in-Aid. Perhaps you would give us particulars of how a Grant-in-Aid is paid?—I understand this, being a Grant-in-Aid, was paid into a deposit account from which expenditure may be met on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Marketing.

Chairman.—I think it is not always easy for all of us to relate the subheads to the notes. It is hard to know which is the best way to go about this business —to take all the notes first and then take the subheads, or take the subheads and the notes at the same time.

Deputy Brennan.—There is an unusually big number of notes.

Chairman.—Paragraph 42 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report deals with this particular matter. I understand the sum of £250,000 is paid over to the committee and they can use it, or not use it, and if they want more it is envisaged they will come back to the Minister and ask for more, when a further charge will appear on the Vote if the Minister decides to make more money available to them.

264. Deputy Lynch.—I was aware of that paragraph and it says “See Statement on page 78”. I turned to page 78 and there is a figure of £250,000 and only £213 has been spent. In my innocence I think this Committee is here to see that when moneys are voted by Dáil Éireann they are spent in the manner stipulated. I welcomed the statement in the House that £250,000 was to be allotted for the propagation of agricultural markets abroad, but now I discover that only £213 has been spent. Am I entitled to ask the reason for that? —This Committee got down to work about November or December, 1957, which was well on in the financial year, and subsequently it was anticipated that the Committee would take some years to complete its labours because this is a very comprehensive task which has been assigned to them, to survey the entire field of marketing. Finally, I would say it is a matter for the judgment of the Advisory Committee as to the extent to which and how often they call on these funds for any experimental work or any investigations.

Deputy Brennan.—Deputy Lynch is confusing this with recurring grants. He feels it should all be spent within a year.

Deputy Lynch.—There is a very big difference between £213 and £250,000 and if a Committee shows such a bad result, after being in operation nearly a year, we can ask is there nobody on that Committee who could survey the possibilities of marketing without having to sit down and hatch over the problem for a long time.

Deputy Haughey.—Does not spending money necessarily mean they are not working?

Chairman.—We must be careful to reserve our discussion to matters outside our private opinions. Mr Nagle is here to give us any information we want, and he has explained that there were two ways open to finance the Agricultural Marketing Committee, one, to make an annual estimate of requirements and appropriate the money annually, and the alternative, to envisage a long-term programme and place a substantial sum in an account from which the Committee could draw. The Committee, in fact, met only in the eighth month of the financial year under review and, in the ensuing year, they can be expected to draw further on the money available to them. Might I suggest to the Deputy that we could get a more proportionate view of how the work of the Committee is proceeding at the end of a full year’s working. Would that represent your view?—Yes. If I may be permitted to add to that, it is possible that any large inroads on this sum might be considered for such arrangements as experimental shipments of products which might result in a loss, but that is a matter for the Advisory Committee to decide upon, whether to embark on such direct trade, or whether to investigate the matter in some other way. Undoubtedly, that expenditure will be larger in the next financial year.

Deputy Lynch.—At the same time I think that, as this is such a serious matter, it is no harm we should let the Accounting Officer, and through him, the permanent officers of the Department of Agriculture, know what the average man thinks—that is, that this Committee does not know where they are going and that is why they are not able to spend the money.

Deputy Sheldon.—Dáil Éireann decided to do it this way and that is what matters.

Chairman.—I think we must not bring Mr. Nagle into any such discussion but the Clerk to the Committee will take a note of it that, when we come to consider our Report, we shall consider the point raised by Deputy Lynch and the views of his colleagues on his views. As there is no further question on this subhead, we shall leave it at that.

265. Deputy Booth.—On subhead O.6., I notice that the note says that one loan application was withdrawn and in another case the project was not completed before the close of the year. May we conclude from that that there is only a comparatively small number of fairly large loans? There is a very big discrepancy between the grant and expenditure. I presume there is a very small number of loans?

