|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Dé Céadaoin, 20 Eanáir, 1960.Wednesday, 20th January, 1960.The Committee sat at 3 p.m.
DEPUTY COSGRAVE in the chair. Mr. E. F. Suttle (Secretary and Director of Audit), Miss M. A. Keily and Mr. P. S. Mac Guill (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 55—POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS.Mr. Leon Ó Broin called and examined.336. Chairman.—There are some comments on this Vote in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The first is in paragraph 83 which reads:— “Subhead H.2.—Losses by Default, Accident, etc. 83. The losses borne on the Vote for the year ended 31 March 1959 amounted to £3,706. A classified schedule of these losses is set out on page 169. At page 170 particulars are given of 18 cases in which cash shortages or misappropriations amounting to £772 were discovered; the sums in question were made good and no charge to public funds was necessary.” 337. Chairman.—Paragraph 84 reads as follows:— “Stores 84. A test examination of the store accounts was carried out with satisfactory results. In addition to the engineering stores shown in Appendix No. II as valued at £1,408,804 on 31 March 1959, engineering stores to the value of £20,338 were held on behalf of other government departments. Stores other than engineering stores were valued at £452,957 including £182,820 in respect of stores held for other government departments. Including works in progress on 31 March 1959 the expenditure on manufacturing jobs in the factory during the year amounted to £43,844, expenditure on repair work (other than repairs to mechanical transport) to £59,280, and expenditure on mechanical transport repairs to £12,443.” I notice, Mr. Ó Broin, that you maintain approximately two years supply of engineering stores?—Yes. Is a stock of this size considered necessary?—Yes. You can break up our reserves of stocks into two categories. There is the normal supply of about one year and also an emergency supply which was of substantial proportions back in the days of the Korean crisis and which is now whittled down to a year’s supply. 338. Chairman.—Paragraph 85 reads as follows:— “Revenue 85. A test examination of the accounts of Postal, Telegraph and Telephone services was carried out with satisfactory results. The net yield of revenue for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59 is shown in the following statement:—
£8,650,000 was paid into the Exchequer during the year leaving a balance of £780,537 at 31st March 1959 as compared with £780,642 at the end of the previous financial year. Sums due for telephone services amounting to £4,204 were written off during the year as irrecoverable, as compared with £2,297 in the previous year.” I note that the sum of over £4,000 was written off as irrecoverable in respect of telephone services as compared with £2,297 in the previous year?—Yes. This seems a fairly sharp upward trend?—Yes, but on the other hand our telephone revenue is mounting also and £4,204 would be hardly worth bothering about in relation to a revenue of nearly £4,000,000. It works out at about one farthing per pound of revenue. That is for telephones only?—Yes, telephones only. 339. Chairman.—Paragraphs 86 and 87 read as follows:— “Post Office Savings Bank 86. The accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended 31 December 1958 were submitted to a test examination with generally satisfactory results. The balance due to depositors, inclusive of interest, amounted to £91,239,418 (including £12,533,505 in respect of the liability to Trustee Savings Banks) on 31 December 1958 as compared with £87,763,040 at the close of the previous year. Interest accrued during the year on securities standing to the credit of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund amounted to £3,425,969. Of this sum £2,222,816 was applied as interest paid and credited to depositors, management expenses absorbed £230,023 and the balance, £973,130, was set aside towards provision against depreciation in the value of securities. The amount shown as interest paid and credited to depositors is an estimated sum. In the Accounts for the years 1955, 1956 and 1957 the amounts shown as interest paid and credited were also estimated. No adjustments have been made in respect of these estimated amounts and I have invited the observations of the Accounting Officer. 