Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1963 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1961 - 1962

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 28 Feabhra, 1963.

Thursday, 28th February, 1963.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY JONES in the chair.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (Secretary and Director of Audit), Mr. L. V. O’Neill and Mr. J. R. Whitty (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

DEATH OF MEMBER—Expression of Sympathy.

279. Chairman.—Since the Committee met on this day week we have lost a member of the Committee in the person of the late Deputy Jack Belton. This day week he was here on this Committee and assisted us in our deliberations on that day. He was a member of the previous Committee of Public Accounts and of a Committee prior to that as well. He gave valuable assistance at our meetings and he was always keenly interested in the work of this Committee. His sincerity and his simplicity were appreciated by everybody, both the Deputies who form the Committee and the officials who come here. I am sure it will be the wish of the members of this Committee to tender to his widow and family and to his relatives our very sincere sympathy at his early passing. I would ask you to join with me in that tribute to him.

Members rose in their places.

VOTE 38—NATIONAL GALLERY

Dr. T. MacGreevy called and examined.

280. Chairman.—In regard to subhead B.—Purchase and Repair of Pictures (Grant-in-Aid)—did you purchase anything of interest during the year?—From the grant-in-aid, no. We were playing rather bigger fish with our Shaw money. We got some nice gifts. So, I took the opportunity of spending a good deal on the cleaning and restoration of our pictures. We got some gifts and bequests; and then we bought some very important pictures but not out of the grant-in-aid. I concentrated for some time on minding what we already had.

In regard to the Shaw Bequest, do you account for that separately? Is there any reference to it?—No. That is ours, not yours.

281. Have you any similar funds under your control?—Hugh Lane left us some money from which we get a little income —£1,500 or £1,700 a year—and there are one or two smaller funds as well, but we never had much. The English National Gallery now gets something like £120,000 a year from the Government, in addition to seven or eight private funds; and the Tate Gallery gets £80,000. Some newspapers go on saying that we are the richest Gallery in the English-speaking world outside the United States. There is not a word of truth in that. If we invested the Shaw money, we might, taking everything into account, have £15,000 to £17,000 a year.

282. Deputy Carter.—Is the Shaw Bequest continuing to grow?—For a little time longer, I think, we may be getting a certain amount but a lot of it—poor Shaw must be turning in his grave—was made out of a musical comedy and we share in the royalties. When the “Chocolate Soldier” was made out of “Arms and the Man” Shaw, the story goes, said to the composer: “I will not take the bread and butter out of your mouth but I have had nothing to do with it. Do not offer me payment; you can keep it”. Then, Shaw was no sooner in his grave than they turned “Pygmalion” into a musical comedy—“My Fair Lady”. It would, I imagine, have been very much against his wishes. But we have benefited by it. Now they are talking about making a film of it but that may not benefit the beneficiaries of the Shaw estate very much. It is the people who made the musical comedy out of the Shaw play who will get the most benefit, not the Shaw estate. So, our money is not coming to an end but the receipts from it may be considerably less from about now on. “My Fair Lady” is packed out in London and will be touring the world for some years—two or three years, perhaps. We shall be getting a little more but nothing, I think, like what has been coming. It will be winding up.

283. Chairman.—Subhead C.—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—shows some saving. Can you say why?—I may point out about travelling expenses, for fear there would be any attempt made to reduce it, that I was in Madrid just before that year began and for a longish time did not go away again. I did go to a congress in Paris but at my own expense. That was to the International Council of Museums. Then I was not much away until the following March was over. It is purely accidental that in that year there was not a large expenditure.

284. Deputy P. J. Burke.—You went at your own expense, doing the nation’s work?—Well, I hope so.

I do not see why any public official should be asked to travel at his own expense to do the nation’s work. It is not usual, surely?—The International Council of Museums was founded under UNESCO. We were not members at that time. We are now. I thought it was a very good thing to keep in touch with my colleagues from all over the world. There was a congress in the Louvre, in one of the big rooms there, not the picture gallery, and I thought it was important to go over. I formed a branch of the Council here. I think it is good that we should be in touch with our colleagues from other countries. I had a very interesting two days and got to know the other museum people and their problems. I think a lot of the people concerned are frightened lest it come out how badly off they are but their grievances are, in fact, very much like our own, when you get to know them. Even in the most advanced countries, in the matter of the study of art history, they are up against Departments of Finance problems and so on, just the same as everybody else. Such interchanges help to make us realise that we are not so bad. It encourages a sense of our nationhood, and so on, to be on exchange terms with all the other people and to know their problems as well as our own. A little time ago we joined UNESCO and I dare say that, in future, it will be all right but at the time I thought it better to go at my own expense. It was only a few days.

Did you put this up to the Department?—No.

That you had to travel at your own expense?—No.

A man like you who is doing such wonderful work for the nation in the cultural field should at least be paid expenses of travelling on behalf of the nation. Every other public servant gets such travelling expenses. I do not see why you should not claim it?—Well, I think it would be a matter for my successor who would be affected by that from now on. I shall not be staying much longer. My doctors do not want me to do full-time work.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 39—LANDS.

Mr. T. O’Brien called and examined.

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

“Subhead I.—Improvement of Estates, etc.

34. A tender received in April, 1959, for the erection of six dwellinghouses and twelve outoffices for the sum of £9,120 was not accepted because it was considered by the Land Commission that the tenderer would not be able to undertake the job immediately. It was decided to carry out the work by direct labour and the buildings were completed in February, 1962, at a cost of £11,971. I have invited the observations of the Accounting Officer on the economy of the procedure adopted.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Since the report was written I have received a long reply from the accounting officer. I feel it would be just as well if I were to read it out in full. It is as follows:—

“These six dwellings, etc. were substantially completed by March, 1961, when they were occupied by migrants, in good time for spring farm operations. The dwellinghouses as such were in fact then fully habitable and the items which remained for final clearance in succeeding months were mainly external, e.g. completion of out-buildings, gates, piers, etc. The working gang had actually been dispersed in May, 1961.

The commencement of these buildings was unexpectedly and unavoidably delayed until December, 1959, by reason of a general objection which was raised in June, 1959, by the Chief Veterinary Officer, Dublin County Council. His objection affected the cow-byre plan which had been in general use in other counties, without objection throughout the previous nine years.

The substantial duration of the work, therefore, was approximately sixteen months. Having regard to the plan difficulty and adverse weather and also the general experience with contractors about this time, it is by no means certain that these buildings would have been ready for occupation during the spring of 1961, if the work had been set to contract.

The decision to carry out the work by direct labour was made in accordance with senior technical advice, following negative investigation of the most competitive of a second set of tenders. A few months previously, another contractor who had been approved for these same buildings, had withdrawn his tender of £9,876 and the work was then readvertised. This withdrawal had special relevance in the consideration of the subsequent tenders.

Since about that time, there has been plenty of more profitable work available to contractors and the Land Commission has had much difficulty in getting contracts started and completed within reasonable time and also in procuring suitable labour for direct labour works, in face of the special inducements held out by private contractors, e.g. overtime rates, etc.

