Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1965 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1963 - 1964

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 11 Samhain, 1965.

Thursday, 11th November, 1965.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY JONES in the chair.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Mr. L. V. O’Neill (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 37—LANDS.

Mr. T. O’Brien called and examined.

441. Chairman.—Paragraph 42 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead I.—Improvement of Estates, etc.

42. A sum of £1,210 was transferred to the Public Trustee in 1952-53 to form a trust fund for the maintenance of the water supply system on an estate which had been acquired by the Land Commission. I have inquired why sums amounting to £156, paid from the Vote between 1955 and 1960 for the maintenance of the water supply system, were not recovered from the trust fund. I have also inquired if any portion of the cost of caretaking on the estate, borne on the Land Purchase Account No. 3 (Rent and Interest), falls to be recouped from this fund.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This matter was raised because it appeared that items of expenditure charged to the Vote and to the Land Purchase Account No. 3 over a number of years should have been, either wholly or partly, recovered from the Trust Fund. In reply to my inquiry the Accounting Officer has informed me that a sum of £459 has since been recovered from the Trust Fund and disposed of by crediting £156 to the Vote and £303 to the Land Purchase Account No. 3.

442. Chairman.—What were the circumstances in which this Trust Fund was set up?

Mr. O’Brien.—The Land Commission had taken possession of a 500 acre estate at Trabolgan, Co. Cork. Trabolgan was waterless except for a small stream which the former owner had harnessed with a hydraulic ram which pumped the water to a system of field troughs and some large storage reservoirs. A Trust Fund of £1,210 for the maintenance of the water supply was set up; this sum would be repaid by the tenants themselves. Of the total sum of £1,210 comprising the Trust Fund, the major portion of £1,170 was transferred to the Public Trustee in March, 1952 and the balance of £40 was transferred in November, 1953. Incidentally, that £40 was actually a contribution from the Office of Public Works to secure a water supply for the Meteorological Station established there. It was considered appropriate that the expenditure incurred by the Land Commission on the caretaking and maintenance of the water supply system for the period subsequent to March 1952 would be charged against the Trust Fund. A sum of £196 was spent on maintenance of the water supply system and of this £156 was recouped in October, 1964, £40 having been previously recouped. There were also some caretaking duties involved in relation to plantations and lands on hands so an apportionment of the cost of caretaking was necessary. The apportioned amount applicable to caretaking of the water supply was £303 6s. 11d. and this sum was recouped to the Land Purchase Account No. 3 from the Trust Fund in October, 1964. I can also say that the Cork County Council have now extended a regional water scheme to serve the holdings formerly supplied by the Trust Scheme. Arrangements are in hands for winding up of the Trust and when that occurs, the Fund will be handed over to the Cork County Council to partly offset the expenditure incurred in bringing in the regional water supply.

Deputy Kenny.—How many were originally involved?—13.

443. Chairman.—Have the lands been allocated since?—Yes. There is one small outstanding matter in relation to a school, that is, the Irish school which was established at Trabolgan. It is operated by Gaelachas Teoranta which would be expected to contribute £1,000 towards the cost of the regional scheme. They have not so far done so and they are continuing to use the old supply system the Land Commission had in force. That will all be dealt with as part of the winding up process.

Deputy Healy.—The Irish school out there will find it extremely difficult to get £1,000.

444. Chairman.—Paragraph 43 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Suspense Account

43. In April 1963 the Land Commission consented to part of the proposals of a landowner for the sub-division of his holding but refused its consent to the remainder of the proposals. Acting on legal advice the Land Commission subsequently agreed to the subdivision as originally proposed and paid £650, damages to the owner. This sum has been charged to a suspense account and I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding its clearance.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—I understand, that with the sanction of the Department of Finance, the Suspense Account has been cleared by charging the £650 to losses in the Vote for the current year.

