|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Dé hAoine, 12 Nollaig, 1958.Friday, 12th December, 1958.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY DILLON in the chair. Mr. E. F. Suttle (Secretary and Director of Audit), Mr. P. S. Mac Guill and Mr. J. Mooney (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 47—LANDS.Mr. T. O’Brien called and examined.270. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor General regarding this Vote on page 23. It is paragraph 56 which states:— “Land Purchase Account 56. A holding required for the purpose of rearranging adjoining holdings was resumed by the Land Commission in 1930. Compensation, fixed at £425, was placed in 1940 to the credit of the representatives of the original tenant who had died in 1914. As it appeared that the purpose of the resumption remained unfulfilled, I inquired as to the position. I was informed that protracted litigation with the occupants of the holding had failed to secure possession and that in 1951 a settlement had been reached whereby a new tenancy was given to one of the defendants. This settlement provided for the payment by the tenant of a sum of £20 in cash together with an annual rent of £17 10s. 0d., an increase of £7 1s. 4d. over the former rent. The new rent was fixed at as high a figure as was considered advisable with a view to offsetting the liabilities to and expenses of the Land Commission which amounted in all to some £300. The settlement also provided for the assignment to the Land Commission of the interest of the representatives of the original tenant in the resumption compensation. The effectiveness of this assignment was contingent on the parties being able to adduce satisfactory title to the former tenancy. I am informed that title has not yet been proved but that the Land Commission is continuing to give the case constant attention with a view to recovering the £425 issued in 1940.” Is there anything you wish to add, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph exemplifies some of the difficulties met by the Land Commission in their work. The main point is that, in 1940, £425 was paid from the Land Commission Vote Account into the Land Commission Court Accounts with a view to facilitating the rearrangement of certain holdings. The proposed rearrangement could not be carried out. Because of the difficulty of tracing the successor of the original tenant the Department of Lands are finding it very difficult to recover the £425 from the Land Commission Court Accounts in which the money still lies intact. 271. Deputy Brennan.—What are the chances of recovering the holding? Chairman.—Can you give us any further information, Mr. O’Brien? Deputy Brennan inquires about the prospects of recovering the holding? Mr. O’Brien.—Recovering the money, I think? Recovering the holding. I understand the resumption has failed of its purpose. Deputy Brennan asked what are the chances of recovering the holding?—I could give the story in a few moments. Actually it is a Co. Kerry holding of about 35 acres, the rateable valuation of which is £12. It was part of an estate purchased by the former Congested Districts Board in 1916 and the Land Commission inherited it as successor to the Board in 1923. When we took over in 1923 the recorded tenant was a woman although she had died in 1914. A brother-in-law had been living on the holding and took over as occupier. The land was poorly worked and was in chronic arrear with annuity. This man owned as well a second holding which was also in chronic arrear. The Land Commission decided to resume the first holding and got a Resumption Order in 1930, the compensation being fixed at £425. Instead of pressing ahead with the disposal of that holding the Commission turned their attention to the question of arrears on the second holding and eventually took up that holding for default in 1941 and disposed of it and finished with it. The Land Commission then switched back to the first holding for which they had a Resumption Order, and having placed the compensation of £425 to credit, an order for possession was obtained in 1941, the sheriff putting the Land Commission into possession. Immediately after that, the previous occupier, his married daughter and her two children retook possession forcibly, breaking into the house. Criminal proceedings were brought against them by the Land Commission and the occupier and his daughter were found guilty with a recommendation to mercy. Sentence was postponed and the matter was adjourned at several subsequent courts. Eventually, in 1943, the Court ordered the discharge of the accused conditional on their entering into a recognisance of £20 each to be of good behaviour and to appear for sentence when called upon at any time. They were then discharged notwithstanding the fact that they were still in possession of the land. The Land Commission then instituted equity civil bill proceedings to establish their title to the holding against the people