Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1958 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1956 - 1957

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 17 Aibreán, 1958.

Thursday, 17th April, 1958.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

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

VOTE 37—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.

Mr. J. S. Martin called and examined.

133. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead D.—Appropriations in Aid—do the funds under your control continue to increase at the same rate?—In respect of last year, there was a considerable increase. The total amount of funds transferred to the Commissioners amounted to £37,000 plus 35,000 dollars. The main increase was due to a large bequest in the will of an American testator, Dr. Sweeney, who left 186,000 dollars for the erection and maintenance of a library in Kilkee. The fund has been transferred to the Commissioners who are asking the Court to prepare a scheme to govern this very large charitable endowment. Generally, I would say that the wells of charity are not by any means drying up.

134. Chairman.—Am I right in believing that if a charitable bequest of that character is made, without naming the trustees, it is automatically transferred to the Commissioners for Charitable Donations and Bequests?—No. Most of the funds held by the Commissioners were given to trustees who, taking advantage of the facilities offered by the Commissioners, a charitable body, a body making no charge for the administration and subject to Government audit in so far as their accounts are concerned, transferred these funds to the Commissioners. It is a very unusual circumstance under which funds are left without trustees.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 8—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. Geo. P. Fagan called and examined

135. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to Note 3, what is happening or what is likely to happen about the Irish Employers’ Mutual Insurance Association, Ltd.? Have there been any further developments?—That is now all finished. The whole business has now been wound up. There is no harm in giving this information now. As will appear in later accounts, the Office of Public Works’ claim has been met by payment of a dividend of 6/11 in the £ which amounts to a payment of £6,300 odd. If the Committee will look at the current Volume of Estimates they will see there is a losses’ subhead to meet the difference which has to be met.

Chairman.—Will that finally close the account?—Yes.

Deputy Sheldon.—Did you secure anything further outside this payment of 6/11? Does that take into account or did the arrangements take into account the amount held by the Office of Public Works in Suspense Account?—They did.

Chairman. — I think we may assume that, when the accounts come to be examined which deal with the payment in respect of losses, there will probably be a comprehensive note by the Comptroller and Auditor General describing how the business was finally disposed of.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes.

VOTE 9—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. Geo. P. Fagan further examined.

136. Chairman.—Paragraph 15 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which relates to subhead B.— New Works, Alterations and Additions— reads as follows:—

“Subhead B.—New Works, Alterations and Additions.

15. I have been furnished with a detailed statement of the works on which the expenditure of £1,894,482 charged to this subhead was incurred. Additional expenditure amounting to £46,013 on buildings for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was charged to Telephone Capital Account.

The principal works included in the statement are:—

Is there anything, Mr. Ó Cadhla, which you wish to add to that note?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Only works on which the total expenditure to the 31st March, 1957, exceeded £40,000 are referred to in that paragraph.

Deputy Sheldon.—May I suggest that we deal either with the details of subhead B. or the paragraph dealing with subhead B.? These are merely items which are also to be found in the statement.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That is so. What I regarded as the more important works were listed, that is, those over £40,000.

137. Chairman. — I shall be happy to meet the convenience of any Deputy. We may postpone the consideration of this note and take it into consideration with the appropriate subhead. Paragraph 16 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“16. In September 1947 the Department of Justice asked the Commissioners of Public Works to erect a new Garda Station with provision for livingin accommodation for 18 single men. A contract for the work was placed in February, 1954, and completed in September, 1955, at a cost of £32,753. As it appeared in May, 1957, that the accommodation for the single men was practically unoccupied, I have inquired whether the Department’s requirements were confirmed before the contract was placed.”

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

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The station referred to is a divisional headquarters the greater portion of which is used for administrative and general purposes. The paragraph refers only to the section of the building in which accommodation was provided for 18 single men. The number of single men accommodated was much smaller—reported at one stage to be only two. As the Department of Justice had decided on the accommodation required in September 1947, and the contract was not placed until February, 1954, I inquired whether the Department’s requirements had been reviewed before the contract was placed. I am informed by the Accounting Officer that “having regard to the statement made by the Department of Justice in the report dated 9th March, 1948, to the Department of Finance as to the number of single men who would in the future reside in the new station and to the facts —(1) that the sketch plans of the building were approved by the Department of Justice as recently as 1950, and (2) that in the correspondence which took place between that Department and the Commissioners up to the time the contract was placed there was no suggestion that any part of the accommodation asked for in 1947 would not be required—the seeking of specific confirmation from the Department of Justice, prior to the placing of the contract, that the accommodation requirements should not be modified did not suggest itself.”

It might be added that the present strength of the station party is practically the same as it was in 1947; but the proportion of married members among the N.C.O.s and men is much higher than had been anticipated and there are only six men living in.

138. Chairman.— Have you any comment on that Mr. Fagan?—I do not think so. I have given all the information, so far as we are concerned. It is a divisional headquarters. At the time we drew the plans we were told the requirements. You can understand that in a divisional headquarters a dormitory would be a normal requirement. The Department of Justice told us their requirements. We furnished sketch plans and estimates of cost. There was a further prognostication, a year later, of the dormitory requirements as regards the strength of unmarried guards. If it should change later in regard to the living-in of single Gardaí or if the anticipations of the Department of Justice should prove not to be realised, that is not a matter for us. In regard to policy, it would be a matter for the Accounting Officer of the Department of Justice.

Chairman.—I think it is clear that the Office of Public Works’ prime function is to carry out the requisition of the appropriate Department. If they ask for a building with certain accommodation, it is the job of the Office of Public Works to build it. The Department which asks for the accommodation must be responsible for the failure, or otherwise, of the building to meet requirements.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I addressed my inquiry to the Accounting Officer because he is responsible for the expenditure on the particular work. Actually, I think we should have sent a copy of the inquiry to the Accounting Officer for the Department of Justice. But the Accounting Officer for the Department of Justice has been before the Committee.

Chairman.—The Accounting Officer for the Department of Justice would gladly come to us again if it is requisite to pursue any inquiries in regard to this matter. So far as Mr. Fagan is concerned, I think his interest in the matter ended when he certified that he built what the Department of Justice asked him to build and handed it over to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Fagan. — The Comptroller and Auditor General was perfectly right in raising this query with me, in the light of the circumstances: I am not suggesting anything to the contrary. I am merely indicating our position. It is as you say, Mr. Chairman.

139. Deputy Brennan.—Who is responsible for the planning or, when the plans are prepared, have they to be approved by the appropriate Department for which the work is being carried out?—Yes, that is so. The plans for the Garda Stations, when prepared by us, are submitted to the Department of Justice for their approval before we go ahead.