Chairman.—Are these loans numerous or small, Mr. Nagle? Or are they small in number and large in size?—A return has, of course, been presented to the Dáil giving certain details of the loans issued. The total number issued to date is approximately 20, and the amounts vary from a maximum of £135,000, which was the highest loan granted, to a minimum of £2,100. So, there is quite a big variation between the largest and the smallest loan.

266. Chairman.—I should like to direct the attention of Deputies to the statement of accounts of the Dairy Disposal Co. Ltd. and associated companies, which has been furnished to them.* I do not know if your attention has been directed, Mr. Nagle, to paragraph 16 of the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts for 1955/56 and the relevant portion of the minute of the Minister for Finance thereon relating to the importation and distribution of superphosphate by Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann Teo:

“The Minister is informed by the Department of Agriculture that certain insurance claims which arose in connection with the operation of the scheme still remain to be settled. When these claims have been disposed of, the authority of the Dáil will be sought to write off the total losses incurred on the scheme.”

Can you give us any information as to the present position of this matter?

Mr. Nagle.—I am afraid these negotiations in regard to the insurance are still going on. It was felt it would be better to try to bring them to a successful conclusion before seeking the necessary authority of the House as is intended. I think the financial outcome might be better if we followed that order.

Chairman.—Of course, the Committee will be informed if and when these negotiations are successfully concluded? —Certainly.

267. Deputy Booth.—I have a few questions arising out of notes on page 75. Very near the bottom of the page, the first note is as follows:—

Subhead F.1 of this account includes ex gratia payments amounting to £193 to contractors for supplies to the Department’s agricultural institutions in respect of increases in the contract prices of bread and flour supplied during the period from the 1st May, 1957 to 31st October, 1957.

The next note says:—

The owner of a plot of land who had contracted to sell to the Department for £175 was paid a sum of £25 in excess of the contract price on an “ad misericordiam” basis.

I was wondering whether the accounting officer could help us as to what the value of a contract is that has to be varied by means of ex gratia payments? My own view is that in ordinary affairs contracts ought to be complied with. There seems to be a tendency here, which I find rather alarming, for ex gratia payments to be made on foot of contracts.

Mr. Nagle.—Apparently, following the withdrawal of the subsidy on flour on the 20th May, 1957, the contractors for the supply of bread and flour to the Department’s institutions claimed increases in the prices at which they had contracted to supply those commodities for the six months from the 1st May to the 31st October, 1957. They were, so to speak, overtaken by the removal of the subsidy. So the authority of the Department of Finance was sought and obtained for a payment on an ex gratia basis of an increase in the contract price of 7d. per 4 lb. loaf and a maximum of 55/6d. per bag of flour, with effect from the 20th May, 1957.

268. Chairman.—What were the grounds for the payment of £25 in excess of the contract price on an “ad misericordiam” basis to the owner of a plot of land?—This was a little bit more complicated. In October, 1954, the Department of Finance sanctioned the purchase for a maximum figure of £200 of the fee simple of a plot of ground on which the central buildings of the Donegal Glasshouse Centre are situated and which had been leased from the owner for 20 years at an annual rent of £20 plus rates and other outgoings. The owner subsequently entered into an agreement to sell at £175 but later claimed through his solicitor that the sum was inadequate and that he should be paid his original price of £200. We were advised by the legal advisers that a contract did exist for the sale of the plot for £175 and that a request for an increase to £200 would have to be dealt with on an ad misericordiam basis. As the expert valuer had given the opinion that the price of £200 was quite fair and reasonable and that £175 was on the low side, it was thought that in equity the £200 should be paid. But I admit it would have been possible to stand on the very strict letter of the law, in which case I think an element of inequity would have arisen.

269. Chairman.—Have Deputies any other questions to put to Mr. Nagle?

Mr. Nagle.—There is just one figure you asked for, Sir, about the pig progeny testing station which I do not think I gave in my reply. You asked how many pigs had already been finished there. The figure is 48 litter groups of 4 each slaughtered and fully tested.

Chairman.—Thank you very much, Mr. Nagle.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

*See Appendix XVI.

*See Appendix XVII.