in occupation. The Circuit Court ruled that the proceedings were misconceived and dismissed the case. The Land Commission then instituted fresh proceedings by ordinary civil bill on the title and a decree for possession was secured against all those in occupation with the exception of a son of the married daughter. The Land Commission appealed to the High Court and got an order directed against him. The original occupier and his married daughter appealed against the Circuit Court order directed against them but that appeal was dismissed. The Land Commission were then in a position to retake possession, but the Co. Registrar refrained from evicting the occupiers because a medical certificate was produced that the father, aged 85, was unfit to be removed from the house. It was ultimately concluded that the land could not be disposed of to anybody other than a member of the occupying family. Accordingly, the Land Commission approved the letting of the holding on a temporary basis, as an interim measure, to the son of the married daughter, conditional on possession being handed over to the Land Commission, and conditional on the execution by father and daughter of an assignment to the Land Commission of their interest in the resumption compensation of £425. This was done in June, 1951, and the son was installed. He is a young man, now aged about 25, who is making excellent use of the property and has erected a new range of out-offices. He is paying a rent of £17 10s. which is £7 1s. 4d. over the former rent, and his instalments are paid right up to date, and he also has paid £20 cash against expenses incurred. The total costs, expenses and previous arrears amount to about £300. Against that, the Land Commission have the assignment of the parties’ interest in the compensation. The worth and validity of that assignment depends on the title of those who made it and we have been bringing the utmost pressure to bear on the solicitor acting for them to establish their bona fides. Their solicitor, who had been handling the case for years and knew it personally, died, and his successor is now following it up. Quite recently—as a matter of fact, within the past fortnight—we got certain affidavits signed by or on behalf of the assignors of their interest in the compensation and we believe these affidavits will be material to the early winding up of the case. Deputy Brennan.—That is a very full explanation. Thank you very much. 272. Chairman.—Can you forecast, Mr. O’Brien, how long these lands will be let subject to a letting of convenience?— About another year. Do you anticipate that at the end of that period the lands will be vested in somebody?—Yes. 273. That, I take it, is under some statutory authority of the Land Commission to cut through the customary procedure where title is obscure?—The Land Commission actually got possession, and are free to dispose of it as they wish and, in effect, the compensation money is impounded in Court and cannot be touched. And awaiting proof of title?—Yes, by those who assigned all their interest in that money to us. And ultimately it will be the object of the Land Commission to vest the land in somebody?—That is right. Presumably in the young man who is making good use of the holding?—Most likely. Chairman.—We will now turn to the Vote itself on page 140. 274. Deputy Booth.—In the Notes on page 142 there is an explanation which I do not quite understand. It is stated to refer to subheads A. and B. and it reads: “Savings mainly due to . . . . discontinuance of prior year charges.” May we have some information as to what “prior year charges” are and why they were discontinued? Chairman.—What does that phrase mean? Mr. O’Brien—Those words relate entirely to subhead B. The position arises from a request of this Committee for the early presentation of Appropriation Accounts, so that they are closed down now promptly on the 31st March. It has been the practice to deal with travelling claims by means of imprest payments and claims for expenses incurred in March, though generally not cleared until April, would be charged back. We closed down promptly on the 31st March in that year so that a charge of only eleven months arose against the subhead. I think this arose on another Vote and the position is that henceforth that note is unlikely to appear?—That is so. In future accounts we shall have a twelve months period comprising one month of the prior year and eleven months of the current year?—Yes. 275. Deputy Booth.—On subhead H.3— Payments under Section 27 (2) of the Land Act, 1933 and Section 6 (4) of the Land Act, 1953—the note says the excess was due to the issue of more bonds in the first half than in the second half of the year. I am not quite clear as to what that means. Is it that there was an undue proportion, more than was estimated, in the first half? Is that how the excess arose?