87. In the course of a limited test examination of depositors’ accounts a case came under notice in which an account opened in September 1958 showed a balance due to the depositor at 1 January 1959 of £70 plus interest although the full amount of the deposit had been withdrawn in October 1958. I have communicated with the Accounting Officer.” Have you any comment Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—This matter of the adjustments mentioned at the end of paragraph 86 was raised as it was understood that the operations involved in effecting the annual reconciliation of interest credited to depositors with the estimated amounts provided a safeguard against internal fraud. In reply to our inquiry, the Accounting Officer stated that the estimated amounts in respect of provision for interest were included in the Post Office Savings Bank Accounts for the years 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958 and no adjustments have been made in respect of the estimates for the first three years mentioned; adjustment in respect of the estimate for 1958 will be made in the account for 1959. On account of shortage of staff it was not possible to have the detailed figures of interest, on which the provision would otherwise have been calculated, extracted from the individual account cards in respect of 1955, 1956 and 1957. Extraction of interest for 1958 is in hands and a firm figure for the liability to depositors as at 31st December, 1958, will be available as a result. Experience indicates that the method of estimation employed produces a figure which is very close to accuracy. For instance, for the three years 1952, 1953 and 1954, the latest previous period in respect of which estimated amounts for provision for interest were included in the annual accounts and adjustment made in each next following account, the sum of the estimated figures was in excess of the sum of the extracted figures by only .13 per cent., or roughly 2/6d. per £100. On this basis, the total adjustment that might arise in respect of the three years 1955, 1956 and 1957, would be no more than a reduction of £6,580. The total provision for interest in the three years was approximately £5½ million. In view of the small margin of error likely to have been in the interest provision for these years, it is not considered that expenditure on preparing detailed figures at this stage would be warranted. The entire question of interest calculation in the Savings Bank is at present under consideration in connection with proposals for the introduction of mechanised accounting. The case referred to in paragraph 87 provides an example of a discrepancy which would possibly have come to light in the annual reconciliation of interest. The Accounting Officer has stated that there was an extraordinary sequence of errors when dealing with this account but that no loss to public funds resulted. He is satisfied that other normal checks would have prevented such a loss arising. Chairman.—Do you wish to add anything to that, Mr. Ó Broin?—I think Mr. Suttle has explained the matter very well. The short answer is that the defects of estimation have been very slight; they have not affected the accuracy of the accounts to any appreciable degree. Moreover, we are about to install machinery which will automatically calculate interest and will eliminate this sort of error. 340. Chairman.—Paragraph 88 reads as follows:— “88. A sub-Postmaster charged with the fraudulent conversion of savings bank moneys amounting to £667 was acquitted. It emerged from the proceedings that statutory provisions requiring the certification of certain documents by designated officers were not being complied with, and I have inquired whether steps have been taken to remedy this defect in the prosecution procedure.” I notice that in that paragraph there is a reference made to fraudulent conversion of Savings Bank moneys. Have you any comment, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—The Accounting Officer has stated that this defect in the prosecution procedure was remedied by the Bankers’ Books Evidence (Amendment) Act, 1959, which became law on the 29th July, 1959. I understand that further proceedings were taken in this particular case. Mr. Ó Broin.—This is a case from Kealkill in West Cork which some of you gentlemen may have seen reported in the newspapers. It was twice before the court. The note from the Comptroller and Auditor General deals with the first occasion and what he has just said explains the matter. That particular issue has been decided. On the second occasion, our case was rejected by the judge; the position now is that, while the defendant cannot be put in peril again, steps are likely to be taken to decide the legal issues at High Court level. We are advised that the judge was in error in this case. Chairman.—Is it proposed to have a case stated?—I do not know what the procedure is; it is a matter for the Attorney-General but, on a suitable occasion, I think the intention is to test the decision. 341. Chairman.