On readvertisement, the five lowest tenders ranged as follows: (1) £9,120; (2) £9,177; (3) £10,206; (4) £10,730; (5) £10,860. No. 1 was already heavily committed for other works, including two other Land Commission building contracts aggregating to 6 dwellinghouses and 12 outoffices. No. 2 did not offer acceptable sureties. No. 3 withdrew tender. No. 4 had been gazetted in Stubbs.

The fifth lowest tender (£10,860) was from a contractor of whom the Land Commission had had no previous experience. In any event the estimate for doing the work by direct labour was then £10,200.

Under the contract system, extras of the following order would also have arisen: Plan amendment £120; Price and wage increases £500; Storm damage £40; Total: £660.

Thus, the direct labour cost of £11,971 stands to be compared with a hypothetical contract cost of upwards of £11,520 (i.e. £10,860 plus £660).

The comparison in this instance is then, but only marginally, in favour of contract. On the other hand, it is quite impossible to be certain that the work would have been satisfactorily performed by contract for less than £11,971. It is the general experience that the quality of direct labour work is better than that done under contract.

This was the first direct labour project to be undertaken in this Inspectorate district and the construction team had to be organised from scratch. Unfortunately, the effort was hampered by the serious illness of the Engineering Inspector and also by the exceptional difficulty in procuring suitable labour.

The direct labour cost worked out at less than £2,000 per unit consisting of three-bedroomed dwelling, together with byre for 8 cows and three-section outoffice. This unit cost seems quite reasonable for this high-cost locality only about 8 miles from Dublin city centre.”

286. Deputy Clinton.—I should like to get this again. Did the veterinary officer’s objection involve us in an additional expenditure of approximately £2,000 and was there any change made eventually in the specification of the building as a result of the objection?

Mr. O’Brien.—The veterinary officer’s objection led to an additional cost of £120. The points raised by the veterinary officer for County Dublin related to a requirement that the space for each pair of cows should be 6 feet and not 6 feet six inches; apparently under the lesser area of space the animals would be better controlled or subject to better discipline and that, I imagine, was the idea of reducing the space between the cows. He also had a point about the manure channel being too narrow; the remaining point was that the byre was too narrow and he asked us to increase it by one foot. These were the only points raised. The cow-byre plan to which we were working had been accepted in every other county throughout the country. Apparently, the standard laid down is the minimum prescribed by the Department of Agriculture and we were complying with that but each county veterinary officer probably has a certain amount of latitude over and above that.

287. Deputy Clinton.—Yes, but the extra planning cost £120, is not that so? The change in the plan cost £120 but did the delay not involve us in increasing the cost by about £2,000, due to having to go about it in a different way? I thought that was explained?

Deputy Kenny.—No; it was the difficulty of getting contractors.

Deputy Cunningham.—There is a difference of £2,000.

Deputy Clinton.—Is not there the difference between £9,000 and £11,000, approximately?—Yes.

Deputy Clinton.—Is not the veterinary officer indirectly responsible for this increase?

288. Deputy Booth.—It is not quite as easy as that. The £9,120, I gather from Mr. Suttle’s evidence, was a tender which, possibly, might not have come about at all and all the other ones up to the fifth lowest were all similarly doubtful. Am I not right in saying the £9,120 is a notional figure, to all intents and purposes, rather than a real tender which could have been availed of with absolute certainty?—That would be my view.

Deputy Cunningham.—What Mr. Suttle said is in respect of the second group of tenders, not the first.

Deputy Clinton.—There did not seem to be any doubt about the first tender.

Mr. O’Brien.—The first tenderer withdrew.

Deputy Clinton.—On the second occasion?—On the first occasion.

Chairman.—On the second occasion, I take it, the lowest tender was turned down because the contractor had too much work?—Yes.

Chairman.—That was the reason that it was turned down?

Deputy Cunningham.—Were these buildings advertised for tender on two occasions?—Yes.

289. Chairman.—In regard to the original figure, £9,120, and the work that finished up at £11,971—in the £9,120 there would be, I take it, an element for overheads and profit?—Yes, I would take it so.

And out of the £11,971, I take it, that would be materials and labour?—That is right.

Would you care to offer any comment on that?—I could not, except to say that the £9,120 was not actually put to the test and there had been increases in the meantime in labour rates which the tenderer would have been able to claim by way of price variation clause in the contract document.

290. Deputy Clinton.—It is normal to have this price variation clause in these contracts with the Land Commission?— Yes; we have to meet new rates of wages when fixed by the Labour Court from time to time, during the currency of a contract.

Deputy Lalor.—Five hundred pounds would have covered that.

Mr. Suttle.—That is right. That is the figure mentioned—£500 for price and wage increases.

291. Deputy Carter.—Taking a rough view of it, how does the figure compare with the average unit which the Land Commission undertake to erect or, for that matter, a contractor erects, in other areas?—The final price of £11,971 would be roughly in line with the Land Commission’s own experience and the experience of other contractors.

292. I take it these houses are serviced? —No, these were not serviced houses. They have a pumped water supply?— Yes.

So that the Land Commission is able to erect dwellinghouses with outoffices for the all-in figure of roughly £2,000 per unit?—Yes.

Deputy Clinton.—As a matter of interest are we still building unserviced Land Commission houses?—No. There was a decision taken last year that all houses from a current date are to be serviced.

293. Deputy Carter.—Was there some criticism of the plans which the Land Commission had up to some time ago? It was said somewhere that the housing plans were obsolete, or old plans—some of them?—We are constantly trying to revise plans. The plan to which these particular houses out near Baldonnell— Baldonnell is the place in question—were built has now been declared obsolete and the type of plan to which we are currently building is a modified Local Government Department plan called 2/61 —a floor space of 935 square feet, combined kitchen-living-room, parlour, three bedrooms, scullery, bathroom and w.c. and with all rooms having independent access.

294. Deputy Kenny.—What is the all-in cost of a serviced house?—It would be about £2,000 for the new plan.

What was the cost of a normal unserviced house before that?—£1,400 approximately.

295. Deputy Clinton.—I should just like to make a comment since the houses in question have been named, with regard to the outoffices. This job was done, I understand, by direct labour. The quality of direct labour work is normally expected to be better. I had one of these people with me a short time ago. He said the roof of the outoffices was not tied down in any way, just left sitting, and last November in a storm it was blown up in the clouds. He is still waiting for his outoffices. That does not indicate that the quality is as good as we would hope it to be, if that is right.

296. Deputy Treacy.—I was going to ask if the Land Commission is likely to pursue a policy of direct labour in relation to building of houses of this kind and outoffices in future or will it revert to the contract system?—The tendency for the Land Commission has been to build mainly by contract. In that particular year, 1961-62, we ran into a certain amount of difficulty; there had been a cement strike and things were disorganised for quite a while. In that year we built almost as many by direct labour as by contract but, normally, the pattern over the previous years showed that the preponderance was by contract. I imagine we would have no objection at all, and would probably wish to do more houses by direct labour for the reason that we could, in fact, then control the date of the conclusion of the building as we are always anxious to have buildings ready and finished early in the year so that we can put in migrants and new tenants in good time for spring work. Under the direct labour system we would be able to control and hasten the date of completion of the work whereas we would not be so well able to do it if the work were in the hands of a contractor; he might run over into May or June and the land would then remain unallotted for the whole of the year because it would be too late to instal farmers or migrants at that period.