—Yes. Generally the issue of bonds throughout the year would be expected to run at a fairly level rate from month to month but in the first half of that year we issued £385,000 bonds and in the second half only £162,000. But the total amount of bonds issued was about the same as was estimated? —It was slightly more. We usually issue about £500,000 bonds in a year. That year we issued £547,000 and there was the added feature of much more of the issue falling in the first half of the year than in the second half, and so we had to service more bonds for a longer period. 276. Chairman.—On subhead L.3— Advances under Section 43 of the Land Act, 1939—what are these advances?— Where the Land Commission take up a holding for default and there are arrears on it and costs and expenses had been incurred, they may find a person who is willing to pay those amounts not in cash but by means of a new advance which he will agree to repay in addition to the existing annuity on the holding. In that case we get the advance from the Vote. The new incoming tenant agrees to repay it and in that way the old arrears and other expenses are cleared. 277. Deputy Jones.—On subhead R.— Purchase of Interests for Cash (Sections 27 and 28 of the Land Act, 1950)—could you tell us if any acquisitions of land were deferred that might have been made if some of this money were used? Chairman.—Could you tell us what are purchases of interests under this Act?— They are purchases for cash in the open market or by private treaty, in contrast to the normal method of paying for land through land bonds. In that year, and in the previous year, there was no expenditure under the subhead. Undertakings had been given in both years, that money would not be spent. The provision for these particular purchases exists only since 1950 and the total number of holdings bought up under it is only 50, with an area of 1,909 acres, at a total purchase price of £45,000. 278. In our Report on the Appropriation Accounts for 1955-56, we said, at paragraph 9: “It is noted that the question whether the Land Commission continues to be responsible for the cleaning of drains although no longer in possession of the lands is not free from doubt, and that some aspects of it may require clarification by legislation. The Committee wishes to be informed in due course when a final decision has been reached.” We have since had a minute from the Minister for Finance stating that the complex issues here involved were still under consideration by the Land Commission and the law officers and that the Committee would be informed of the final decision, which it was hoped would be reached before long. May we assume no decision has yet been reached?—No final decision. We have had counsel’s opinion on this matter and have been in touch with the Attorney General. We believe legislation will have to be framed to overcome that difficulty. VOTE 48—FORESTRY.Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.279. Chairman.—Paragraph 57 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Subhead C.2.—Forestry Development and Maintenance, etc. 57. The Forestry Division in 1950 decided on the purchase of a considerable quantity of heavy machinery and equipment for forest development and maintenance work. A test examination was undertaken during the year under review of the records relating to the maintenance of this plant. It was observed that expenditure to 31 March 1958 on repairs to each of four heavy tractors amounted to approximately £3,000, including overhauls costing £1,000, £1,130, £1,100 and £1,210, respectively, paid for in 1957-58. As these machines had been purchased in 1951-52 for sums ranging from £2,300 to £2,800 I inquired if the Accounting Officer was satisfied regarding the economy of the expenditure on repairs.” Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—The Accounting Officer, in the course of his reply to the inquiry, states that the machines were basically sound and that the expenditure incurred on repairs was deemed justified, especially in the light of the very high replacement cost of over £4,000. A theoretical life of eight to ten years had been placed on the basic portion of these machines, exclusive of track assemblies, which have a very limited life and are treated as consumable items. Repair costs arose mainly on the track assemblies and bulldozer equipment. The machines were operated in the most arduous conditions and it was to be expected that the recurring costs of repair to track assemblies and bulldozer equipment would be heavy. Consideration had always been given to the economy of expenditure incurred on repairs and account was taken of the anticipated life of the machine following repair, the disposal value and the cost of replacement. 280. Chairman.—Have you anything you care to add to that, Mr. O’Brien?