445. Deputy Kenny.—What kind of proposals did the Land Commission not agree to?

Mr. O’Brien.—They declined to agree to a certain sub-division proposal. It was not a straight-forward case as far as the Land Commission were concerned. It was a Co. Leix property and a landowner there had 400 acres in which the Land Commission had been interested; they had moved to acquire it compulsorily in 1959, the owner objected, won his objection, and there the matter ended at that time. But, in 1962, he offered to sell them 220 of the 400 acres and they entered into negotiations on price. During the currency of these negotiations, the owner agreed to sell the same area in two lots, one of 133 acres and another of 87 acres to two purchasers at a level of price which was better than the Land Commission offer at that time. These proposed sales necessitated a subdivision which had to get the Land Commission’s consent. The Land Commission did consent to the 87 acre sale but did not consent to the 133 acre sale, as it was known that this latter area was suitable and needed for deserving smallholders. At the same time, I can say the Land Commission agreed to match the higher price offered for the 133 acres by the other proposed purchaser. In approving the 87 acre sale, the Land Commission took cognizance of the fact that the proposed purchaser of that area was a working farmer. In refusing the consent to the 133 acre sale, the Land Commission had in mind that the land was needed for the benefit of six neighbouring smallholders who otherwise would have no prospect of getting additional land, and also that the proposed purchaser of the 133 acres was not dependent on farming for a livelihood, being a shopkeeper and resident over three miles from the lands. He was also the proprietor of 54 acres of good land already. The overall owner took exception to the refusal of the Land Commission and served a High Court summons in the sum of £2,000, claiming that the Land Commission were wrongfully and without statutory authority, trying to exercise control with regard to the persons to whom he might sell the 133 acres and were endeavouring to coerce him to sell the lands to them, that is, to us. The Land Commission took counsel’s opinion then as to their own position and counsel was not satisfied that the Land Commission’s case was clear or free from doubt. On counsel’s advice a sum of £650 was lodged in court with the Land Commission defence. There was no trial and settlement was subsequently reached for a sum of £800 and costs. The £650 lodged in court has, in fact, been claimed and disposed of and is now removed from suspense but the remaining sum of £150 and costs has not, so far, been claimed. I think our advisers may take the view that we might almost provoke or invite the plaintiff to claim this sum. I am inclined to take the view that it is not the place of the Department to press the plaintiff to claim money from the Department. On the general question of sub-division, the plaintiff probably had a point in challenging the right of the Land Commission to refuse subdivision where an economic holding was concerned. Our position on that matter has now been put beyond doubt, with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in the Land Act of 1965, where it is definitely laid down that the Land Commission shall not refuse an application for subdivision, except on the ground that it leads to the creation of uneconomic holdings. In other words, if the holdings created as a result of the subdivision are economic, the Land Commission cannot refuse to sanction that subdivision.

How eventually did the sale of the land go? Did the six congests eventually get additions?—No. The purchaser of the 133 acres was confirmed in his purchase.

Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).— To put it in shorter words, I understand it arose because the Land Commission refused to sanction a subdivision which did not lead to economic holdings?— Exactly.

Deputy Burke.—Can this ever occur again?—It cannot occur again, by reason of the new statutory situation.

Deputy Kenny.—That is a very clarifying statement.

Deputy Burke.—I must say you have gone to a good deal of trouble in explaining the whole position to us.

446. Deputy Healy.—There might be a bill against the Department yet for expenses or costs. Is there any statutory period in which that would elapse or can it stay there for ever?—The Statute of Limitations would run against it in the ordinary way.

I think we should not take any action to invite a claim?—I concur in Deputy Healy’s view.

447. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary). —On subhead C.—Legal Expenses—I take it that the Land Commission now has its own legal staff and that these expenses are incurred through payment of their own legal staff, or do they engage special legal advisers outside?—Yes, the Land Commission have their own legal staff, a solicitor’s branch and an examiner’s Branch. There could be legal expenses where we would seek outside counsel’s opinion from time to time or be involved in costs; there would also be legal costs awarded to owners in the case of objections to acquisition. The other section of legal fees and costs arising under the subhead is a sum issued to county registrars for the levying of warrants. Each warrant for an unpaid instalment of annuity carries in the first instance a fee that is paid on issue to the county registrar. When the county registrar ultimately enforces the warrant, the fee is recovered with the annuity and it comes back into the Vote as an Appropriation-in-Aid.

448. Deputy Kenny.—Why is there such a delay in the Examiner’s Branch in regard to finalising of purchase agreements?—Do you mean the allocation of owner’s funds?