Deputy Cunningham.—Local authorities are having much the same difficulties in getting houses built by contract, especially a small number of houses, one here and one there. It is a problem experienced by everyone building houses, not only the Land Commission, local authorities and others. So there is very little we can do about this. It arises in local authorities. Donegal County Council have adopted a system half way between what you have been doing and what you do in these cases, that is, supplying the materials and setting it by contract for labour only and we had to do that because contractors were doing much the same as has been done by the people referred to by Mr. Suttle.

297. Chairman.—Were the factors you have mentioned here this morning, in the main, the ones that would influence the decision as between contract and direct labour?—Yes. We have given some thought to the question of direct labour. It would involve, of course, having central stores, bulk buying of material and probably a mobile travelling gang of skilled men, which is not easy to arrange all the time. If we could be certain of the mobile team and the storage for materials, I believe we could and would go for it; in fact, it is being examined. We discussed it at length at the last conference we had with our field officers but at the time came to no definite conclusion on it.

298. Deputy Cunningham.—Have you considered the possibilities of what I have mentioned, of what we are doing in the case of Donegal, that is, a labour contract? What we do is, we supply the materials through the local building supply people. We get a tender, usually from a tradesman who has a son a carpenter or a builder who has a carpenter with him, and they complete the job for a certain figure for the labour only. The county council supply the materials through the nearest building supply people. Has that been considered? —No, that is labour only.

Labour only?—No, we have not considered that. All I can say is in direct labour cases we would sub-contract some of the jobs, like painting, block-laying and plastering.

299. Chairman.—Has it been your experience so far with direct labour work that it usually costs more or does it cost less?—It ought not to cost more because we should be able to have the contractor’s profit.

Deputy Cunningham.—It does.

Deputy Clinton.—The experience of every local authority is that it costs more and if it is not possible to work it with the local authorities it must be much more uneconomic and much more impossible in the case of the Land Commission because they will have to travel all over the country. Mobility comes in and the expense of getting there.

Deputy Cunningham.—I do not know what your proposals would be for getting supplies, when it costs so much in Dublin, near the source of supply. If you are building houses in Bangor-Erris or some place like that, you cannot get materials there on time and when required.

Deputy Clinton.—It is the labour team.

Deputy Cunningham.—You may have the team there and you may be held up for the want of a bag of cement.

Mr. O’Brien.—Our main problem is the regular labour force of men skilled and experienced in our form of construction.

300. Deputy P. J. Burke.—I would suggest as a result of the exchange of views here on contracts and direct labour, that the accounting officer and the Land Commission could have done nothing else in the circumstances, except to go for direct labour. Contractors are refusing to come forward now, even for local authority houses. It is a matter that would have to be considered by local authorities also as to whether to adopt the direct labour system, even if it is more expensive, in order to get the work done. It is a national problem.

Chairman.—That is not a question. Rather it is a comment. Deputies will have an occasion in the House to advance the various theories to the Minister.

Deputy Treacy.—I take it this committee is not giving any advice or recommendation for or against the idea of contract or direct labour?

Chairman.—The function of the committee is to inquire into expenditure. Theories must be advanced in another place.

Deputy Treacy.—I would not wish to retard the work of the Land Commission in the speedy erection of houses, no matter how they set about it.

Deputy Clinton.—Nobody wants to do that.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—That is why I made the comment I did.

Deputy Booth.—We can comment in our report, when we have considered all the evidence.

Mr. O’Brien.—If the committee is interested, I could give the emphasis on contract for a given year. For 1959-60 there were 104 houses built by contract and 24 by direct labour.

301. Deputy Cunningham.—How did prices work out there, comparatively?— I am sorry, I have not the figures here.

Deputy Cunningham.—It would be interesting to know. This is only one example, which may be lopsided. I should like to have the comparative figures.

Chairman.—Mr. O’Brien will send a note.

Deputy Cunningham.—Yes, I should like that.

Mr. O’Brien.—Of what figures?

Deputy Cunningham.—From 1961-62, the average cost of house and unit by contract; the average price of house and unit, by direct labour?—I may have a little difficulty in that because there has been a variety of plans in force; for a big farm, what we would call an over-standard holding, we may erect a dear house. If it would suit the committee, I could supply it in respect of the standard house for the standard allotment. Would that be sufficient?

Deputy Clinton.—That would give you a basis.

Deputy Treacy.—That should be sufficient.*

Deputy P. J. Burke.—I am very pleased with the architectural design adopted by the Land Commission for their houses. Formerly, such houses were as uniform as a rubber stamp.

302. Chairman.—Paragraph 35 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:

“35. Formal agreements are not entered into with contractors who hire machinery to the Land Commission for improvement works. In reply to my inquiry I was informed that the Land Commission had found that the simple procedure which it followed led to no legal or other difficulty in practice over many years but that the question of adopting more formal procedure had been receiving attention and that further consideration would be expedited.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The present position is that a simple form of agreement has been drafted and has been approved by the Land Commission’s solicitor.

303. Chairman.—What type of machinery do you hire on these occasions?— Mostly dragline excavators and dumpers for use on embankment work.

304. Could you give us an approximate annual charge for hire?—For the current year, from 1st April, 1962, to this morning, we had 60 instances of hire of this type of machine at an overall cost of £15,000.

Deputy Clinton.—I assume there are standard rates for various types of heavy machinery—per hour rates—that are well acknowledged?—Yes, pretty well acknowledged fixed rates exist throughout the country ranging from 30/- to 50/-per hour, depending on the type of machinery.

Deputy Clinton.—It is presumed that they are working during that hour; it is the same with local authorities.

305. Deputy Booth.—Is this new form of agreement now in operation or is it only now about to be put into operation?

Mr. Suttle.—I do not know whether it has gone into operation yet.

Mr. O’Brien.—It has gone into operation this week; a fundamental point is that the person employed is committed and engaged as a contractor and not as a workman.

306. Deputy Carter.—You refer to a simple procedure. Was he employed as a worker under that procedure?—The question never arose; it would only have arisen if there had been a serious accident or injury or damage of any kind and, in fact, that did not arise. We are generally called upon to use these machines in rather unpredictable situations following storms, when embankments are breached, and if we did not do the remedial job very quickly the breach could widen with every tide. So, we engage a machine on the spot, in the locality, and try to get it done quickly. Otherwise, it could cost an enormous sum of money to close breaches. What we had been doing previously by way of hirage was on an order form but, in future, we shall get the person performing the service to perform it for us under a formal written contract agreement.

307. Deputy Kenny.—Does the contractor contract at the beginning of the year for any work that may happen during the year?—No.

How do you predict that an embankment may burst?—We do not know until the very moment it bursts in a storm and then we engage a contractor in the next 24 hours to meet an emergency situation.

And make him sign a contract form? —Yes. We get the usual three tenders, if we can, and take the lowest and try to get the operator working on the site within the day.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—As a matter of urgency?—Yes.