140. Deputy Brennan. — Is it correct that some time may have elapsed, from the date on which the plans were approved until the actual work was put in hands, and the whole situation may have changed, requiring a complete alteration?—That is the point of this query —that the requirements were indicated in September, 1947, and the contract was not placed until 1954. In our reply we indicated to the Comptroller and Auditor General that in March, 1948, the Department of Justice had advised the Department of Finance that they were satisfied that it would be safe to assume that in about 10 years from then the majority of the station party would be single members residing in the station. Again, on the 3rd July, 1950 — we have gone three years now—we prepared the sketch plan and sent it to the Department of Justice. It was up to them, then, when they would see the dormitory accommodation for 18 men, if they did not require it, to say so. Again we went back, in August, 1950, and July, 1952, to report to them that it would be necessary to get Department of Finance sanction to the expenditure, the estimate of which was then given, so that they had ample opportunity, and it was, I suggest, their function and not ours to consider whether the requirements should be altered or not.

Chairman.—It appears to me that, if we require further information on the suitability of the accommodation provided in this building, we must look to the Accounting Officer of the Department of Justice. If anything arises out of that which suggests to us that in fact we should meet Mr. Fagan again, I know he will be happy to meet us?—Certainly.

141. Chairman.—Paragraph 17 of the Report reads:—

“17. A preparatory college was erected on behalf of the Department of Education in 1940 at a cost of £73,803. During the course of erection abnormal dampness was observed in the building, and measures taken at the time to eradicate it proved unsuccessful. It appears that subsequent steps taken to control the dampness were also ineffective. In October, 1955, a contract in the sum of £31,380 was placed for alterations, repairs and redecorations, and I have inquired as to the extent to which these works were due to the dampness and the cost of the earlier works to overcome the defects in the building.”

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

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Between 1941 and 1954, complaints were made to the Commissioners regarding the condition of the building and the damage caused by dampness. The steps taken to remedy the defects proved ineffective. I propose to read out the Accounting Officer’s full reply to my inquiry. It is as follows:—

“(1) Recent architectural advice, based on a comprehensive and detailed survey of the building, is that nothing less than the works now in progress would have sufficed to cure the damp penetration even if its extent had been fully appreciated at the earlier stage. The current contract covers works necessary to remedy actual damage caused by damp as well as works designed to prevent damp penetration in future, and it is estimated that about one quarter of the expenditure can be attributed to the making good of the damage caused by damp.

(2) Expenditure on remedial measures since 1940 was not segregated from other maintenance expenditure and the precise figure is not, therefore, available. It is estimated, however, at approximately £2,200.”

142. Chairman.—Mr. Fagan, would you tell us how it came to pass that in a new building erected by you, damp penetration has manifested itself at such an early stage in the building’s career?— Might I be allowed to say, so that there may be no misunderstanding about these figures, that while it is perfectly true that the building was finished, in 1940, at the figure of £73,803 and that the contract for curing permanently the damp and doing necessary repairs and so forth was placed in 1955 at £31,380, those figures are not comparable. The cost of building at the time this contract was placed in 1933 was less than half what it was in 1955; so while one might gather the impression from these figures that the Office of Public Works had to do over again about half the work, that is not the case. The comparable figures would be £73,803, with something less than £15,000, perhaps £12,000. With regard to your question, Mr. Chairman, it is very hard to answer briefly. The story of this contract is that it was placed in October, 1933, with a firm of building contractors which was well-established, well-known to us, and which had satisfactorily completed two previous major contracts for us. We were entitled to expect and feel that matters would have proceeded quite normally to a satisfactory completion. But from a very early stage and throughout the entire period of seven years which it took to get the work completed — and I might mention here that the period for completion originally stipulated was two and a half years— the job was fraught with difficulties which, having read all the files, I think it would be no exaggeration to say were unique even in the experience of the Office of Public Works. Labour troubles were frequent. There were no fewer than eight strikes on the job, the last extending over a period of 10 months. The main cause of the trouble here was that the local workers refused to allow the contractors to employ tradesmen from outside the area. I am afraid that the trouble, according to the reports on the files that I have read, was often very serious. On one occasion, it was so serious that a force of Gardaí had to be imported by bus from neighbouring areas, about 30 men. Those were difficulties which were somewhat unique, that the contractor had to contend with. Throughout all this, of course, the Office of Public Works’ architect and his staff were endeavouring to get the building built according to specification and they were pressing the contractor for better quality work, greater progress and for the making good of defects. That was what we were doing; and, of course, the contractor was contending that he could not do any better, in the circumstances, and under the difficulties with which he was obliged to contend. He pointed to the fact that he had been limited in his choice of workmen and that he was being forced to accept a reduced output and a reduced standard of work and to employ inferior tradesmen. There is this also— that the building was designed by the designer, who was the Deputy Principal Architect of the Office of Public Works at the time — to be constructed in cast artificial stone. He specified somewhat elaborate architectural treatment for parapets and cornices. He had a parapet wall and a copper gutter. This design especially for a building situated in the exposed district of Ballyvourney, where the local rainfall was abnormal, demanded a very high standard of skill and experience, which is just what we did not get. Dampness, which first became evident in 1936, was said to come from the defective laying of the copper gutters. Later reports indicated that there was another cause and that was the defective workmanship or skill, if you like, in the joints in the cast stone walls. The contractors were being required by the architect to take measures all the time to remedy the defects. Finally, in September, 1940, which was a long time—seven years—after the contract was placed, the architect reported that no leaks had appeared even during heavy rain, and that he thought that he had got the contractor to do as much as he could reasonably ask him to do; and he certified the work as completed. As the dampness again appeared within a matter of 18 months or so, and as efforts by subsequent maintenance repairs over the period failed to cure it and to prevent subsequent damage to the building, it was decided after a thorough examination and survey of the building, carried out under the direction of our Principal Architect, that a comprehensive and substantial scheme of alteration works and repairs would be needed to effect a permanent cure of the damp penetration and make good the damage to the building. Hence we have this contract. A full report was submitted to the Department of Finance, who authorised us to carry out these works. That is the story.

Deputy Cunningham.—A statement has been made that most of the expenditure, most of the £31,000. was necessitated by having to make good the damage caused by the dampness?—One quarter, 25 per cent.

Deputy Haughey.—Where is this?

Chairman.—Ballyvourney, County Cork.

143. Deputy Haughey.—Can we have the name of the contractor? Is that in order?

Chairman.—Let me pause. Yes, I think we can. Who are the contractors?—If you say so.