—Paragraph 89 reads as follows:— “89. As indicated in a note to the account a sub-office assistant who was convicted on charges of fraudulent conversion of savings bank deposits and other moneys amounting to £1,430 refunded a sum of £700 and submitted guaranteed promissory notes payable on 1 January 1963 in repayment of £730. I have inquired as to the extent of any further defalcations which have come to light and as to the steps taken to effect recovery.” Have you any comment, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—In reply to our inquiry we were informed that in addition to defalcations totalling £1,430-8-0 in respect of which proceedings were taken, other irregularities, totalling £398, came to light, and that the evidence suggests that the same sub-office assistant was responsible. The facts were reported to the Attorney General who has directed that, as the trial judge took into account outstanding offences, there cannot now be a prosecution in respect of them. Mr. Ó Broin.—I have nothing to add to that except to say that we will try as best we can to have the £398 brought into the picture, but we are not very sanguine that we will succeed. Chairman.—If there are no further questions we will turn to the Vote itself on page 165. 342. Deputy Sheldon.—In regard to subhead A.4.—Stores Branch—the estimate provided for a reduction in staff in the Stores Branch. I was wondering had that reduction, in fact, taken place? —My information is that the variation of £6,731 more than the anticipated expenditure was due to an increased labour force in the Post Office factory in that particular year. This is one of the things tied up with telephone capital. It would appear in that year there was a bigger element of employment on the capital work than of materials, and it had this effect on this subhead. I have not got any more information than that before me. 343. The subhead provides for a deduction in respect of telephone capital charges?—Yes. Surely, if the increased expenditure in the subhead was due to what Mr. Ó Broin said, why is it not chargeable to capital?—It is true we make provision, but it is only an estimated provision. The estimates had been prepared before we saw precisely where we were going as regards capital in that year. That is not quite the point I want to make. I was taking the explanation given of the increased charge—that more people had been employed because of additional work?—Yes. I was suggesting that that would be deductible and would not cause an excess in the subhead?—Yes, but does it not depend upon the range of the employment factor in the capital work? Is no part of the employment charged to the capital?—It is. I am merely raising the matter because of the explanation given?—If you like, I will look into that a little more closely and let you have a note about it. I certainly do not know any more at the moment other than what I have said.* 344. On subhead E.4., how did the use of direct shipping result in a considerable increase in expenditure?—The reason is that under the system which this replaced, we were paying out of revenue. By the use of direct shipping we actually increased the charge on the Vote but, in fact, there was a saving on revenue. Do you see my point? I find it a bit hard to follow it?—I will explain it. The provision allowed for was £22,000—— £22,700 and then it went up to £33,000?—The services to Britain were closely estimated, but the £2,000 odd for services to the United States and Canada was exceeded by more than £10,000— £3,500 on letter mails and £7,100 on parcel mails. Actually no provision was made in the estimate for letter mail conveyance to the United States and Canada because previously no conveyance payments for this category had been met out of subhead E.4. Letter mails had either been routed by British ports or conveyed from Cobh by ships under contract to the British or American Post Offices. This meant that all payments for our letter mails to the United States and Canada had previously been settled with the British and American Post Offices on an agency basis and met out of revenue via inter-administration accounts. Do you see the point now? Chairman.—Yes. 345. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead O.1., the note says that additional staff provided for was not required due to deferment of work. May I again draw attenion to the estimate. The number of staff was 28 as against 40 in the previous year. That appears to be a reduction of 12. Where did the additional staff come in?—The labour and expenditure under this subhead depend largely on works with a high engineering content, which works are provided for under subhead O.2. A replacement at Shannon was purchased, but not installed in the financial year. I can see that, but I do not quite see why there is a reference to additional staff when, in fact, the estimate provided for a reduction in the labour force from 27 to 15?—Our hands are rather tied in this matter because the extent of our expenditure is determined by decisions taken by the Department of Industry and Commerce as to what is required at airports. Do I take it then that even less than 15 men were, in fact, employed?