308. Chairman.—On subhead C.—Legal Expenses—I take it there were fewer cases of default?—Yes. We had 27,000 warrants to issue that year where the normal run woud be just over 30,000.

309. On subhead D.—Statutory Contributions to Land Bond Fund and Local Loans Fund—could you tell me the total number of bonds issued during the year? —That year, £760,000 of bonds issued of which £600,000 were issued in the earlier part of the accounting year and therefore had to be serviced for a longer period; that was the cause of the small excess.

310. How is the Land Commission’s liability in respect of these bonds assessed?—The Land Commission would have to service them as to interest and sinking fund. The principal item in subhead D. is a sum of about £750,000 representing the deficiency arising from the halving of the 1923 Act annuities under the Land Act, 1933. The half annuity payable by tenants goes into the Land Bond Fund, that is a fund which has full commitments as to interest and sinking fund to the Bond holders. No deficiency is allowable in respect of that fund and to the extent that there is a deficiency by reason of the halving of the annuities that deficiency has to be made good to the amount of £750,000 out of this subhead.

311. Deputy Kenny.—On subhead G.— Purchase of Interests for Cash—why does the Land Commission pay some people for their land in bonds and others in cash?—The instances in which we pay cash for land are purchases made under sections 27 and 28 of the Land Act, 1950. Under these sections the Land Commission was given power either to buy by public auction or private treaty for cash in certain very limited cases; the cases are statutorily restricted to lands required for the purpose of migration or for the rearrangement of holdings held in rundale or inter-mixed plots. These lands are paid for in cash. All other transactions for the purchase of land are financed by means of Land Bonds. The principal reason for dealing with those particular cases in cash was that we would want to get certain land quickly; occasionally, in a congested district, a small holding could come up which we would like to pick up very quickly in the interests of a re-grouping scheme. We confined cash purchases to the congested districts in the early years of operation—the first four or five years. In latter years the system has been generally extended especially to counties in Leinster which might be regarded as reception counties for migrants and we now may buy substantial holdings there for cash.

312. Deputy Clinton.—Could I have some idea of the area represented by those purchases and the average price per acre? —In that particular year we bought 23 properties containing 2,525 acres for £135,800. The average is £55 per acre.

It looks a very small price?—The quality of the land varies a good deal. You may get a very poor holding in Galway or Mayo and it might be as low as £18 or £20 per acre and, on the other side of the scale, you get 340 acres—we had one that year—in Kildare, near Naas, for £34,000. That is exactly £100 an acre.

313. Chairman.—I notice the estimate was increased over that of the previous year by £40,000. Does this indicate that the Land Commission is beginning to favour cash as against bond purchases? —That trend is there. I do know that people generally prefer to be paid in cash rather than bonds. The subhead has gone up considerably in recent years and the tendency may continue that way. Personally, I would have no objection at all if it did though I can say that the current issue of bonds at 6 per cent is at par in fact, a trifle over par; they were 100½ quite recently.

I take it the advantage is the expedition with which you may acquire land in certain areas?—That is right.

314. Deputy Carter.—Had you any transactions under the subhead for resumed holdings?—Yes, but they are very small. They represent a residue of cases being resumed on estates of the former Congested Districts Board. The Land Bond system as such never applied to the estates of the Congested Districts Board and we had no other means of financing these purchases except by cash. There is only a very trifling sum involved; the total amount of cash issued in that year for these holdings was £1,015. It rarely exceeds that because there are now very few such holdings which can be resumed by the Land Commission.

315. Deputy Kenny.—What is the procedure of buying at a public auction? Supposing the Land Commission is outbid at a public auction for a holding of land, does it ever withhold sanction for that sale?—No. The Land Commission, if it bids at a public auction, would attend in precisely the same way as any other bidder and claim no other rights.

Supposing the Land Commission were interested first in a holding of land and a public auction were held at which the Land Commission was outbid, it would not withhold sanction for the sale of that land?—It would depend on whether the owner was trying a quick one on the Land Commission; occasionally that does happen. Normally the Land Commission would be aware of the proposed sale, from inspectors in the field and would have issued notice in advance of the auction advertisement; an orthodox auctioneer would read out at the auction that the Land Commission had served notice.

Served notice to acquire?—Served notice to inspect or acquire.

Supposing that notice had not been served and the Land Commission were outbid, it would not withhold sanction for the sale then—perhaps it is not in your bailiwick?—It is in my bailiwick but I could not answer it in a general way.

316. Deputy Cunningham.—When it is proposed to purchase land by public auction, is it the local officer who does it? —Not always. In fact, we might try to arrange that it would be an inspector from a different district who would not be identifiable at the auction.

Secondly, is the value of the farm determined in your minds in advance? In other words does the inspector go there with an open cheque or does he go there with an instruction “Thus far shalt thou go”?—Yes.

Who gives the instruction?—That is given by the Commissioners. It is a matter reserved to them. The land has been inspected and valued before auction takes place, a price put on it, and the inspector gets a ceiling instruction.

Deputy Kenny.—At auctions do you pay in cash or in bonds?—In cash.

317. Chairman.—On subhead H.— Gratuities to Ex-Employees—what is the maximum gratuity now payable?— About £200. In that particular year £4,500 was paid to 21 persons, that is an average of £215 per person. The amount is based on such factors as length of employment, age, personal and family circumstances and possibility of alternative employment.

318. Deputy P. J. Burke.—In regard to subhead I.—Improvement of Estates, etc. —road improvement is a very big problem. We have been up against it in County Dublin and I suppose the same applies in other areas in cases where the roads are not up to the necessary standard in the first instance and the local authority have refused to take them over. Have you decided to take any action in connection with the improvement of roads going into estates?—The Land Commission is not a roads body at all except by way of first instance. When estates are being divided accommodation roads are built to a standard sufficient to satisfy the wants of the farmers residing on the estate and it is up to the farmers themselves to keep the road in good condition if it is merely an accommodation road. If it is a link road we generally build it to a standard which ought to satisfy the county council and expect the council to take it over for future maintenance thereafter.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—I suppose it is a problem that I shall have to raise at another stage. Thank you, Mr. O’Brien.

319. Deputy Lalor.—I should like to enquire about the responsibility of the allottee to pay back certain costs in connection with the improvement of his estate. Does that come under this subhead or under Appropriations in Aid?

Mr. Suttle.—Under both.

Deputy Lalor.—In connection with fencing charges there seems to be an arrangement whereby an allottee is informed by the local Land Commission official that he will be asked to pay a certain amount. He is also told that it is optional. Quite often he feels that, although it may be optional, if he does not do it, perhaps he will not get the land. What is the position in that regard? The position does exist, does it not?—I am not aware of it. All I do know is that all the money provided for the improvement of estates, roads, field drainage, fencing, is initially provided in the vote by means of grant but we do not spend it all as a free grant. We spend about 88 per cent of it by means of free grant and about 12 per cent is made by repayable advances, which is a very small percentage. In that year we spent £622,664 and all of that was free grant except £78,000 which was made repayable by the various tenants getting land but the amount put on any allottee is pretty small.