— The Central Engineering Workshop of the Office of Public Works had been doing these repairs for us. Our estimate of the cost of the repairs, referred to in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s note, was based on undismantled machines. Estimation on the basis of an unstripped machine is unreliable because a number of repair needs could come to light when the machine was stripped down. I think that would happen in any garage. In regard to the track assemblies, we did know they were consumable items, that these machines were operating in very arduous conditions—the most arduous that would have to be faced anywhere on rough mountainside—preparing land for planting. A particular type of cleat had to be placed under them in order to prevent them from sinking in soft ground. I believe Bord na Móna and other firms have to do much the same thing and these cleats cause particularly heavy wear on the track assemblies. 281. Deputy Brennan.—Were the vehicles brought to a central repair shop or were they repaired in local garages?— Sometimes they were repaired on the site by the Central Engineering Workshop and other times the machines had to be brought to the Workshop in Dublin. Transport would increase the cost considerably?—Yes, it would. Deputy Booth.—Are we right about the cost? I presume you have transporter equipment for these machines. You do not have to take a bulldozer up under its own power?—We have a big low loader for the purpose. So that the actual cost of bringing it up to Dublin should not be excessive?—It should not be. You are quite right. It does not seem these expenses are unduly heavy on that?—We have been in touch with firms like Roadstone, and their experience is much the same as our own. Deputy Brennan.—Not having the experience Deputy Booth might have in this connection, I thought the costs were unduly high in comparison with the original costs. 282. Chairman.—I think the Comptroller and Auditor General says and you confirm, Mr. O’Brien, that, in certain respects, these machines are regarded as self-consuming, that they grind themselves away, owing to the severe conditions in which they work and that a certain amount of track replacement is considered as a normal cost of operation?—That is so and that is the experience of other firms handling these machines. 283. Deputy Booth.—On subhead A.— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—the explanation there is that savings are due to vacancies remaining unfilled. Are they just temporarily unfilled or can we expect there will be continued saving under that head?—They are merely temporarily unfilled; many of them have been filled since. Deputy Brennan.—That seems to be a saving which we meet on every account. Chairman.—Does this arise, in part, from the problem of getting the Civil Service Commission actually to clear the candidates?—Not really; it is sometimes more difficult to get the consent of the Department of Finance to the filling of vacancies. 284. On subhead C.1.—Acquisition of Land—is that Grant-in-Aid paid into a fund?—No. There is a special account of it on the bottom of page 148. Showing the credit balance which is carried forward to the following year?— Yes. 285. Subhead C.2.—Forest Development and Maintenance—is the subhead in respect of which we discussed the paragraph in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report? Deputy Booth.—Would I be correct in assuming that the saving in labour costs is linked up with the subhead covering the employment of a firm of industrial consultants? Is that the way that saving was achieved, by reason of incentive schemes and so on?—Not in that particular year. If I might say so, the saving arose from a growing realisation of the very strict need for economy, and from steps that forced some of the unsatisfactory people away from our labour staff; that, in turn, led to an improved morale among the remainder. Deputy Brennan.—Was it partly due also to the use of more machinery?—Not to any great extent. To enlarge a little more on what I have said, there was also tighter administrative control. Work programmes and costings were scrutinised in more detail and the inspectors responsible for them were called to conferences at headquarters. An element of competition and friendly rivalry was engendered which was found very rewarding. Chairman.—I note you inject the adjective “friendly”. I will not pursue the question as to who was friendly to whom. 286. Deputy Booth.—In subhead C.3.— Timber Conversion—there must have been some other economy measures because they are referred to in the Note dealing with that subhead. It states that the saving was “coupled with the effects of economy measures”. What further economies were possible in that, or does the answer to the last question cover that also?—Yes, the economy measures already mentioned affected this subhead also. Deputy Browne.—Friendly persuasion. 287. Deputy Brennan.—On subhead E.2. —Exhibits at Shows—what do you exhibit at shows?—Working models of forest equipment and exhibits dealing with aspects of forestry are displayed at the Spring Show and at county shows. I would instance a model saw-mill and exhibits of nursery plants. Chairman.—You usually have a stand at the Spring Show?