—I have not got the particulars before me of the precise number of men employed, but it is true that we did not employ as many as we might have done because of the deferment of certain items of work. The extra equipment for Cork mentioned in the next subhead did not affect this at all?—No. There was on the next subhead, that is subhead O.2., an increased expenditure on Cork Airport, which was reduced somewhat by the deferment of other works. 346. In Appendix IA, page 174, under maintenance, the amount for wayleaves was very much less than the estimate. What particular reason would there be for that?—I think that may have had something to do with the new contract that we hammered out with Córas Iompair Éireann. I think there was a postponement of an expenditure pending the completion of a contract. 347. In Appendix No. II, in the first case incoming stock is given at Rate Book prices and the outgoing stock is just given as a value, and then there is a figure given for loss on Rate Book prices. I am afraid I have not gone back and checked in previous years to see what figure is taken as incoming stock in each year. Is it always Rate Book prices?—First of all, as you know, the Rate Book is required for establishing the value of stocks on hands, and it has to be revised a couple of times a year and necessary adjustments made in the stock accounts. This is done very, very carefully and regularly and I assume everything is in order. Deputy Sheldon.—What I am really wondering about is that the value of stores at the end of the year is a firm figure, so to speak, so this reference to Rate Book prices does not come into it. There is a firm figure for 31st March, 1959, and I am wondering what figure will appear in the next Appropriation Account as the incoming figures on 1st April, 1959. Will it be this one, or will there be another estimate? Mr. Suttle.—The closing figure here will be the opening figure next year. I do not think there is any doubt about that. The loss on Rate Book prices would arise where they would have stores on hands at a particular price and the price on the market would drop. They would have to reduce prices of stocks on hands down to the market prices which now become the Rate Book prices. 348. Deputy Sheldon.—I do not understand that because when I look at the estimate, Appendix E., the value of stock of engineering stores on 1st March, 1959, differs by £370,000 from the figure here and then the figure for the 1st April, 1958, varies by a quarter of a million from the figure of 31st March, 1958. Mr. Suttle.—As you can understand, these figures are prepared in the October prior to the March figure; in other words, they are six months in advance of the opening figure in the Appropriation Account. Deputy Sheldon.—Still, a quarter of a million and half a million seems an awful lot to over-estimate. I cannot see one figure that deals with stocks and stores that has any relation to the previous figure?—Perhaps you would like me to send a note on this. I should appreciate that because I have battled with this for a long time and I cannot make head or tail of it?—I will send you a note.* VOTE 56—WIRELESS BROADCASTING.Mr. Leon Ó Broin further examined.349. Chairman.—Can you say what is the total staff of Radio Eireann?—I have not got the actual numbers with me. I suppose you have not got the rates of pay either?—They vary very much from class to class. Would Subhead A, Expenses of Broadcasting, cover remuneration of staff?— Yes, that is set out at the bottom. All the staff are lumped together there in Part III of the Estimate. 350. In the 1955-56 accounts and, I think, again in the 1956-57 accounts, the Committee had under notice the question of the irregular payments to a music arranger arising out of the disappearance of certain sheet music. Is this matter disposed of?—Not quite disposed of. On the last occasion that this matter was mentioned here your predecessor said the matter was sub judice and was inclined to leave it at that. The music arranger and copyist was before the District Justice and remanded on continuing bail in the expectation that he would be able to repay some of the money that he had disposed of improperly. He has repaid to date £100 out of the £150 involved. The matter of disciplinary action to be taken against the officials involved, apart from this person, is still being discussed with the Department of Finance. The witness withdrew. VOTE 46—LANDS.Mr. T. O’Brien called and examined.351. Chairman.—In connection with subhead D.—Office of the Public Trustee —does the Public Trustee deal with land trusts only?—Yes. These are actually certain trusts to which the Settled Land Acts, 1882/1890 apply; the Public Trustee here is not a general Public Trustee as in England. His accounts are rendered direct to the Comptroller and Auditor General and not to me or through me as Accounting Officer. The post caters for the type of case where there are minors and tenants for life who would not be qualified themselves to receive the money and the Judicial Commissioner, when allocating the funds, hands them over for investment by the Public Trustee, who has to act prudently in the matter. Does the Judicial Commissioner direct the manner in which they are invested? —That is a matter entirely for the Public Trustee. 