320. The annoying feature about it is that there is, apparently, an arrangement whereby this is optional. They are asked to pay so much and an allottee may say that he will not be in a position to pay. Whatever money he has will be put into seeds and manure during the following year. Another person may pay. A certain amount of dissension is created locally. Some people have paid; some people have not paid. I am in no doubt about that. Men have written to the Land Commission saying they cannot pay and that is all they have heard about it. Other men have gone to their public representative and the public representative makes representations and is told they cannot be let off?—I am not aware of that happening in any regular fashion. Could I inquire whether the amount is expected to be paid in cash there and then?

Yes, there and then?—What is generally done is, if there is £100 expended on fencing upwards of £80 of that would be given out as a free grant and £20 would be recovered by means of advances. He would pay only about £1 a year, added to his annuity, for that £20 but would not be asked to pay £20 in cash.

That has happened this year?—There have been a very few cases in recent years where in the course of the carrying out of improvement works we have asked tenants to make some direct contribution towards the cost of the improvements but it is entirely optional and voluntary whether they do so or not and it will not make any difference whatever whether they give it or refuse to give it. Occasionally a small farmer would offer to give a week’s free labour instead of paying £10 in cash. They have done that.

Yes. That is the point I am trying to get after. You say it is really optional whether they give it or not. In my experience people who have been told that and who have said they cannot pay are now being told they must pay?—No. The total amount in voluntary contributions and free labour given at the request of inspectors by allottees would not have exceeded £2,500 of the £622,000 in that year.

Chairman.—Does that satisfy Deputy Lalor?

Mr. O’Brien.—I saw the return for Laois-Offaly for a recent three months period and the return was nil.

321. Deputy Kenny.—When you are rearranging an estate, the Land Commission makes an estimate of the rearrangement cost?—Yes.

Have you ever come across instances where, when the money that is provided is all spent, the Land Commission leaves some work undone?—If the work is not finished within the estimate, the sanction would have to be increased and is increased sufficiently to carry out the work. The work is never allowed to be left half-done.

322. It is a question of fencing again. We often hear complaints that the Land Commission does not finish the fencing. Whether that is true or false, we usually make representations and get a reply?— A good deal of that may be false in the sense that people who receive land will expect the Land Commission to do all the internal fencing of fields. The Land Commission will not do that and makes it clear to them that they will do only the external fences.

The mearing fences?—The mearing fences, but not the internal fencing.

I am giving that as our experience in such cases?—I realise that complaints are made to the Deputies sometimes about lack of fencing but a good deal of them are not justified.

323. Deputy Carter.—In regard to nurses’ cottages, for how many of these cottages are you responsible?—There are only about 12 or 15 of these cottages left which we inherited from the Congested Districts Board who provided them for the Lady Dudley Scheme. The old Board was responsible for a variety of functions, including welfare, and looked after some nursing services.

324. Chairman.—On subhead K.—Losses by Default, Accident, etc.—the second item in the explanatory notes refers to a fire. Last year there was reference to a fire also?—This is the same fire but £250 of it was paid in the previous year and £36 remained to be paid in the year 1961-62, that is the year of account; this is just a final balance of the restoration costs of the same building.

325. In regard to the next item—£140— refund of half the balance of a rent due under a grazing agreement—what were the circumstances in regard to this refund?— It was a curious sort of case which I shall advise the Committee about. Part of an estate in Meath was let by our auctioneers from January, 1958 to December, 1958, to a cattle dealer at a rent of £324 6s. 0d., of which a deposit of £44 6s. 6d. was paid by him on the signing of the grazing agreement. The balance of £279 19s. 6d. which under the terms of the agreement was payable on or before 1st September, 1958 was received from the auctioneers on the 29th August, two days in advance. It was learned from the auctioneers that they had themselves paid this latter amount and had been unable to recover it from the lettee. In November, 1959, at the auctioneers’ request, the Land Commission assigned the debt to them to enable them to institute proceedings against the lettee for the recovery of the amount due. A circuit court judgement, by default of appearance was obtained by the auctioneers on 29th June, 1960, for £280. An execution order issued in July, 1960 and in August, 1960 the county Sherriff made a return of nulla bona. The Land Commission Inspectors in the area reported the defaulter was deemed by the auctioneers to be a good mark. He proved himself dishonest, however sold his stock before the end of the grazing season and failed to pay the balance due on foot of the letting. He went to England and from reports received there would appear to be very little hope of recovering any of the debt. The auctioneers asked that the Land Commission should refund the amount of £279 19s. 6d. paid by them and stated that they, as is their policy towards clients, paid the Land Commission in good faith of collecting the rent as it became due. There were a lot of arguments pro and con. There were strong arguments against making a full refund. The Land Commission was advised by its solicitor that there was no legal obligation to refund the money. The assignment of the debt to the auctioneers appeared to have fully discharged our legal liability. The auctioneers had a prosperous business and in their circumstances might be expected at least to share the loss equally with the Land Commission and it was our duty to keep charges down to the minimum consistent with efficient performance of our services. Against these arguments it is only fair to consider that the auctioneers paid the amount without any obligation to do so two days before the due date, in good faith of collecting it from the lettee. While these auctioneers were not on the department’s panel, they promptly and efficiently handled any business we gave them and had always been exceptionally co-operative with our inspectors in the area, that is, Meath, a very fruitful area for getting land, also they had taken every effective step necessary for the recovery of the debt up to the point of the execution of the court order which resulted in a nulla bona return. They relieved the department of the administrative costs, ordinarily arising out of delays and defaults, as well as the legal costs of the proceedings; refund of the full amount claimed would be a very small price to pay for the goodwill, not only of these auctioneers but also of other auctioneers with whom we do business. That was the general pro and con type of argument that was engaged in in the Department. We realised there was a good deal to be said in favour of full refund. The inescapable fact is that had the money not so trustingly—too trustingly as it turned out—been remitted by the auctioneers, the bad debt and associated costs would have been the Land Commission’s. However, as accounting officer, I was able to think that public conscience in the matter might deem itself at rest if the incidence or impact of the debt were jointly shared, that is shared equally between the Land Commission and the auctioneers. For that reason, it was recommended that half the sum sought be refunded to the auctioneers and the Minister for Finance concurred and accepted that view.

326. Deputy Cunningham.—Is it not usual for auctioneers when letting land to have a third party who will go bond for a person taking conacre? I know of a number of people who were stung by carrying out that corporal work of mercy. Was that not the case here? Was there a third party who had gone surety?— No. The auctioneer paid in good faith. He made the letting on behalf of the Land Commission to this particular dealer. There was a certain amount that had to be paid on deposit on the signing of the agreement and the remainder was to be remitted before a certain date. In advance of that date the auctioneer himself paid in the amount and failed to collect it from the lettee but there was no question of a bond. I do not think it is common in Leinster or Munster. I have heard it does operate in some of the Northern counties.

Deputy Cunningham.—Yes. In respect of every land letting in the North the auctioneer ensures that he has security for the person taking the land and I have known several people who went security who had to fork out fairly hefty sums when the person who took the land in conacre defaulted.

Deputy Kenny.—That is not conacre from the Land Commission, is it?