Yes?—Messrs. John Kearns & Sons. As a matter of fact, Mr. Kearns, I am told, got into very bad health as a result of this contract, and in fact he did not long survive it.

Deputy Haughey.—The reason I asked the question was that I wanted to know if the firm was still doing work for the Office?—No, they are gone now.

Deputy Desmond.—It is only fair, if this firm is not in existence, to know that their work is not condemned in any other case?—In fact, they had completed two major contracts for us entirely satisfactorily before that, and that is a very good recommendation.

144. This is as a result of labour troubles? I have not had information about it, but Ballyvourney is very far away. In view of the fact that a sufficient number of skilled tradesmen was not available in the area surely any labour troubles could not have been of such major importance as to hold up the work in that respect?—I do not follow.

Deputy Desmond.—As we all understand that the number of skilled tradesmen required to do that work in that isolated area was not available surely the firm in question must have been in a position to bring a sufficient number of qualified tradesmen to do it.

Chairman.—Mr. Fagan has already pointed out to us that there was a special difficulty in this situation. When the contracting firm sought to bring in men from its normal pool of skilled workers for this particular job, the local people claimed that they had prior claim to employment on the contract; and the contractor in order to avoid renewed strikes on the site. eventually allowed local persons to undertake highly skilled operations, against his own better judgment but in order to make it possible for the contract to be carried out?—That puts the position precisely.

Deputy Desmond.—It happened so very far back that I am not familiar with it.

145. Deputy Lynch.—The specification was evidently unsuitable when they specified these cornices, copper gutters and so on?—That, of course, would be a matter of opinion. I personally would agree. The designer of the building would not agree with me.

Did they carry out the specification as it was drafted?—They did, and the alterations, to be quite frank, provide for doing away with the parapets and copper gutters and the continuing of a pitched roof with a very generous overhang. The whole point is that the advice we had from our architects and advisers was that it was if you like, rather a special type of structure. It was, in the light of after events, a very unlucky circumstance that Ballyvourney was selected for such a building. It was within the competence of good contractors with skilled tradesmen to erect that building to specification so as not to have leaks.

Deputy Haughey.—Mr. Fagan says that Ballyvourney was selected for the building. Surely it was the building that was selected for Ballyvourney?

Deputy Lynch. — Deputy Desmond’s predecessor might have had something to do with that.

146. Chairman. — Would it be a fair summary of the facts, Mr. Fagan, to say that the matter of picking this particular design is open to question, but that the difficulties arising from that decision were greatly exacerbated by the local conditions relating to labour, the claim of the local people to almost exclusive employment and the absence of the skill requisite to make a success of the original design?— I would agree with that.

Bearing in mind all these special circumstances, would I be correct in believing that your personal view as Accounting Officer is that, in all the circumstances, blame for the deplorable outcome of this whole business cannot fairly be placed on the firm of contractors, in view of the very special labour conditions which obtained in the area?—Yes. Not alone that, but that was the view held by the Commissioners of Public Works at the time and endorsed in the full report to the Department of Finance.

147. Deputy Desmond. — Coupled with that, it is significant that the copper gutters did not suit either, so we are not in a position to say that, had the contractors the expert labour available, such a design, carrying with it the copper gutters, would, in that particular area, have been successful?—Unless I misunderstand the question, if the suggestion is, as I have said before, that the design was bad, we do not agree with that. We do not agree that it was not capable, in competent hands, of producing a building which would have been water-tight.

Deputy Desmond.—On the other hand, I do not agree with the other aspect either. Should it happen that there are other areas in the country that have a fairly heavy rainfall, it would be interesting to know whether, in the case of a building such as this, the Commissioners of Public Works will adhere to a decision to provide copper gutters.

148. Deputy Sheldon. — What is the association between heavy rainfall and copper gutters?

Deputy Lynch.—Evidently they did not keep out the rainfall.

Deputy Sheldon. — That was not the fault of the copper gutters.

Chairman.—Mr. Fagan, speaking from bitter personal experience in regard to my own roof, located in Ballaghaderreen, which has an annual rainfall of 42 inches, may I ask is it a fact that recourse is sometimes had to copper with this parapet but that if you do not have very highly skilled operatives to run the copper it becomes a source of dampness, and that a simpler form of roofing is better if you do not get highly skilled operatives?— That is so. That is just the question I put to and just the answer which I got from the Assistant Principal Architect with whom I discussed this matter before coming over here. He is in charge of the alterations and repair work.

149. Deputy Cunningham. — The contractor was asked to do some repairs quite a while after the dampness was discovered. Was he quite willing to do that? He was not bound by the terms of his contract over that lengthy period?—No contractor can say that he will not remedy a defect which is so clear that you have rain coming in through copper gutters and bad joints.

150. Deputy Brennan. — Have the copper gutters been replaced by lead?

Chairman.—It is now proposed to remove the parapet and copper gutters and carry down the pitched roof with a generous overhang?—That is correct. In fact that has been done.

Deputy Brennan.—It is difficult to see why a copper gutter could not be laid just as successfully as a lead gutter.

Chairman.—Perhaps the next time the Deputy is travelling home he will come through Ballaghaderreen and I shall give him a demonstration.

Deputy Brennan. — There is the off chance that it might be cracked in the course of being laid, but lead gutters are not more successful than copper gutters generally.

Deputy Lynch.—I do not agree at all. We all seem to have experience——

Chairman.—Mr. Fagan is here solely to give evidence. We shall meet to discuss our Report and doubtless we shall comment on this. When we do so I suggest we might discuss the matter generally amongst ourselves. At this stage we should confine ourselves to asking Mr. Fagan for factual evidence.

151. Deputy Lynch. — The walls were not a success either; there was a good deal of dampness coming in?—That is so. There is considerable skill required in that direction too.

Was the dry course laid properly?—I would say it was.

Were all the ground floors successful? Did the dampness show in the floors?—I am afraid I have not got that information. My recollection is that it was in the walls and not in floors.

You used very good and very expensive linoleum and I was informed that a lot of this linoleum got “wavy-wavy”?—Does that refer to the Ballyvourney College?

Yes?—I do not know about that.

152. Apart from the gutters, I have an idea that the dry courses were not properly put in. Might I suggest that, apart from those other matters, the supervision was not what it should have been?—I could not agree with that at all. I can say that this job got constant attention from headquarter’s architects, as well as the local Clerk of Works, and that for quite a long period there were almost weekly meetings of the Commissioners of Public Works to discuss it with the architects. I never knew of any work which got more supervision.

Deputy Lynch.—I am very glad I asked you that.