No. When the Land Commission purchase lands I have found there are complaints about the delay in paying and when inquiries are made it is usually found that those delays occurred in the Examiner’s Branch. Could you clarify this for us?—Up to this year the allocation of an owner’s purchase money has been in the hands of the Judicial Commissioner who is assisted by a number of examiners. In other words, we have a judicial allocation of that money. All sorts of inquiries and investigations have to be made into the charges against the funds; these could be State charges for income tax or death duties and bank charges, mortgage charges, etc. Notices have to be published in Iris Oifigiúil. It is a long time-consuming procedure but on the whole up to eight months ago I can assure the Committee there was no delay whatever in the Examiner’s Branch of the Land Commission. I would like to be quite definite about that. Occasionally the Examiner’s Branch was blamed for the delay when, in fact, title had not been lodged at all by or on behalf of the owner. I must concede that, for the past eight months, arrears have built up in the branch because one examiner died and one retired and were not replaced until this week. We have adjusted the system of judicial allocation; under the Land Act, 1965 the examiners themselves have now delegated authority to allocate.

Do the Examiner’s Branch employ barristers and solicitors?—Yes, both professions are employed as examiners.

449. Suppose a vendor to the Land Commission wants his purchase money from the Land Commission—he might be financially embarrassed—the only way he can do that is to employ a solicitor to ask the judicial commissioner to place his case on the priority list? Does that not mean a financial loss to him?—Possibly.

Do the Land Commission recoup his money to him?—I heard of two such cases in recent times and certainly I took the view myself that a solicitor should not be necessary to make this application. I requested the Chief Examiner to take a case out of priority himself and it was so done.

450. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary). —On subhead D.—Statutory Contributions to Land Bond Fund and Local Loans Fund—how much is for the Land Bond Fund and how much is for the Local Loans Fund?—About 99 per cent of it is for the Land Bond Fund. The main purpose of the big bulk of this subhead is to ensure that there is no deficiency in the Land Bond Fund, which was established by the Land Act of 1923; there is a statutory obligation to have no deficiency in that fund and to the extent that land annuities were halved by the Land Act, 1933 a tenant pays only half and the State pays the other half. The State half is voted here to the Land Commission to make good the deficiency to the Land Bond Fund; the halving of the annuities accounts for the major portion of the State contribution.

451. Apparently only a small percentage of the money is put into the Local Loans Fund. Could you explain its nature and its function in relation to the Land Commission because I understand it usually deals with county council affairs?—The original Land Acts of 1881 to 1889 involved a purchase money of £7 million, which was financed from the British Local Loans Fund, that is, the pre-1935 fund.

Chairman.—One is pre-1935 and the other is after 1935?—Yes.

452. Deputy Crowley.—On subhead G.— Purchase of Interests for Cash and Auctioneers’ Commission—what amount was for auctioneers’ fees?—We voted £20,000 and we paid £25,000. We have special standing arrangements with the auctioneers as regards commission; it is a rate of 5 per cent on the first £5,000 of purchase money, 3¾ per cent on the next £2,500, 2½ per cent on the next £2,500 and 1¼ per cent on the balance.

453. Deputy Kenny.—Regarding subhead H.—Gratuities to ex-Employees— on what basis are these gratuities estimated?—The amount is based on such factors as length of employment, personal and family circumstances and the possibility of alternative employment. That year we paid out £9,532 to 45 people, an average of £212 per person.

454. Chairman.—Under subhead I— Improvement of Estates, etc.—what were the unexpected difficulties and delays referred to in the explanation?—These arose mainly on buildings; we provided £380,000 for buildings and spent only £325,000. That year we built altogether only 158 houses, 51 by contract, 52 by direct labour and 55 by tenants themselves. In previous years we had done far better; we would have as much as 80 or 100 by contract but that year there was a tremendous building boom, particularly in urban and town centres and contractors proved not to be interested in the isolated jobs the Land Commission had in rural areas.

That would be the reason for the unexpected delays.

Deputy Healy.—I understand they had the very same difficulty in County Cork.

455. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary). —There was £325,000 spent on buildings in that year included in the total figure under subhead I. What was the rest spent on?—General improvements, accommodation roads, fencing, field drainage, embankments and turbary development.