352. Have you any idea what is the value of the Trust Funds held by him?— I did inquire during the year and at that time was told that the total capital worth of the funds would be about £500,000. 353. On subhead H.3., in respect of land purchased, how does the State contribution compare with the contribution by the tenants?—The annuities are halved, the tenant pays one half and the State the other half; that would be in relation to tenanted land. In relation to untenanted land there is a particular obligation that the Land Commission shall assess the annuity in the same manner in which it had hitherto been assessed and then halve it. In practice, there is a current loss on resale of the order of 20 per cent., which means that the State is paying about 60 per cent. and the tenant about 40 per cent. Perhaps I could enlarge on that: I do know that the purchase price paid by the Land Commission for all untenanted land acquired since 1923 has been £11,000,000. In respect of that we have recovered from the allottees £10,000,000, giving a loss of £1,000,000 on £11,000,000. The £10,000,000 is the capital value before the annunities are reduced. Deputy Jones.—Does that mean that the tenants get the land at the expense of the State? Is some of the cost borne by the State?—That is right. Do they not pay in full for the land they get?—They do not. 354. Chairman.—Could you say at present or have you any idea of the cost of providing houses on these estates? What is the present cost?—The present cost for house and outoffices would come to £1,500 on average. In the particular year about £650,000 was spent for the improvement of estates and out of that £295,000 was in respect of building. I do know that we built altogether 209 houses, of which 77 were by contract, 14 by direct labour and 118 by the tenants themselves. 355. What size would these be?—There are different plans but that mainly in current use has a floor space of 850 square feet, and contains three bedrooms, kitchen, parlour and scullery. 356. Deputy Jones.—Do all these qualify for the state grant?—These houses are built entirely out of the Land Commission Vote. They do not qualify for State grants at all?—No. 357. Deputy Sheldon.—Do I take it that the Department is in the same position as public bodies who do not have to comply with the Planning Acts? Does the Department have to get permission? —We are exempt from the provisions of the Town Planning Acts, but, in fact we try to keep in line with them and keep in touch with local authorities on the matter. We never build houses too near main roads or interfere with any particular plans the county engineer may have in mind. Our inspectors are expected to keep in regular touch with them on this matter. 358. Chairman.—Would these houses be serviced?—Only in a few cases. At present they are wired for electricity if there is a supply in the area. Deputy Jones.—Does the Land Commission then provide the service of light if there is a pole?—No. 359. Chairman.—What interests me about the figure you have given is that it compares very favourably with the figures for local authority houses?—You mean the cost of county council cottages? It more than favourably compares. I suppose the only thing is that some of the council houses would have services installed?—Perhaps. I suppose also that when doing a large number it would be possible to do it more cheaply?—We find that contract is cheaper in group building. 360. At present, is there an average acreage allotted or does it vary from county to county or holding to holding? —Our present standard holding is one of 33 acres of good quality land or its equivalent in land of mixed quality and that would possibly vary up to 40 acres. When did you introduce that?—1950. Prior to that it had been 25 acres and prior to that again it had been about 20 acres. I think the idea changed something like this; it started at five farms to the 100 acres. then going to four farms to 100 acres. Now, in effect, it is three farms to 100 acres. It seems a sensible change?—Yes. 361. Deputy Sheldon.—It is not down to the right figure yet. In regard to the note concerning subhead I., I had intended to say something about these ex-gratia payments, but in view of the cost of the houses I do not think I should say anything at all?—I will try to answer any questions. With such a low average I can appreciate the difficulty. When you are grouping houses, you are bound to make an ex-gratia payment to your contractor?