—Yes. 288. Deputy Booth.—On subhead F.— Agency, Advisory and Special Services— coming back to the firm of industrial consultants, what was the scope of their activities during this year? On what particularly were they advising?—They were taking the first preliminary steps towards a review of our whole working system with a view to introducing the incentive bonus scheme. Presumably they were working on a time basis? Were they working on a weekly basis?—They were paid a weekly fee. 289. Chairman.—On subhead H.— Appropriations in Aid—bearing in mind the references to savings on labour costs under subheads C.2 and C.3, have you any figures showing what the average employment of labour was in this year as compared with other years?—Direct employment was about 200 down; it was 5,048 in 1956-57 and 4,835 in 1957-58. 290. Does the Forestry Department bear in mind, or give any weight to, the desirability of providing employment in forestry areas when weighing the comparative value of any economic effect against the absence of employment in any particular area when the economy is affected or, is it the view of the Department now that it is a matter of strict economics without regard to the employment position? Has a decision been taken in that matter?—I cannot answer that very simply because there is a mixture of both. There are both economic and social considerations in it. Regard is had to the social aspect?— Yes. I am putting the question because, so far as the policy decision is concerned, you are not answerable to this Committee for it. In regard to an administrative decision it is the duty of the Committee to ask your views?—I would say there is more emphasis on the economic side than there was hitherto. Deputy Booth.—Would I be correct in assuming that was partly how economies have arisen, by reason of looking at this as a business proposition rather than as an employment agency?—Yes, in the long run a sound economic forest policy yields more, not less, employment. Work that was previously given to give employment has been discontinued or done in a more economic way?—That is so. VOTE 28—FISHERIES.Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.291.—Chairman.—Paragraph 48 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Vote 28.—Fisheries. 48. The functions of the Minister for Agriculture in relation to fisheries were transferred to the Minister for Lands with effect from 9 April 1957 by the Fisheries (Transfer of Departmental Administration and Ministerial Functions) Order, 1957.” This paragraph is purely for information. 292.—Chairman.—Paragraphs 49 and 50 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read as follows:— “Subhead F. 5.—Compensation, etc. 49. Compensation amounting to £5,225 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 £80. In addition £157 was paid under sections 3 and 4 of the 1951 Act to applicants towards the cost of proving title to compensation. 50. Sections 2 and 4 of the Act of 1951 authorise the payment of 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 £123 the total of the grants paid under the authority of the sections to 31 March 1958 was £32,960.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—Taking those paragraphs together there are seven cases of compensation remaining to be settled, five under the 1939 Act and two under the 1951 Act. 293. Deputy Brennan.—Are these inland fisheries or estuaries? Mr. Suttle.—They cover netting in fresh waters. Deputy Brennan.—In the tidal waters of rivers? Chairman.—Deputy Brennan would like to know in respect of what is compensation paid under the terms of these paragraphs. Mr. O’Brien.—In respect of the restriction on the use of nets in fresh waters imposed by the 1939 Act. This relates to old family rights of fishing for trout in lakes and rivers which have been curtailed, and there now remain only seven cases?—There are actually only three major cases involving big amounts. 294. Is there anyone left now in Ireland with the right to fish with nets for trout in fresh waters?—There are some limited exceptions named in the 1939 Act, the details of which are not familiar to me. Deputy Brennan.—That is legally, of course?—The netsmen of Lough Ree net for trout under a special by-law. Chairman.—With the exception of them it is no longer legal for anybody to net for trout in fresh waters?—That is correct, for salmon or trout. 295. Chairman.—Paragraph 51 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Salmon Conservancy Fund 51. The Salmon Conservancy Fund was established by section 5 of the Salmon Conservancy Fund Act, 1954. The income of the Fund was derived from levies on exports of salmon payable under the Salmon Export Levy Order 1954, but this order was revoked from 1 January 1955. The levy was re-imposed as from 14 June 1957 by the Salmon Export Levy Order 1957. Section 6 of the Act authorises the payment out of the Fund to boards of conservators of such sums as the Minister may think fit to supplement their incomes. Receipts from the levy in the year ended 31 March 1958 amounted to £5,433. Sums totalling £5,000 were paid to boards of conservators and administrative expenses were £150. The balance in the Fund at 31 March 1958 amounted to £283. An account of the receipts and payments is appended to the appropriation account.