Deputy Cunningham.—It is conacre but not from the Land Commission. But why should an auctioneer, instead of salting a surety, salt the Land Commission?

327. Deputy P. J. Burke.—I presume you have very few examples of broken faith of this kind in the letting of land? —Very few; it happened that faith was broken with the auctioneer in this case.

That is true, but the percentage is very small?—Very trifling, overall.

Deputy Cunningham.—This is the first time it did happen that you had a transaction of that kind?—The first time, yes.

328. Seeing that the Land Commission do carry out a good deal of lettings and seeing that this is the first and in view of the way it has been dealt with, would it not be better for the Land Commission to ensure that their auctioneers do make bond arrangements in future?—I would not think so. I do not see how that could be enforced. The auctioneers themselves are bonded, of course, to the sum of £2,000 lodged in the High Court or fidelity bond to that extent. That is a bond of good and proper performance of their own duties. But, to get somebody to go as surety in the letting of land would be quite uncommon, I think, and it might put a serious brake on the letting of land. We would, for example, and very often do in the case of building contractors, require a fidelity bond or surety that the contract will be carried out but the letting of land is such a varied affair and there would be so many individual persons engaged competing in it at a given time that I would think that a surety bond would not be feasible.

It is purely a matter for the auctioneer to safeguard himself, to make sure that if he is dealing with an estate he gets some security. I know that?—It is.

329. Chairman.—In regard to Item No. 4—Compensation for damage to crops caused by trespassing cattle—why was it the Land Commission was held to be liable rather than the owners of the trespassing cattle?—In that case about 108 Irish acres in Meath were let in grazing by auction to a tenant from May 1961 to February 1962, at a rent of £650. In August a claim was made on behalf of a farmer who owns lands adjoining the area of land let, for compensation for damage caused to his crops by stock trespassing from the lettee’s division. The amount of compensation claimed was £80 plus 1 guinea costs. The Land Commission Inspector reported that stock from the lettee’s division had trespassed on to the farmer’s lands and that the fences at the points of break-through would normally be considered stock-proof; the cause of the trespass was unusually unsettled behaviour of the lettee’s stock, which included two one-and-a-half year old Friesian bulls, two bull stags and 85 mature bullocks. The Land Commission got legal advice that they were liable to the farmer and should settle for the lowest possible figure. A settlement of £25, without prejudice or admission of liability of the Land Commission, was negotiated with the farmer’s solicitors. In effect, we lost £25 of the £650 rent. On the general question about liability in these cases, I know that we have been legally advised that it is not possible to contract out of every liability in the case of letting agreements. There is a huge variety of these things and we cannot always be sure what a court will do or how it will interpret our responsibility in any given case and if the case is doubtful and we can settle for a small sum out of court we prefer to do that and that is what we did here.

330. Deputy Cunningham.—That is reasonable. In regard to subhead L— Preservation and Improvement of Game Resources—has it become the practice to rent these game preserves or resources to local game councils or game associations? —Yes. In the making of leases of game rights, either in the hands of the Land Commission or Forestry Division, there is a decided preference in favour of local gun clubs and game associations.

Does that account for the reduction of £5,000? These people generally do their own preserving, do they not?—Yes—the lessees do. But this sum was actually for schemes that were to be prepared by regional game councils for game development purposes. This was the first year that money was voted for the purpose and a sufficient number of schemes did not come in in the year. We expected to have about 20 regional game councils in operation throughout the country and within the particular year there were but eight or nine schemes implemented. These game development schemes are generally devoted to vermin destruction and restocking.

331. Chairman.—I take it schemes have been submitted more promptly this year? —They have; the entire grant is likely to be paid.

Deputy Cunningham.—A grant towards these schemes?—Yes.

Deputy Carter.—Had you many grants? —In that year, 1961-62, we approved grants to regional game councils in Cork, Donegal, South Dublin, Kerry, Kildare, Laois, North Leitrim, Longford, Louth, Mayo, Meath, Offaly, Roscommon, Tipperary and Wexford.

Mr. P. J. Burke.—Could you tell me how much you gave towards South Dublin? —The sum for South Dublin that year was very small; they asked for £112 and got it.

Deputy Kenny.—What did you give Mayo?—£750.

Is that the maximum?—Do you mean was it the maximum that year? Cork got £445; Roscommon, £242. Mayo seems to have been the highest that year but other counties have since gone higher. There was only £2,000 spent that year; in the current year the expenditure will be six times that amount.

Deputy Treacy.—Can you give me the figure for Tipperary?—In that particular year the figure for Tipperary S.R. was £216.

332. Deputy Kenny.—Are the Land Commission preserves separate from the Forestry preserves?—I do not quite know what the Deputy means by separate? They are leased separately.

There is reafforestation in most counties. There are miles and miles of mountain. Does the Land Commission look after the mountain and do the Forestry Division look after the afforested places?—Yes, that could be right for leasing purposes.

Two different bodies for improvement of game resources?—No. Actually, both the Land Commission and the Forestry Division will lease their rights separately.

Through the Land Commission?— Through the Land Commission or through the Forestry Division. But there is a single Game Section as such for development schemes.

Involving the two bodies—the Land Commission and the Forestry Section?— Yes. For the management of these development schemes in particular we have a single game section. Any good lessee of sporting rights will try to embrace the entire area—open land and forest land—at the same time.

And will deal directly for those two matters through the Land Commission?— He could go through Forestry Division for a lease on State forest land. They are both under the one Department.

Deputy Cunningham.—And do the schemes embrace private land also? Do they take in everything?—Yes, including land owned privately. Gun clubs are very active in all of this.

333. In regard to the Appropriations in Aid, when an allottee migrant is given a holding and when he sells that holding is he required to refund any moneys to the Land Commission?—It would depend on the particular circumstances of any given case. If the land is vested in the allottee, he is a completely free seller and retains the money himself, and there is no repayment. If, on the other hand, after a short period, perhaps two or three years, he makes application for permission to sell, that is generally resisted, because the Land Commission when giving out land is obliged to have regard to the fact that the person receiving it intends to work it and not sell, let or assign it. So, there would be a certain amount of misgiving about giving permission to a man to sell within a short period. If it happened—we would normally refuse such an application. If however, there were exceptional reasons, say, a husband had died leaving a widow and young family and the widow could not manage the holding, we would give permission to sell on condition that some of the money expended by the Land Commission would be refunded out of the sale price. Generally, it might be a sum of £400 or £500 in cash, depending on the circumstances.

VOTE 40—FORESTRY.

Mr. T. O’Brien further examined

334. Chairman.—On subhead C.3.— Sawmilling—do you keep any accounts which would show that sawmilling is an economic business?—We do; the Forestry Accountant keeps a trading account in respect of the two sawmills at Cong and Dundrum. That at Cong is doing well and showing a profit for the last year or two but the unit at Dundrum is not doing quite so well.

335. Deputy Kenny.—During the year I think the workers at Cong put in a claim for an increase in wages. Did they ever get it?—The matter is still under negotiation with the unions, I think.

It is a good while since these negotiations first started?—The workers in both Dundrum and Cong sawmills are involved and there is some little difficulty about what union represents them.