— If there is any particular case I will attempt to answer the point. No, but normally the Committee do not like ex-gratia payments. I can appreciate that payments were necessary in respect of the foundations but I was not so happy about the chimney-breasts. That looks more as if there had been some defect in the construction and that would have been the builder’s fault?—My information is that a contractor entered into a contract, to the value of £5,075, in 1957, with the Land Commission, for the construction of four houses and four outoffices in Clare. The specification for the buildings provided that the contractor should satisfy himself as to the location and nature of the site and the means of access, and that no claims for extras arising out of any misunderstanding or error would be allowed and, further, that the contractor should excavate for all foundations to such a depth as would ensure proper stability. Work on two of the four houses had proceeded in a satisfactory manner but when the foundations for the other two houses were excavated by the contractor it was found that the nature of the soil was such that a firm bottom could not be reached. There were no other suitable sites available. To overcome this difficulty and to ensure that there would be no settlement in the walls of the buildings when constructed it was considered essential to have the foundations and chimney breasts of both houses reinforced. The contractor was prepared to carry out this work at an extra cost of £20 per house or £40 for the two houses, which price was considered reasonable. The Land Commission felt that it would be unfair to hold the contractor rigidly to the specification especially having in mind that had extensive trial borings been carried out by him it was certain that, to safeguard himself, he would have increased his tender price by at least the £40 claimed. It is the general practice in the building trade to allow such amounts when exceptional difficulties of this nature are met or the normal depth in foundations is exceeded. Deputy Sheldon.—That is perfectly satisfactory. 362. Deputy Jones.—In regard to subhead R.—Purchase of Interests for Cash (Sections 27 and 28 of the Land Act, 1950)—might I ask Mr. O’Brien how many holdings were purchased for cash? What would the acreage be like?—The number of holdings bought that year was seven and the area was 418 acres. The total amount of land bought under that section altogether—these are purchases for cash, as distinct from land bonds— since 1950 totalled over 2,300 acres for 57 cases. The total purchase price was £70,269. VOTE 47—FORESTRY.Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.363. Chairman.—Can you say Mr. O’Brien, what is the average price paid for land acquired for forestry?—In the particular year there were 28,654 acres bought for £149,600; that worked out at £5. 10. per acre. The average has been pretty consistent for the past four or five years at £5 to £6 per acre. Do you get land at that price?—Yes. What we get is generally inferior land suitable only for forestry. 364. Assuming you acquire land and part of it is suitable for allocation for tenants under the Land Commission, would they get part of it? Is there such a thing as a mixed estate?—There is; it is unavoidable sometimes, particularly in big properties, that a small agricultural enclave will also be purchased and we like to hold that with the intention of planting some hardwoods on it. However, if there is local feeling in the matter and the land is, in fact, agricultural, then the Forestry Division will sell it to the Land Commission and the Land Commission will allot it between local deserving landholders. Deputy Sheldon.—But if it were held for forestry you would meet the difference out of subhead L.2. in the previous Vote? —Actually we have a special authority to pay an increased amount for enclaves of land of that quality—agricultural quality. 365. Chairman.—Under subhead C.2.— Forest Development and Management— how did the area last year compare with the previous year?—The area planted last year was 22,891 acres as against 20,055 acres the previous year. There is a settled target now of 25,000 acres and that area is being planted for the first time in this current planting season. You have been getting up to that for a few years?—We have increased annually by 2,500 acre increments up to 25,000 acres. 366. Is there an adequate reserve of land to plant that amount?—I am sorry to say that there is not and we badly need to increase our intake of land. The position now is that the Department has a total of 413,000 acres of land of which 354,000 acres are plantable and of that 280,000 acres have in fact been planted at 178 different forest centres throughout the country and a further 25,000 acres are now being planted. That leaves a notional reserve of plantable land of 50,000 acres but not all of this is immediately available for planting. Furthermore, the reserve is badly distributed; there is too much in one area and too little in another. 