456. Deputy Burke.—May I ask when you are making Land Commission roads to new houses on a newly developed estate, do you get in touch with the local authority with a view to improving the old Land Commission roads made heretofore? That can cause a lot of trouble both to you and public men as a whole. It is important that we improve the roads there?—Strictly, we are not a roads body at all, of course; we are just in roads by way of “first instance”. We make new access roads on fresh ground, possibly, but we have no permanent organisation for subsequent upkeep. When we build our access roads first they remain good for many years—for five or six years anyway. We did make an arrangement lately that we would consult with the local authority and the planning authority about standards as we hope the local authorities may then be in a position to take them over for subsequent maintenance.

457. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary). —As regards Employment and Emergency Schemes. I notice that four Counties— Carlow, Dublin, Tipperary and Waterford —seem to have been omitted from any subvention under this scheme?

Chairman.—The Deputy is referring to the Land Commission’s Annual Report on page 24, Mr. O’Brien.

Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).— I presume it is included under this Vote. There is no allocation made for Tipperary or Waterford?—No allocation for what?

For expenditure on Employment and Emergency Schemes under the Land Commission?—They were old Employment and Emergency Schemes administered by the Land Commission from 1925 to 1931. The Land Commission ceased operation of them since 1931 and they were taken over by the Special Employment Schemes office.

Chairman.—So it is very much out of date at this stage?—Strictly speaking, it would be true because the Land Commission in that period from 1925 to 1931 had spent, I think, about half a million pounds altogether, that is, under those Employment and Emergency Schemes, but a prosperous county like Tipperary would scarcely qualify.

458. Deputy Kenny.—On subhead J. —Adjustment Advances—the Explanation states: “On allotment of a defaulter’s holding for cash the advances for which provision was made were unnecessary”. What kind of a defaulter was this?— It was in respect of a small 26 acre holding on which there had been serious arrear by the owner; he had not paid his land annuity for ten years.

459. Chairman.—On subhead K.— Losses by Default, Accident, etc.—the first note in the explanation refers to “£107—compensation and costs for the loss of two animals in the course of grazing lettings”. Is the Land Commission normally liable for such damages? —Generally in our herding agreements we provide that we will not be liable but with such a variety of occurrences from time to time, we cannot ever be sure that a court will not find against us in a given set of circumstances. Where we see any prospect at all of settlement at a reasonable price, we arrange it. We gather that it is not possible effectively to contract out of the liability.

Were there any particular circumstances in this case?—I have a note here that one animal worth £67 strayed from the lands and another, a small heifer worth £40, died of disease.

Deputy Crowley.—The implication is that it was contracted on the land.

Chairman.—Those are the only details you have in regard to that, Mr. O’Brien? —No, Mr. Chairman. We had made lettings of land on the Hanley Estate in County Roscommon. A certain person had been taking tillage and grazing lettings from us for several years and it was found that one of his animals had suffered from a disease subsequently diagnosed as blackleg, the onset and course of which is very rapid. If treated immediately, there is just a possibility that the animal might have recovered. A claim was received for compensation for the loss of the animal. It was reported that the morning of the occurrence was very foggy and, whilst it would be difficult to prove wilful negligence on the part of the herd, he was at fault, to some extent, in failing to notice the condition of the heifer soon enough. The duties of a herd in such circumstances are governed by instructions for the guidance of all herds and caretakers and these instructions have been found, from experience, to be adequate generally. Having regard to the general circumstances of the case, the Land Commission thought it would be as well to settle the matter and we did that in the amount of £40, which included a sum for costs.

Was the herd in the employment of the Department?—He was but was not remunerated in cash—he had a small freedom of grazing for his own use.