Mr. Fagan.—I can verify it and, if you like, I can send in a note but I do not think there was any suggestion that the damp course was not properly laid. I am sure it would have struck me when I read the papers and I would suggest that the architect in charge of the repairs would have mentioned it right away.

Chairman. — We can ask Mr. Fagan for his considered view as to whether there was any possibility of a flaw in the laying of the damp course and then we can discuss it amongst ourselves.

Mr. Fagan.—I shall supply a note.

Deputy Desmond.—When Mr. Fagan is sending us that note would he let us know at what stage were these frequent meetings and whether it was when the walls and the roof had been erected that this dampness showed and was it at that time that the supervision came on.

Chairman.—I think it was from the beginning that this building got exceptional supervision?—That is the position.

It was under the supervision of the Commissioners and the architects from the start?—Yes.

Perhaps you will let us have a note about that, Mr. Fagan. Deputy Desmond’s query was in respect of the exceptional attention given to this contract. Would that attention cover the whole period or only from the time the roof was put on and appeared to be showing defects? I think when you have perused Deputy Desmond’s question you will find no difficulty in providing the appropriate answer?—Very well.*

153. Chairman.—We can turn now to paragraph 18 which states:—

“Subhead J.2.—Arterial Drainage— Construction Works.

18. The charge to this subhead includes expenditure of £440,540 on the Glyde and Dee, Feale, Corrib-Clare and Nenagh Catchment drainage schemes, which were commenced in June, 1950, June, 1951, April, 1954, and May, 1955, respectively. The value of stores and charges for the use of plant and machinery were assessed at £256,890, the total cost of the schemes to 31 March, 1957, being:—

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The figure for expenditure on the Glyde and Dee scheme falls to be reduced by £8,143, being a credit for stores, etc., transferred elsewhere.

154. Chairman.—If there is no question on that paragraph we can turn to the Vote itself which is on page 18. Subhead B. is amplified by the large return a copy of which each member of the Committee has already received.*

Deputy Haughey. — On Item 17, I should like a little information as to the present position of progress on the pavilions in Phoenix Park.

Mr. Fagan. — I do not like to speak without being absolutely certain, but those buildings are going up and contracts have been placed. There were to be 32 soccer cubicles and 12 G.A.A. cubicles. The expenditure, I think, will be more than is there.

Deputy Haughey. — What is the best way to get information about that?

Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. Fagan could let us have a note at his convenience on the present position?—I shall.**

Deputy Haughey.—I should like to get the dates on which the various things happened, the dates on which planning commenced and when the contracts were issued and placed?—The contracts would have been placed outside the accounting year with which we are dealing, but I have no objection to giving that information if that is desired.

Chairman.—In respect of that subhead I would ask you to oblige us in that way. Mr. Fagan is always very ready to give us any information he has, even if we want to raise a question which affects a year after the year which we are considering. In that respect, however, the proper procedure would be to address a Parliamentary Question to the Minister and get the information in that way but, ordinarily, Mr. Fagan is very happy to meet us.

155. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to Item 2—the Reconstruction of the Loggias at Leinster House—has it been possible to make anything like a firm estimate of the cost of the construction?—The question you are asking is: is this estimate of £9,000 the present estimate?

Chairman.—Is it a firm estimate or is it a matter of an estimate to give you authority to start the work with the foreknowledge that when you take down what is there it will be a great deal more?— The latest estimate is £10,200.

156. Deputy Browne. — The Barry Memorial has been completed for a considerable length of time. Why has it not been fully paid for, will the cost, when completed, be within the estimate and, have we any further responsibility for maintenance when it is finally paid for?

Chairman.—These accounts are only up to 31st March, 1957.

Deputy Browne. — The Memorial is completed about two years.

Mr. Fagan.—The explanation there is quite simple. You pay as much as you receive accounts for. The balance might easily have been paid in the following month or in the second month of the next year. The Deputy is quite correct in saying that the job is long since finished.

We have no other responsibility for its maintenance?—No.

157. Deputy Sheldon.—On Items 9, 10 and 14 I take it that the amounts still to be paid will turn up subsequently in the Minor Balances of that subhead. Could Mr. Fagan say if these three items greatly exceeded the estimates?—Speaking from memory, the answer would be “No”. They certainly have not greatly exceeded the estimate if they have exceeded it at all. In the case of No. 14 I do not think there has been anything in excess of the estimate.

158. In regard to Item 21 (2)—the Foundation Stock Farm Yard—what happened that tenders for the first of three stages had to be re-invited?—I have not got that information with me. I might have thought of looking it up. You know the general circumstances, in which you may have to re-invite tenders, are that the first result is not too satisfactory, and the architect may say the tenders are too high and when you re-invite tenders, you do often get satisfactory results. The reason in this particular case was, I think, that there was a close down for economy reasons about July, 1956 on contracts and, in cases where tenders had been invited, contracts were not placed. Then, when the release came along and we went to place the contracts with the most satisfactory tenderer we sometimes found they were not prepared to accept them and we had to re-invite tenders.

159. Deputy Cunningham. — On Items 15 and 16, do these figures include the erection of signs which have just been placed at the various customs frontier posts along the border—notices indicating that such and such a place is a Customs post? They are wooden signs erected on iron standards?—I do not think we have responsibility for that but I can verify it for you. We erect the buildings and whatever else we are asked to do in connection with the buildings. For example, at Swanlinbar there is an office and a residence which we put up, but I do not think we have any responsibility for signposts.*

Deputy Brennan.—Possibly it was the Automobile Association put them up.

Chairman.—They may be outside the ambit of your work altogether.

160. Deputy Cunningham.—On Item 19 —Buncrana Harbour—Main Scheme Completed—does that mean that no further work will be undertaken there?—We are not doing work there at all. This is simply a question of moneys that are made available, by way of grant, to the Buncrana Harbour Commissioners who do the work. We pay them on certification by our engineering inspector that the work is done and that the amount of money is properly payable to them.

Has a final payment of the grant been made?—Not yet.

Chairman.—Not up to the 31st March, 1957?—I think not up to the present, but that is not our fault.

161. Deputy Sheldon. — I take it on Items 30 and 31, fishery dredging and works of economic development, the total estimate, particularly in Item 30, would be quite unrelated to the actual sum so far spent. Is there much point in putting that type of estimate in? We estimated £950 and £9,000 has been spent. The difference between £9,000 and £950 is very wide. In Item 31, will this figure of £5,300 have any relation at all to the works?—These headings under Fishery Harbours have been in for a very long time and will no doubt continue to be in for a very long time. They cover grants for dredging operations and minor works of economic development carried out by us generally with local contributions at different harbours and places around the coast. If we were to make that total estimate a cumulative total it would be a very large figure in time, covering dredgings, etc. all around the coast in a number of harbours. What is done instead is that the total estimate for dredging, for example, is the estimate for the dredging that is to be borne on voted moneys in the year of account, and we think this is more realistic.