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—An account of the Fund appears at page 85 of the Appropriation Accounts. 296. Deputy Brennan.—On what basis are grants paid to Boards of Conservators under the Salmon Conservancy Fund? Do they get a pro rata grant or are the special exigencies of each case taken into account? Mr. O’Brien.—The matter is related to the financial wants of the Boards; the financial standing of each of the Boards is taken into account. We try to meet them as far as we can, having regard to the grants in the Vote itself, plus the added amount from the Salmon Conservancy Fund, the primary object of which is to enlarge the income of the Boards, but I do not think there is any settled apportionment as between the Boards. It is fixed according to their requirements. 297. Chairman.—If there is no other question on that, we shall turn to the subheads of the Vote which are on page 81. In regard to subhead E.6.—Provision of Exploratory Fishing Vessel—has anything happened since the conclusion of the financial year 1957-58 in regard to this vessel on which there has been no expenditure shown in the present account, Mr. O’Brien?—Tenders have been invited by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the final date for receiving the tenders is Monday next. 298. Deputy Booth.—In regard to subhead E.7.—Training Scheme for Fishermen—could we have any information as to what adaptation was required on the fishing vessel now being used for training purposes?—Yes. According to the subhead £8,000 was spent; it was spent on five different items: (i) the addition of a two-berth cabin aft, for second hand and engineman, with alterations to the galley and repositioning of the messroom; (ii) supplying and fitting of two new small size air receivers; (iii) the installation of a new wheelhouse, completely in steel; (iv) the renovation and rearrangement of the crew’s quarters to accommodate eight men; and (v) repositioning of the companionway from the skipper’s cabin to the wheelhouse and rearrangement of the cabin to suit. 299. Are these vessels being equipped to instruct men in the best type of vessel, as well as in the actual method of fishing? I was interested to hear of an item like air receivers being installed. What is the significance of the air receivers? Are they for making compressed air available?—I think these are purely of the ventilation type; it was necessary to remove a large air receiver to make space available. 300. Chairman.—Are these boats in operation now?—Yes. The three of them have been re-engined and they are all at sea Are the two boats which were reconditioned two of our old friends?—Yes Are they fishing into Dublin, Mr. O’Brien?—Two are going fishing for herring at Dunmore East and the other is fishing into Dublin. 301. Deputy Booth.—What is the period of training?—Twenty weeks at sea and twenty weeks at the Vocational School at Galway. 302. Chairman.—Taking into account the expenditure of £8,000 in this financial year, can you say, Mr. O’Brien, what has been the total amount spent on the repair and reconditioning of these three boats?— I know that they cost £50,000 originally and that an extra £13,000 or so was spent on them before leaving the port of purchase. That is £63,000 and there was a total of £95,000 advanced. That would suggest that about £40,000 capital has been spent on them. On repairing them?—Not on repairing them; it is capital. The three have been completely re-engined at a cost of about £6,000 each. The engines were 252 horsepower Lister-Blackstone engines. Perhaps at your convenience, Mr. O’Brien, you might let us have a note on what the total outlay on these three boats has been since we acquired them?— Certainly.* 303. Under subhead F.1.—Grants to Boards of Conservators and Local Authorities—would I be correct in saying that the proceeds of the Salmon Conservancy Fund are substantially added to subhead F.1 in order to meet the needs of the Boards of Conservators?—That is right. 304. Deputy Brennan.—Under subhead F.2—Artificial Propagation of Fish—what exactly are the functions of Iontaobhas Iascaigh Intíre, Incorportha?—That is the Irish name for the Inland Fisheries Trust. 305. Chairman.—Subhead F.3 refers to State Fisheries. What are they, Mr. O’Brien?—I think this refers to the Owenea Fishery, near Glenties. 306. The note for subhead F.4.— Scientific and Technical Investigations, etc.,—says that the investigation of salmon stocks was not carried out to the extent anticipated. What does that mean, Mr. O’Brien?