367. When you acquire land for planting in a particular area and if it is not adjacent to existing forests do you take on new staff or transfer staff from somewhere else?—It depends on the distance; if it is fairly close to an existing forest we will retain the staff and transfer them to it, but if it is quite a distance away then we will have to take on new staff in the area in which the new property lies. 368. Chairman.—What is included under subhead E.1—Forestry Education? —We recruit our own trainees and put them through a course of training in two forestry schools, one at Kinnitty Castle and the other at Shelton Abbey, County Wicklow. The intake of trainees is about 30 per year; they take their first practical year of forestry at Kinnitty Castle and the two remaining years of theoretical and practical instruction at Shelton Abbey. And they are retained on the staff?— Generally, they are retained and given established posts as foresters in the Service. 369. They do not take out any degrees at the university?—No, but there are some foresters who happen to be near Dublin and who take out degrees though they would mostly be in Arts and Commerce, not in Forestry, because Forestry is not catered for in the University evening courses. Of course we do take on university graduates in Forestry in open competition. They would have a degree in horticulture or agriculture?—The degree is called Bachelor of Agricultural Science (Forestry). 370. The actual planting is carried out under the direction of these trainees?— Yes. After training they are qualified foresters and they are assigned to the various forest centres throughout the country; they take charge of the labour force and supervise and direct them in the planting. In turn, the foresters are supervised by the Inspectors. 371. Some of the labour force would be permanent and some casual?—Yes, but the element of seasonal variation in employment level is not so significant in recent years. 372. Chairman.—I notice at the bottom of page 137 there is a reference to a plantation in honour of the Mayor of Chicago. Where is that plantation do you know?—It is at Monamean, near Ring, County Waterford. Ten acres were planted and a plaque was erected on the site to Mayor Daley. We got 1,120 dollars through a Deputy of Dáil Éireann; some friends of the Mayor gave the money to him to have this plantation established in his honour in Ireland. Deputy Sheldon.—This was to pay for the actual planting? I was thinking that there would be an accounting difficulty? —We were uncertain ourselves how to account for it and it will be seen that it is brought into the account as an Exchequer Extra Receipt. It was to cover the cost of planting and not the land. 373. Deputy Sheldon.—I notice that receipts from sales of timber have fallen somewhat from the previous year. Is the prospect still reasonably good?—It is; the receipts in the current year are well up to our expectations. In fact, what happened, in that particular year, was that the market was pretty sluggish and we believe that it was due to an abundance of cheap Russian timber which upset timber price levels in many European countries. VOTE 48—FISHERIES.Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.374. Chairman.—Paragraphs 61 and 62 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read as follows:— “Subhead F.5.—Compensation, etc. 61. Compensation amounting to £7,000 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. 62. 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 a payment in the year amounting to £2,750 the total of the grants paid under the authority of these sections to 31 March 1959 was £35,710.” Mr. Suttle.—The paragraphs are informative. The payment of compensation will come to an end shortly. There are only a few outstanding cases at the moment. Mr. O’Brien.—I understand that, very soon, there are likely to be only two or three small cases left. 375. Chairman.—In paragraph 63 the Comptroller and Auditor General says:— “Salmon Conservancy Fund 63. The Salmon Conservancy Fund was established by section 5 of the Salmon Conservancy Fund Act, 1954. The income of the Fund is derived from levies on exports of salmon payable under 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. These provisions were re-enacted in the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1958, which repealed the 1954 Act. Receipts from the levy in the year ended 31 March 1959 amounted to £7,948. Sums totalling £5,750 were paid to boards of conservators and administrative expenses were £250. The balance in the Fund at 31 March 1959 amounted to £2,231. An account of the receipts and payments is appended to the appropriation account.” I notice there was a considerable increase in the Salmon Conservancy Fund. Was that due to an increase in the levy or to greater exports?