Deputy Lynch.—I would like to make a comment on that. I have often been tackled by my colleagues if I mention the constituency of Waterford. An enormous amount of fish is caught there but the grants given are very small.

Deputy Cunningham. — You do not catch the grants.

Chairman.—We must not involve Mr. Fagan in these controversial topics.

162. Deputy Browne.—Can Mr. Fagan say if the dredging operations at Kilmore Quay were successful or were they carried out at the proper time of the year?—I am advised that they were satisfactorily completed.

My information is that there was some considerable interruption of the dredging operations. It is felt locally that they were commenced at the wrong time of the year?—I am advised they are now satisfactorily completed.

Deputy Brennan. — In relation to the Department of Justice—Item No. 35— what was the total cost of the new station at Swanlinbar?

163. Deputy Desmond. — Before we leave Item No. 31, can Mr. Fagan say if the survey in relation to work of economic development at Ballycotton was satisfactory? Can we have any information on that matter?

Chairman.—Will Mr. Fagan give us a note on that matter? Will he tell us the result of the boring survey?

Deputy Desmond.—I should also like to know, if the survey has been completed, if the local authority or others interested in the scheme have been notified of the result of the survey?—I hesitate to express an opinion on technical and professional matters. I am not an engineer. A boring survey is carried out, I think, for the purpose of giving information to engineers as to the type of material below water in the bed of the harbour that they may have to deal with. I do not know where the question of its being satisfactory or unsatisfactory arises.

Chairman. — I think the answer we would hope to receive would be a note from yourself to say that the boring was completed and the information yielded thereby communicated to the engineer or whoever required it?—Very good.*

I am assuming it is impossible for you, Mr. Fagan, off the cuff, to answer detailed questions in respect of every subhead. It is, therefore, more convenient, I think, if, in matters of detail, we ask for a note at your convenience?—I am entirely in agreement with that assumption.

164. Deputy Brennan.—I asked a question about Swanlinbar. I should like to know the total cost of the Garda Station and the Customs Station combined. The Accounting Officer may not have the figure?—I have not the figure. It may be found in the New Works Statement for the current financial year which was circulated to Deputies. This is a combined job of providing a Customs and Excise Station and a Garda Station. The one contract covers the two. I have the New Works Statement here. It shows that the total estimated cost in respect of the Swanlinbar Customs and Excise Office and Residence is £9,400 as against £9,200 in this other document. £7,900 is the estimate for the new Garda Station at Swanlinbar. Therefore, if you add £9,400 to £7,900, you get £17,300 as the total cost of the two jobs on the one contract.

They really make up one job?—Yes.

165. Deputy Desmond.—The next item is the new Garda Station at Kinsale, Co. Cork. It is observed here that a revised scheme is under consideration. Is the revised scheme in relation to the proposed building or in relation to a different site? —It is a new station.

Is it a revised scheme of a proposed building or does it relate to a different site from the one already selected?—It would be revised as a result of further discussion between the Department of Justice, the Gardaí and ourselves on the question of planning.

166. Deputy Sheldon.—I want to refer to Work No. 51 (1) — Forestry School, Shelton Abbey — Adaptations and Furnishings. Have the adaptations and furnishings been completed? Is this really the end of the troubles at Shelton Abbey? — I sincerely hope so. Yes, the work is completed and the building has been occupied. The final estimated total cost now is £110,000 of which, I regret to say, dry rot accounts for £70,000, which is a lesson on what one may expect sometimes in dealing with old buildings.

Chairman. — Let us now turn to the remaining subheads of the Vote itself on page 18.

167. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead D.2—Central Furniture Stores— there is a very marked fall in the value of stores over the past two or three years: the same applies to subhead K. Are you able to continue to have fewer stores on hands? The price of things is going up. You are able to reduce the figures for stores both in relation to subhead D.2 and subhead K. (Purchase and Maintenance of Engineering Plant and Machinery, and Stores). It looks as if you are able to get away with a very much smaller physical count as well?— Subhead D.2 is for the sole purpose of bearing the charge which arises in the year of account for bulk purchases of furniture which have not been issued and charged to services and which are still in store. According to the note on page 20, the total value of stocks held in the Central Furniture Stores on 31st March, 1957, was approximately £15,000. That figure might be fortuitous. It might be that you had not to issue more or that there were greater demands for furniture. It does not necessarily mean that we endeavour to reduce the value of stores we have in hands.

168. Deputy Brennan. — Subhead F. relates to Fuel, Light, Water, Cleaning, etc. I am not at all clear about the note which says that this subhead consists of a large number of provisions to meet the requirements of the various Government establishments; that the excess was the net result of savings and excesses on the several provisions and was attributable mainly to increased costs partially offset by reduced requirements.

Chairman.—The note continues that a statement of expenditure, Department by Department, is to be found at page 24. In relation to that note on page 20, the Deputy should look at page 24. The last two columns set out the details.

Deputy Brennan. — In most cases the expenditure shows an increase over the Vote provision: in some cases there are reductions. It is difficult to see a reduction in expenditure on cleaning at a time when wages tend to increase. Have we done with less cleaning, say, in the President’s Establishment?

Chairman. — This subhead refers to fuel, light, water as well as cleaning and certain other minor items.

Deputy Brennan.—I see there is a decrease in respect of the Department of Education and a few others—at least it was less than estimated in the Vote.

Chairman.— I hope the Deputy assumes that the excess for the Department of Agriculture suggests we are peculiarly given to cleanliness in that Department.

169. Deputy Sheldon.—Subhead L. refers to the Appropriations in Aid. We see, in the miscellaneous part, contributions to the cost of works at national schools, £969. It should relate to the year of account because local contributions have to be deposited before work begins. The amount spent on national schools is about £1,400,000. Perhaps I am wrong, but I understood that the minimum local contribution is about 5 per cent. Even that is extraordinary. Have you anything to say on the matter?—The local contributions for schools are not appropriated in aid, as a general rule. The necessity for having this here in the miscellaneous item in the Appropriations in Aid subhead arises from this circumstance. You have an estimate for the building of a national school: negotiations are completed between the Department of Education and the School Manager as to the amount of the local contribution, on the basis of an estimate of cost of £X. The work is completed. It is then found that the cost has been £X+Y. There may have to be a readjustment and an additional amount of local contribution may have to be paid. When it is paid, it cannot be credited to the subhead for a prior year, which is closed, and it must come into the Appropriations in Aid for the year in which it is received. Those are post factum receipts which come into this miscellaneous head.