—There was a post of Biologist vacant that year. There was work done on the tagging of salmon and some experimental netting, but not to the extent which we believed would have been carried out if there had been an extra Biologist. Has the position been filled?—It has. 307. What is the actual purpose of keeping the token vote under subhead F.7.—Foyle Fisheries?—Actually there is no need at all for it. It is no more than a token in case the most unlikely eventuality should occur, because the Foyle Fisheries Commission has been surrendering quite an amount of money and the likelihood of their requiring an advance is remote. Deputy Brennan.—If the Border was removed you might want it. Chairman.—We might say that the need for that subhead is probably past as a result of the excellence of the bargain of Mr. Rush, your illustrious predecessor, Mr. O’Brien?—Yes. Of the £55,000 that our Government contributed over £14,000 has already come back. 308. This Committee so rarely has an opportunity of paying a tribute to a public servant I think this occasion should not be allowed to pass without paying tribute to Mr. Rush who was largely responsible for negotiating this matter. In regard to subhead F.8.—Contribution to the Salmon Research Trust of Ireland, Incorporated (Grant-in-Aid)—is this the the Salmon Research Trust of Ireland, in collaboration with Messrs. Arthur Guinness?—It is. And in this year they asked for the full amount?—No. The grant is limited to ⅓rd of the entire running expenses with an overriding maximum of £1,000. That year the total running expenses were £2,400 and we paid £800. 309. If there is no other question on the subheads I would like to direct your attention, Mr. O’Brien, to a paragraph in our Report on the Appropriation Accounts for 1955-56. It is paragraph 17 which reads:— “17. The Committee has again had under consideration the question of the arrears of annuities set up to repay advances which had been made to the former Sea Fisheries Association in the period 1931 to 1952 for the purpose of financing the supply of boats and gear to fishermen on hire-purchase terms. These arrears have increased from £3,907 to £92,745 in the ten years ended 31 March, 1956. It understands that there is no direct relationship between these arrears due by Bord Iascaigh Mhara to the Exchequer in respect of the activities of the late Sea Fisheries Association, and current liabilities of fishermen for boat purchase contracts and the Committee is glad to learn that instalments on current contracts are mainly up to date. The Committee, when dealing with the accounts for the year 1952-53, commented on these arrears, which then amounted to £48,200, and were informed that the question of writing off the irrecoverable arrears was under discussion between the Department of Finance and An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. It trusts that a decision on this matter will not be unduly delayed.” We received a minute from the Minister for Finance on the 11 December, which was yesterday, in which he says that the question of writing off these irrecoverable arrears raises complex issues which are receiving attention and that it is hoped that a decision will be reached and conveyed to the Committee at an early date. You cannot have very much more recent information than that, Mr. O’Brien, as we received it only yesterday. May I assume that this matter is receiving attention with the view to its being finalised? —It is; we have put a particular proposition, semi-officially, to the Department of Finance this week, which we hope may finally clear the position. I think it is right to say that those of us who have intimate knowledge of the Fisheries Branch may fully understand the true significance of this figure but its continued appearance in the accounts is liable to give rise to public misunderstanding. It would be desirable to have the position brought up to date so that the true picture of the current position would emerge?—I realise that and I am taking every step to have the matter resolved. 310. Deputy Brennan.—You asked, Mr. Chairman, the Accounting Officer to let us have a note on the cost of the trawlers. Would it also be possible to let us have a note on the takings—the profit and loss account? Chairman.—Mr. O’Brien, when you are preparing a note of the total expenses involved in the repair and maintenance of the three German boats Deputy Brennan would also like to have, if you could conveniently provide it, a note of the earnings of these boats while they have been in use?—Actually, Sir, they would all be published; they are available in the published accounts of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. Separately?—Yes. Perhaps you would be kind enough to incorporate them in a note for the convenience of the Committee?—Certainly. It is very often difficult for members of the Committee to locate these figures in several publications and it is desirable to bring them all to us to give members a true picture?—I shall certainly do that.* The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