I understand they were on different rates of pay. Is that right?—No; they were at different rates at times in the past but the Committee may take it that at present the rates of pay for both Dundrum and Cong are the same. There may be a short period of divergence, but the general idea is to have both the same.

The negotiations are not finished?— The negotiations are not finished at the moment.

336. Chairman.—Could we have any information in regard to the trading transactions? There was a direct expenditure of £20,000 and you received £40,000? —Yes.

Do you produce a trading account?— Yes; we have a trading account but it does not form part of the Appropriation Account. The receipts of £40,000 shown here, were in respect of timber supplied to local customers—merchants, builders, etc.—but there is also material in the form of fencing posts, and portable timber shelters which go into our own forests and credit is not taken for that in this account. There are other items like gates and posts also provided for departmental use and none of these figure here.

337. Deputy Booth.—Are we to understand that the actual expenditure of £20,365 represents the total cost of running the two sawmills?—Yes.

Does that make any provision for the transport of timber to the sawmill or does it represent only the cost of the material itself?—It includes the transport cost but not the value of the timber itself.

It would not be correct, then, to say if you balance the £20,365 against the figure shown in the Appropriation in Aid of £40,764, that the difference between them is net profit?—You are quite correct; it would not.

Could you make a copy of that account available to the Committee?—If the Committee would wish to have it, I can supply it, Sir.

Chairman.—I think the Members feel that that would be helpful.

Deputy Booth.—Over a number of years. It might create a precedent at this stage which might be helpful.

Chairman.—You may be able to supply it for the last three years?—Yes.*

338. On subhead D.—Grants for Afforestation Purposes—you still seem to have some difficulty in getting this private planting scheme going?—Yes. We spent only £12,000 that year. The number of acres approved for grants that year was 1,080, I think. We have been carrying out an intensive campaign in favour of private planting. We have covered 14 counties with these intensive campaigns and have had lectures at various centres. Nearly 300 such lectures have been given altogether. This year we have changed a little and are concentrating on Press publicity and also on the giving of lectures in the winter farm school classes.

Deputy Cunningham.—Certainly, I would welcome that change. No matter how extensively people may read, actual practice is more important. The best way is to get some local person to give a lecture and to show the people how to plant and to explain as to the best types of soil. The problem for people undertaking planting is when to plant, the most suitable type of soil and how to plant. They may see endless advertisements and yet may be held back for lack of such knowledge?—We have a free technical advisory service and will supply advice at any time to anybody. In fact, the lecturers who went around were qualified foresters who exhibited films and slides.

Deputy Cunningham.—That type of thing is good.

339. Chairman.—On subhead E.—Forestry Education—do you intend to go ahead with reconstruction of Avondale House?—We do.

For what purposes do you intend to use it?—It will be used mainly for refresher courses for foresters and forestry inspectors—intensive refresher courses.

340. In the estimated expenditure of £30,000 for forestry education, £5,000 was estimated for Avondale House. Is that the estimated total cost of reconstruction? —It is not. I think that is just a sum inserted as an indication of the fact that expenditure would be committed to it but the roof of the building is quite bad, and so are other sections of it. The restoration of it will be a matter for the Office of Public Works; I have no information as to what the final cost will be.

Has there been any estimate made of that?—I do not recollect; it will not appear in this Vote any more. It will be entirely financed through the Office of Public Works Vote. It will not be referred to in this Forestry Vote any further.

We had an experience with Shelton Abbey?—Yes.

We can pursue it with the Office of Public Works at a later stage. In regard to the Losses subhead is there any question of negligence on the part of any of the Department’s employees in these losses? —No. The Department’s employees were not responsible. There was a change in the wind which caused the fire to get out of control. Every possible precaution had been taken.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—That is one thing we cannot control.

341. Deputy Booth.—In regard to item No. 4 of the Notes, a sum of £419 was written off in respect of damage caused to the Department’s machines arising from interference by unauthorised persons during non-working hours. Is that one disastrous instance or were there more than one?—There were actually three instances, but two of them were very small and trifling. One was for £3; one for £2 and the third was for £414. The £414 case arose like this: a crawler tractor was interfered with on the work site at Killorglin Forest during the week ended 28th July, 1960. The tractor was started and seemingly driven or allowed to travel out of control up the face of a sand quarry where it had been parked for the week end. The machine was extensively damaged. A preliminary notice of claim under the Malicious Injuries Act was served on the local authority by the State solicitor but subsequently was withdrawn on the advice of the Attorney General. Three youths were charged with the offence and the Probation Act was applied with a warning from the judge. The boys were all just in or about 14 years of age and the feeling was that a malicious injury claim would not succeed. In the consideration of the case by the law officers a particular case of R. v. Cunningham, 1957, 2.Q.B. 396, was cited as indicating the case would not succeed.

342. Apart from that, is there no question of negligence so far as the immobilisation of such equipment is concerned? It seems odd that a vehicle such as that should be left in a driveable condition while parked outside working hours so that even boys of 14 years of age could start it?—It was a big, heavy type crawler tractor which it would be very costly to transfer off the worksite at weekends. I do not know what else we could do except leave it unattended at night. It is a common thing to see big county council machinery left unattended on the county roads at night.

I can see that you would probably have to leave it unattended but I imagine it must have been started up by the self-starter. I can hardly imagine that a boy of 14 could start a tractor with a starting handle. I thought it would be possible to immobilise a vehicle like that by disconnecting the electrical equipment. There is no question of an ignition key such as you get in a smaller vehicle. On these enormous vehicles, particularly a diesel vehicle, there is no ignition at all but there are ways of immobilising a diesel vehicle by cutting out the self-starter mechanism?—I did inquire about that and the answer given to me was that it was impossible completely to immobilise it. I do not know why, but I shall readily take it up again.

Deputy Booth.—From my own experience, the only way of doing it is to prevent the self-starter from working. You cannot prevent the engine starting up once it turns over. Being a diesel engine, it ignites itself but if Mr. O’Brien could look into it and see whether there is some way of preventing the self-starting mechanism working, it would be a good thing.

343. Deputy Carter.—Were these deficiencies mostly out of central stores or at other stores throughout the country. I refer to the sum of £76 mentioned as being written off in respect of deficiencies in tools and equipment?—The results of stocktaking that year were: tools lost at forest £68; loss of tools at central stores, £8.

344. What, roughly, was the average price the Department paid for land for forestry development?—There were 31,700 acres acquired that year for a price of £185,000, which is just under £6 per acre.

VOTE 41—FISHERIES.

Mr. T. O’Brien further examined

345. Chairman.—In connection with this Vote, paragraph 36 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“Subhead D.5. Compensation, etc.

36. There were no payments of compensation during the year but £1,129 was paid as interest under section 3 of the Freshwater Fisheries (Prohibition of Netting) Act, 1951 on compensation paid in previous years.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I understand there are three cases of compensation still outstanding and the amounts of compensation have been agreed but difficulties have arisen in connection with the proving of title.

Mr. O’Brien.—That is so; there are only three cases left.

Chairman.—You did not succeed in disposing of any outstanding cases this year?—No; there was £140,000 paid out altogether by way of compensation and there is £3,600 left for the remaining cases when title is clear.