170. Could you tell us more about this Owenogarney Embankment Scheme coming under the Sale of Assets heading? They are in the National Development Fund as well?—The position is that in the case of existing embankments, you will find generally, though not always— the Land Commission can give us information—there are existing Trust Funds, if you like. The Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, Part IV, deals with the existing embankments. Where there is a Transfer Order made by the Minister for Finance transferring existing embankments to us, we have then a statutory obligation of reconstructing and repairing them. The Trust Funds are realised and the moneys paid over for the benefit of the Exchequer, as the Minister for Finance may direct. That is provided for in the Act.

171. Chairman.—I also direct the Committee’s attention to the note furnished to us by the late Mr. Diarmuid Ó hEigceartuigh in regard to the compilation of complete registers and rentals of all State lands and buildings administered by the Commissioners of Public Works. This has been circulated already to Deputies.*

172. Chairman.—I also direct the Committee’s attention to the accounts for the year to 31st March, 1957 in respect of the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park.**

Deputy Sheldon.—I wonder how they managed to buy 20 lambs for £30? —That is beyond me. I could not answer that question.

Chairman. — I think the Deputy will agree with me that it is a subject for congratulation.

Deputy Sheldon.—It certainly is, except for the unfortunate person who sold them.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 10—EMPLOYMENT AND EMERGENCY SCHEMES.

Mr. Risteárd Ó hEigeartuigh called and examined.

173. Chairman.—There are five paragraphs in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in regard to this Vote. They are as follows:—

“19. Provision was made under subhead F. (Urban Employment Schemes) and subhead G. (Rural Employment Schemes) for grants towards expenditure by local authorities on road and amenity schemes, etc., to provide employment. The grants, amounting in all to £168,587, were paid in instalments, during the progress of the various works, by the Department of Local Government acting on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office. The accounts of the expenditure on the schemes are examined by Local Government auditors whose certificates are available to me.

20. The expenditure charged to subhead H. (Minor Employment Schemes) and subhead I. (Development Works in Bogs used by Landholders and other Private Producers), amounting to £219,177, relates to schemes administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office. In certain counties these schemes were carried out by the county engineers acting as agents for the Office.

21. The scheme for which provision was made under subhead J. (Rural Improvement Schemes) was also administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office either directly or through the agency of county engineers. The works carried out included the improvement and construction of accommodation roads to houses, farms and bogs, small drainage works, the erection or reconstruction of small bridges, etc. Only works which are estimated to cost not less than £40 are approved and the grants made vary from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent. of their cost. The gross expenditure amounted to £197,000 and contributions by beneficiaries, which are appropriated in aid of the vote, totalled £25,077.

22. As shown in the account, the vote provisions under subheads F. H. and J. were fully utilised and were supplemented by moneys made available from the National Development Fund (see page 28).

23. The amount charged to subhead K. (Miscellaneous Schemes) includes the cost of improvement works on small fishery harbours and piers carried out by the Office of Public Works on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office.”

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

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Paragraphs 19 to 23 are all informative.

174. Deputy Jones.—In regard to paragraph 20, I would like to know whether the schemes carried out by the county engineers were more cheaply or more efficiently done than those under the direct supervision of the Special Employment Schemes Office?—That is a very difficult question to answer. We consider that where we do these schemes ourselves we get better value for the money spent. The county engineers have their own statutory responsibilities to carry out in respect of their normal work. The fact that they are acting personally as agents of our Office puts extra duties on them for which they get commission. It is because of the fact that we were satisfied we would get better value for the money we were expending that, as a matter of policy, we started to take over the carrying out of the schemes ourselves. We have taken over the supervision in 13 counties out of the 26 and those 13 counties account for probably two-thirds of our total expenditure. They include the counties where we spend most money, with the exception of Donegal. The decision is consequently partly one of policy. Possibly we are a little dearer than under the arrangement of the county engineers’ commission. The county engineers on the commission basis do only the supervision of the schemes. They do not prepare preliminary estimates. It is very difficult to make a precise comparison for this reason. Our staffs do all the inspections and estimates in addition to supervision. For instance, the difference between the way we carry out our works in Galway where we do the supervision ourselves, and Donegal where we do not, is that all the original inspection for the works and estimates for the costs are done by our own officers. The description of the work and the specification for doing it is sent to the county engineer in Donegal and he carries it out specifically as directed by us whereas in Galway it is our own inspector who actually carries out the work and he invariably is the inspector who prepared the original estimate. That is the real difference between the two systems. It is bound up to a large extent with policy. Until we had our own staffs trained to carry out the supervision of the schemes we could not spread ourselves all over the country. We are progressively taking the counties over. I regret we did not take many over in the last 12 months. We took over only two counties—Kilkenny and Limerick.

Chairman.—The answer in brief is that, in your view, it is a more economic method to administer directly by your own office rather than do them through the agency of the local authority?—That is so.

175. Deputy Jones.—That is the reason I asked the question. Limerick is the place I have been asking about and the information I had on the matter was that it was found more economic to do the work under the supervision of the engineering staff there and there was a higher local labour content in the use of the moneys in that case.

Chairman.—Mr. Ó hEigeartuigh’s view does not coincide with that. His opinion is that it could be more economically done by direct administration, under their own supervision?—In the case of Limerick, there were special circumstances. Limerick and Clare is one unit. We had certain staff operating that unit. In Clare inspections and supervision are carried out by ourselves. In Limerick we did only the inspections. Formerly the carrying out of the works in Limerick was done by the county engineer. After two or three years’ experience we found that with the staff we had we could take on the supervision of the carrying out of our schemes in Limerick without any increased staff. Deputies will understand that when you start a county organisation it takes a certain length of time to get it going. We had a senior engineer and three junior engineers as a unit in the Clare-Limerick area and we found that without increasing our staffs we were able to take over the supervision of Limerick in addition to Clare. For that reason, the new arrangements in Limerick are definitely more economic. In other words, we did not increase staff and took on the extra job.

Chairman.—Does that satisfy you, Deputy Jones?

Deputy Jones.—Yes.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 27—AGRICULTURE.

Mr. J. Dempsey called and examined.

176. Chairman.—There are a number of paragraphs in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Vote for Agriculture. The first one, paragraph 24, is as follows:—

“Subhead M.4.—Loans for the Purchase of Live Stock, Agricultural Implements, Milking Machines, Fertilisers, Ground Limestone, Fodder and Fuel, and Advances to the Cooperative Fruit Growers’ Society, Limited, Dungarvan.