—I think that the regular figure would be about £8,000. The export figures for salmon have remained fairly static for a number of years, at between £500,000 and £600,000. In 1957-58 the levy was payable only for a part of the year in respect of the Fund and, in 1958-59, it was for the entire year. 376. Chairman.—That may be the explanation. When you say the total is fairly constant, is that because we cannot get a bigger market or because we cannot supply more salmon?—We have reached almost the maximum that we can attain in the export of salmon. We are, of course, trying to build up salmon stocks in a variety of ways. If we succeed— we hope we will—the income of the Fund should be greater. I do not think there is any question of increasing the levy; it is twopence in the £ from 1st January and one penny in the £ from 1st June in each year on each pound of salmon exported. 377. We will turn now to the Vote itself on page 140. Under Subhead E.6., what is the position with regard to this vessel?—It was launched about a week ago. Is this the one that you had handed over in Holland?—Yes. Its trials will be on next month. 378. Deputy Sheldon.—What is the explanation for this low output of ova under Subhead F.2.? Mr. O’Brien referred to the Department’s anxiety to increase salmon stocks a moment ago?— We have a standing arrangement with the Lismore Hatchery to purchase ova for resale. We pay a fixed sum for the first 200,000 ova and an abated rate per 1,000 ova after that. All I can say is that the production at Lismore was much less than we had reckoned on. You are not aware of any particular reason for that; it was not that they were selling somewhere else at better prices, was it?—No, I do not think so, because we have a standing arrangement with them. I am told that we got the entire output of the hatchery in that year. Something went wrong at their end?— Yes—probably. 379. Chairman.—Under subhead F.6., what are the main functions of the Inland Fisheries Trust?—Their prime object is the further development of out inland fisheries and, for that purpose, the production of fry for restocking lakes and rivers; they carry out research and experimental work. In particular, they rid rivers of excess predatory fish. They are now engaged on a five-year angling development plan, which is being carried out in co-operation with Bord Fáilte. They have undertaken a variety of improvement schemes, either quite spontaneously or at the request of local angling associations. Has the Trust any income other than the Grant-in-Aid?—Last year it also got £28,000 from Bord Fáilte towards the five-year angling development plan. In addition it has a membership of about 3,000 and I think the membership fee is 7/6d. per head. 380. Deputy Sheldon.—Do I take it that sales of ova come into Miscellaneous Receipts?—Yes. 381. Chairman.—Paragraph 17 of the Committee’s Report of 19th February, 1958, dealt with the question of the writing off of irrecoverable arrears of annuities set up to repay advances made to the former Sea Fisheries Association between 1931 and 1952 for the purpose of financing the supply of boats and gear to fishermen on hire purchase terms. Can you say if this matter has been disposed of?—It has not been finally disposed of yet. Earlier this month we received final figures from the Auditor of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and, on the basis of those figures, we communicated with the Department of Finance, within the last week, and that communication contained a firm proposal for the re-assessment and clearance of the deficit. We have, in fact, proposed, inter alia, that arrears of interest and principal, amounting to about £150,000, be written off. There has been, in the account, a fairly substantial accumulation of what is little more than notional interest. Perhaps the representative from the Department of Finance might wish to say something on it. Chairman.—Would the Department of Finance representative like to say anything? Miss Keily.—No. I shouldn’t like to say anything. We received the proposals only within the last few days. Mr. O’Brien.—That is so; the proposal only went to the Department of Finance five days ago actually. 382. Chairman.—What was the total cost of the fish handling station at Galway?—£67,000. Is it in full operation now?—The total grants paid were £33,871 and the repayable advances were also £33,871 making the total cost £67,742. The structure is complete but unfortunately it has, so far, been put to little use. What is the reason for that?—The inadequate supply of fish. Deputy Jones.—Is it operating at the moment?—I do not think it is, to any great extent; it is not within my particular province. The Station is the property of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. Chairman.—Except, I suppose, you foot the bill?—It was paid for by grants from the National Development Fund and advances from the Central Fund. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