346. Chairman.—Paragraph 37 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“Subhead E.2.—Deficit

37. The Committee of Public Accounts in its report on the accounts for 1959-60 referred to a deficiency of £186,000 in respect of repayable advances made to the former Sea Fisheries Association for which An Bord Iascaigh Mhara was made liable under section 27 of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952. As will be noted from the account this deficiency has been written off with the sanction of Dáil Éireann.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This is really an accounting transaction in that the amount of £186,000 is also shown in the Appropriations in Aid. It is a write off—in respect of advances to the old Sea Fisheries Association, and the amount is calculated as the difference between the total amount outstanding at 31st March, 1960— £317,974, and the approximate value of the assets of the former Sea Fisheries Association held by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, against these advances. It is a transaction going back over 30 years, I suppose.

Mr. O’Brien.—Yes, going back to the year 1930.

Chairman.—How does An Bord Iascaigh Mhara deal with the repayable advances since it was first set up?—It was set up in 1952 and is making its regular annuity payments.

347. Chairman.—Paragraph 38 of the Report of Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“Salmon Conservancy Fund

38. The income of the Fund is derived from levies on exports of salmon, from excess duty on salmon rod licences and from contributions from the vote. Payments are made from the Fund to Boards of Conservators of such sums as the Minister may think fit to supplement their incomes and towards expenses incurred in connection with any scheme for the improvement of inland fisheries. An account of the receipts and payments is appended to the appropriation account.”

Have you any comment, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—No. The paragraph is for information.

348. Chairman.—Do all Boards of Conservators receive an amount from the Fund to supplement their incomes? —Yes; the whole object of the fund is to enlarge the incomes of Boards of Conservators.

How are these amounts determined as between the various boards?—What the Board would have remitted in the line of excess duty on salmon rod licences would be taken into account but, in relation to the salmon export levy, the Board’s allocation would be practically according to its needs, not strictly according to its needs, but pro rata according to the incidence of needs as between the various Boards.

Are these amounts sufficient to clear the Board’s deficits?—Generally they are, yes.

349. Deputy P. J. Burke.—I should like to get more information in regard to subhead C.2.—International Council for the Study of the Sea?—This International Council is called ICES. It was constituted at Copenhagen, in July, 1902, for the purpose of promoting international cooperation in the field of marine research and its principal task is to encourage investigations aimed at improving and protecting the stocks of food fishes. Its area of operation may be roughly defined as the Eastern North Atlantic Ocean and contiguous or adjacent seas, including Greenlandic and Icelandic waters. There are 16 member countries: Belguim, Denmark, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Great Britain, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the U.S.S.R.

350. Chairman.—On subhead C. 5.— Training Schemes for Fishermen—there seems to be no improvement in relation to these schemes?—Not anything like the improvement we had expected.

Has anything been done about it?— There was a White Paper issued during the current year in relation to Sea Fisheries and training was emphasised there again. The results to date, if you wish to have them, are 30 fishermen have completed courses and 28 of these received certificates of competency under the scheme for training experienced fishermen as skippers. Then there are 35 boys at present in training on selected fishing boats and 27 others are now in receipt of shares as ordinary crew members of fishing boats, having completed training.

351. Deputy Cunningham.—In relation to subhead D.1.—Payments to Boards of Conservators and Local Authorities, etc, —the explanatory note says that the excess was due to increased losses of revenue by local authorities due to exemption of fishery hereditaments from local rates. Is this something new?—No. The position is that fishery hereditaments are declared exempt from liability for local authority rates and to compensate local authorities for the consequent loss of income it is provided that, where by reason of such exemption the local rate required to be made in any year has been increased by an amount greater than 1d. in the £, the local authority is to be paid out of voted moneys—from this subhead—a sum equivalent to what would be produced by a rate of the amount in the £ in excess of the first 1d. of increase. That has been the rule since 1925.

352. Deputy Lalor.—This £31,000 to Boards of Conservators and local authorities—how is that worked out? Some local authorities get more than others?—Yes.

What would the Laois County Council get out of that?—They would get a quota of it in so far as there would be fishery hereditaments in the county that were subject to rates which are not payable to the county council as such but to the Board of Fishery Conservators. We would make good the bulk of that loss to the county council through this Vote for the reason that the county council are deprived of the rates on the fishery hereditament. I do not know what fraction Laois-Offaly would get; I do not happen to have that figure. It would be very low because there are not many fishery hereditaments in Laois-Offaly.

Deputy Lalor.—We are developing some trouble there with Boards of Conservators.

Deputy Cunningham.—Would not this be a fixed sum annually—or does it vary? —It varies with the rates.

353. Deputy Carter.—In respect of subhead D. 8.—Pond Fish Culture—how many fish ponds would be what would be deemed to be experimental units? How many of the units would represent experimental units, roughly?—There are four demonstration units in operation. Two units were completed that year, one at Ballymote, County Sligo and one at Raford near Athenry. There are now two large scale commercial units, one at Woodenbridge and one at Waterville, which have nothing to do with this subhead; four demonstration units—Glen of Aherlow. Enniscorthy, Raford and Ballymote—and two private small scale units at Thurles and Thomastown are all in operation—and a double demonstration unit is in course of construction at Mullingar.

354. Chairman.—In regard to subhead D.9.—Contributions to the Salmon Conservancy Fund—there was somewhat the same explanation last year—“insufficiently advanced.” What is the reason for the delay? Is this the same explanation as last year?—It is, yes.

What is the reason for the delay?—— Again, it was difficulty in getting a contractor to do some of the construction work. It would then have been a question of direct labour.

Deputy Booth.—Is it the same hatchery as we had last year that is involved?— It is the hatchery at Cong actually. It became necessary to arrange for a direct labour job by the Board of Conservators themselves.

355. Deputy P. J. Burke.—In relation to subhead E.1.—Grant-in-Aid of Administration and Development—you have in mind to settle up that long outstanding account with me in relation to Skerries? —The cost of harbour improvements is a matter for the Office of Public Works.

356. Deputy Carter.—In regard to subhead F.—Technical Assistance—roughly, what type of assistance would be deemed to be technical in that sense?—Mainly visits abroad. I think, and bringing in consultants from abroad.

Had you any consultants employed in that period?——The main one we had that year was Mr. Bjuke, the harbour consultant.

That would relate to harbours only?— It related to major fishery harbours, yes.

357. Chairman.—In regard to No. 8 in the Appropriations in Aid—the deficit in receipts was due to delay in commencement of a number of projects, according to the note. What were these delays or why were there these delays in the projects?—That corresponds to subhead F.-Technical Assistance. We had hoped to spend £2,600 but spent only £1,000. We had hoped to get back £1,750, but got back only £100. It was mainly inability of staff to tackle projects.

358. In regard to Item No. 10 which explains that two officers were seconded for special duties, what were the special duties?—One, a Higher Executive Officer. was assigned to Córas Tráchtála for most of the year and another, a biologist, was assigned late in the year to the Salmon Research Trust and their salaries were recouped to our Vote.

The witness withdrew.

The committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XXI.

* See Appendix XXII.