24. In pursuance of an undertaking given by the Minister, instalments amounting to £8,984 (Principal £4,031; Interest £4,953) in repayment of advances of £115,000 due to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, Ltd., by 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 31st March, 1957, amounted to £31,083 (Principal £12,815, Interest £18,268). The Society repaid to the Department during the year £4,977 which has been credited to Appropriations in Aid.”

Have you anything you wish to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have nothing to add to the information contained in the paragraph.

177. Chairman.—Paragraph 25 of the Report reads:

“25. An agreement which was completed in April, 1957, provided for the repayment by the Society to the Department in ten equal annual instalments commencing on 1st May, 1958, of the net amount of principal paid to the Corporation on the Society’s behalf. The repayments are free of interest up to 1st May, 1959, after which interest on the outstanding balance will be payable at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum. It has also been agreed not to seek recovery of interest paid to the Corporation by the Department on behalf of the Society to 1st May, 1959.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—As stated in the paragraph, it has been agreed that interest at the rate of 6 per cent. on the outstanding money should be charged from the 1st May, 1959.

Chairman.—Is this Society showing any signs of being in a position to meet its liabilities?—Yes, sir. There was a payment made by the Society to the Department in 1956-57—approximately £5,000. That was repayment of principal.

Chairman.—May we have reason to hope that its future repayments will be met?—Yes, I think so.

178. Chairman.—Very good. Paragraph 26 of the Report reads:

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

26. The expenditure is made up as follows:—

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

Have you any comment, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No, it is informative.

179. Chairman. — Paragraph 27 reads:—

“Subhead M.9.—Land Project and Subsidy on Home Produced Superphosphate.

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

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That is also informative.

180. Chairman. — Paragraph 28 reads:—

“28. 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 £1,403,577 in the year 1956-57 as compared with £1,226,228 in the previous year.”

Have you any comment, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No, it is merely informative.

181. Chairman. — Paragraph 29 reads:—

“29. Under section B. of the project the Department carries out the work on the occupier’s agreeing to pay two-fifths of the estimated cost plus the cost of lime and fertilisers required, subject to a maximum of £12 per acre. 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 £641,160 as compared with £796,340 in the previous year.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That is also informative.

182. Chairman.—Paragraphs 30 to 35 inclusive, read:—

“30. It was decided during the year that superphosphate should be made available on the home market at world prices. Accordingly, the customs duty on imported superphosphate was removed, and provision made for the payment of an appropriate subsidy to home manufacturers. Payments on account of subsidy in respect of superphosphate sold or used in compounds during the period 17th December, 1956 to 28th February, 1957 amounted to £24,550.

Subhead M.13.—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme.

31. The Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme, introduced in September, 1954 to assist farmers in the eradication of tuberculosis in their cattle herds and to provide special measures for the eradication of the disease in certain areas, continued in operation during the year.

Expenditure incurred on the scheme in the year under review is as follows:—

The amounts received from the disposal of cattle in the Clare and Sligo/Bansha areas were £94,485 and £67,767, respectively.

32. The net expenditure on the scheme in Sligo and Bansha, together with byre grants in the general areas, was defrayed from moneys provided from the National Development Fund (see page 77). The balance of the expenditure was charged to this subhead, and the receipts from the disposal of cattle in the Clare area were credited to Appropriations in Aid. The net Vote expenditure is recoverable from the American Grant Counterpart Special Account in accordance with an agreement concluded on 31st March, 1955.

Subhead M.14.—Grants for Pasteurisation of Separated Milk.

33. The pasteurisation of separated milk returned by creameries to farmers is deemed an essential part of the scheme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, and provision was made under this subhead for the payment to creameries of grants of 50 per cent. of the cost of approved pasteurising plant. The grants paid in the year under review amounted to £82,346.

34. An agreement dated 31st March, 1955, between the Governments of Ireland and the United States of America provided for the use of funds standing to the credit of the American Grant Counterpart Special Account, up to a limit of £500,000, to recoup to the Department the grants paid in respect of expenditure incurred by creameries after the date of the agreement. A sum of £58,789 was transferred from the Special Account during the year and was credited to Appropriations in Aid.

Subhead M.15.—Payments to Pigs and Bacon Commission.

35. Following the expiration in April, 1956, of an agreement between the Governments of Ireland and the United Kingdom relating to exports of Irish pigs and pig meat, it was decided to introduce a scheme to subsidise when necessary the price of Grade A. bacon exported to the British market. The scheme 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 not exceeding one half the amount of subsidy. A Supplementary Estimate for £50,000 was taken to provide for this contribution, but it was found necessary to issue only £20,000 before the close of the financial year.”

I am assuming in each case that you have nothing to add. Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have nothing to add.

183. Chairman.—Paragraphs 36 and 37 read:—

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

36. Section 16 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, provides for the slaughter of pigs affected, or suspected of being affected, with swine fever and for the payment of compensation in respect of animals slaughtered. Following an outbreak of swine fever in August, 1956, it was decided, in order to avoid the spread of the disease, that all affected and in-contact pigs should be slaughtered and their carcases destroyed. Compensation on the basis of full market value was paid to the owners and amounted to £73,327; miscellaneous expenses were approximately £5,300. As section 16 (2) (i) of the Act authorises payment of compensation equal to one half only of the value of animals slaughtered which were affected with swine fever. I invited the observations of the Accounting Officer who has informed me that “a decision to pay half compensation only for ‘affected’ animals would require that each pig slaughtered would have to be individually ‘postmortemed.’ In many of these cases laboratory examination might also be necessary to determine whether or not the animal was affected with the disease. This was clearly impossible. It can be taken, however, that if such a procedure were adopted, only a very small proportion of the pigs slaughtered would be found to have been ‘affected’ and any saving would be small compared with the expenses involved and the dangers caused by delays in the destruction of carcases. From the outset, it was decided with the agreement of the Department of Finance that compensation would be payable at full market value for all pigs directed to be slaughtered on account of swine fever.”

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

37. 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 31st March, 1957, including £95,000 in the year of account, amounted to £497,950. Repayments totalling £30,095, of which £10,070 was attributed to principal and £20,025 to interest, were received in the year under review and were credited to Appropriations in Aid.

Mr. Dempsey, this strictly is not a relevant question but it is perhaps more expedient to ask it here than in the Dáil at this time. I observe that there has been an outbreak of disease in Monaghan, the nature of which has not been precisely identified. Do you happen to know whether there is any recent information as to what it was?—The information to hand, so far, is that it is not swine fever. It seems to be some food trouble. I heard yesterday that the specimens are under examination but it has not yet been decided what it was. It looked more like food poisoning.

Chairman.—It is a curable disease?— Yes.

184. Chairman.—Paragraphs 38 to 42 are as follows:—

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

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

39. The Committee’s trading losses in the year under review comprised £255,342 in respect of export of surplus butter and £241,663 for cold storage, etc., expenses.

40. Moneys available in the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund were also used to pay the allowances on sales and the allowances on production referred to at (a) and (b) above. (See paragraph 42.)

Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer.

41. The consolidated Balance Sheet as at 31st December, 1956, of the Dairy Disposal Company, Ltd., and associated companies disclosed a liability of £584,603 in respect of issues from voted moneys for the purchase of creameries, etc. This amount together with the balance of £648,290 to credit of the Profit and Loss Account brings the total amount due to the Exchequer to £1,232,893 at that date. It was decided during the year to charge interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from 1st April, 1956, on the outstanding balance of voted moneys, and £35,076 was received by the Department and brought to account as an Exchequer extra receipt.

Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund.

42. The income of the Fund, £17,287, was derived from levies collected from creameries on home sales of creamery butter. Expenditure included £8,580 paid to the Butter Marketing Committee in recoupment of its administrative expenses, £31,817 for sales allowances and £687 for production allowances paid to creameries (see paragraph 40). The balance in the Fund at 31st March, 1957, was £8,311 as compared with £32,487 at 31st March, 1956.”

I should mention at this stage that it is customary for the accounts of the Dairy Disposals Company to be made available to us at this time; but, so expeditious has been the performance of the work of this Committee that the Company is not yet in a position to produce the accounts. They may not be available for a couple of months, in which circumstances they will be considered by the next Committee. That is not the fault of the Dairy Disposal Company, but really the fault of our excessive expedition.

We will now turn to the vote itself on page 59.

185. Deputy Jones. — With regard to subhead K. 4.—Grants to certain Rural Organisations—can Mr. Dempsey tell us what the organisations were?—The Irish Countrywomen’s Association, for which the grant was £4,080 and the expenditure £747; Macra na Feirme, total grant £6,750, expenditure £2,199; Muintir na Tíre, grant £2,250, expenditure, £682.

Chairman. — I think the explanation is that these grants were made from the American Counterpart Fund and the Department of Agriculture was merely the channel through which they passed?— That is correct.

I think that explains how you have a separate subhead, K.3, which is a Departmental grant?—Yes.

186. Deputy Jones. — With regard to subhead M.8.—Farm Buildings Scheme and Water Supplies—was the cause of the reduction that there were not sufficient applications or were applications deferred?

Chairman.—There is a pretty comprehensive note on that on page 66, at the top of the page.

Deputy Sheldon.—May I say that, like all Mr. Dempsey’s notes, it is quite full, but it does not quite answer the Deputy’s question as to why there was a substantial reduction?—The reduction was really due to delays in completing jobs; payments did not arise. It sometimes happens through various conditions, weather and so on.

187. Chairman.—In regard to subhead M.12.—Artificial Insemination of Live Stock—have you heard any complaints in the country, Mr. Dempsey, that people are beginning to associate premature birth of calves with artificial insemination?— That was mentioned occasionally a few years ago, but not in recent times. After all, there are returns for the number of inseminations and the number of calves.

Chairman. — Perhaps it might be expedient to make an inquiry. I have heard that but I do not believe there is any validity in it.

188. Under subhead O.7.—Flax Act, 1936—what did you do under that Act?— The expenditure is really in connection with staff engaged for that, but which are employed on other work at present, because, as the Committee knows, the acreage of flax has gone down to a very low level.

Would I be right in saying that, in fact, there is a small nucleus of highly skilled personnel which is retained in case their services may be required on flax at a future date?—That is exactly the position.

189. Deputy Sheldon.—It may be out of order, but I would like to know what happened to the vines at Bourn Vincent Memorial Park. I see a note on page 73 that the office of Public Works incurred expenditure on behalf of the Department of Agriculture on an experimental plot of vines at the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park.

Chairman. — I have great admiration for the encylopaedic knowledge of Mr. Dempsey but I will ask him to furnish a note on that.

Mr. Dempsey.—I can answer the question. A number of trials with vines were laid down, one at the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park, another at the Munster Institute and another at Clonakilty, and are still in progress. The results so far have not been very promising and have not been encouraging from the point of view of the production of fruit.

Deputy Sheldon.—What a pity.

190. Chairman.—Seeing that the Chairman has been set a bad example, I remember, Mr. Dempsey, that they planted a lily garden at Johnstown. How is that progressing?—That is in conjunction with the lake. There were difficulties with the lake which had to be drained and cleaned and that rather upset the arrangements but the lilies are all right.

191. Deputy Sheldon.—What is a mounding plough, Mr. Dempsey?—I am afraid I do not know.

Deputy Sheldon.—You hired them from the Forestry Division of the Department of Lands.

Chairman.—I think it is a plough used for raising some sort of mound?—I think that is what it is.

VOTE 28—FISHERIES.

Mr. J. Dempsey further examined.

192. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report contains two paragraphs relating to this Vote. They are numbered 43 and 44 on page xv and they read as follows:—

“Subhead F.5.—Compensation, etc.

43. Compensation amounting to £675 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 £2,491. In addition £380 was paid under sections 3 and 4 of the 1951 Act to an applicant towards the cost of proving title to compensation.

44. Sections 2 and 4 of the Act of 1951 authorise the Minister for Agriculture, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to make ex-gratia grants in certain circumstances to persons not entitled to compensation under the Act of 1939, the aggregate of such grants not to exceed £60,000. Including payments in the year, amounting to £235, the total of the grants paid under the authority of these sections to 31st March 1957, was £32,837.”

Have you anything to add to these paragraphs, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have nothing to add to the information contained in the paragraphs.

193. Chairman.—We will now turn to the Vote itself on page 78.

Deputy Sheldon. — On subhead E.1.— Scientific Investigations, etc.—can you say, Mr. Dempsey, why the investigations were restricted?—It was a staff problem primarily.

194. Deputy Lynch. — Under subhead E.4.—Whale Fisheries Act, 1937—what have we got to do with whale fisheries?— We are members of an international organisation.

195. Deputy Sheldon. — Under “National Development Fund,” can Mr. Dempsey say what progress was made in establishing fish farms?—The fish farm adjacent to Roscrea is in operation.

What relation does this sum of £8,500 bear to the cost of the establishment of the fish farm?—I think that meets the full cost in 1956/57.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix IX.

* See Appendix X.

** See Appendix XI.

* See Appendix XII.

* See Appendix XIII.

* See Appendix XIV.

** See Appendix XV.