460. Deputy Kenny.—A further note on this subhead mentions a claim for £500 for timber. How would that arise for timber?—We had a Molloy estate in Tipperary with 1,996 trees. They were sold in October, 1960 at a price of £1,032. The purchaser paid £532 and he agreed to pay the balance before 1st February, 1961. It was a condition of the arrangement that at no time would the purchaser have felled or removed more timber than he had paid for. The date for the lodgment of the balance of £500 was subsequently extended to 1st April, 1961. When the purchaser failed to pay, all further felling and removal of timber from the estate were prohibited. He promised to pay the outstanding amount in August, 1961 and then in October, 1961. When he did not do so, proceedings were instituted and a decree for £500, plus £15 costs, was obtained. The decree was forwarded to the county registrar for execution but was returned marked “nulla bona”. It was ascertained the purchaser and his family had left the country and they had no assets. It was learned he had left other creditors, including the Forestry Division, in the same position as the Land Commission. The Land Commission were legally advised that in view of the absence of assets, there was no point in further proceedings, by way of examination and instalment order. It appeared that the only practical thing to do was to keep a watch for him and take any necessary steps if he came back. The unremoved timber, comprising 496 mixed commercial and firewood trees and 193 miscellaneous pieces of timber, was forfeited to the Land Commission. This timber was readvertised but realised only £70. The cost of readvertising the timber for sale amounted to £3, leaving only £67 against the £500 due. Acceptance of the purchase price of timber in instalments is common practice with the Land Commission, the Forestry Division and the trade generally. In such cases it is stipulated that at no time will the merchant be permitted to have felled or removed more timber than he has paid for. Rigid control of the actual process of removal on the ground, is, however, very difficult to enforce in the case of odd lots of Land Commission timber. I can also say that, after two advertisements, this particular tenderer was, in fact, the only bidder we had for the timber. Again, we had previous experience with this purchaser which suggested he was good and reliable. He had earlier bought timber to the value of £1,307 and paid for it promptly.

461. Chairman — Regarding the National Development Fund, has all the expenditure on the Shannon Flooding Relief Scheme been completed?—We have spent £130,0000 up to 30th September; it arose as a result of Shannon flooding in 1954 and 1957 around Athlone.

Have you any estimate of the total amount?—We believe the final cost will be £145,000 and that it will take us two years to conclude. There have been unavoidable delays in finishing the scheme due to difficulties in reaching agreement on proposals with a small minority of affected tenants and also in placing necessary contracts. The big bulk of the work has been done and what is left are some small but very difficult remnants. The clearing off of those remnants can sometimes be agonisingly tedious.

Deputy Burke.—I must say the Department have done a very good job there.

VOTE 38—FORESTRY.

Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.

462. Chairman.—Paragraph 44 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead C.1.—Acquisition of Land (Grant-in-Aid)

44. In June 1958 a sum of £4,283, the agreed purchase price for 90 acres of land at Shelton Forest taken over by St. Patrick’s Copper Mines, Ltd., was placed on deposit in the joint names of the Chief State Solicitor and the solicitor representing the company. I have inquired as to the present position in regard to the transfer of ownership of the property and the release of the purchase money. I have also inquired what steps were taken to recover from the company sums of £215 in respect of rates on the property, and £211 for work carried out.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The Chief State Solicitor is dealing with the completion of this transfer deed, a draft of which was referred to the company’s solicitors in October, 1962. Delay in completion of the transfer is due to the bankruptcy of the company, a change of their solicitors, and to queries arising from the terms of the draft transfer deed. The Chief State Solicitor has been requested to press for completion of the sale. In the meantime a sum of £4,283, the agreed purchase price, continues to be held on deposit. The receiver for the company has been requested to remit to the Minister the sum of £214.16.0 in respect of contribution in lieu of rates on the property for the period 1st June, 1958 to 31st March, 1960, as also the sum of £211.1.3 in respect of work carried out by the Forestry Division in connection with the water supply at Shelton Abbey. The £214.16.0 has been received but the £211.1.3 has not yet been received.

Chairman.—When did this liquidation take place.

Mr. Suttle.—About 1962.

463. Chairman.—You could have completed the transfer but they went into liquidation?—Mr. O’Brien—St. Patrick’s Copper Mines were looking for a site between Avoca and Arklow in which to deposit their waste and fixed on this site of 90 acres at Shelton Abbey. They went into possession in 1958. We allowed them to do so, having agreed to the price of £4,283. There were a lot of tag-ends to be tied up. At that time the Department had no reason to suspect they would run into any difficulty. This business has, however, dragged on. We put matters into the hands of the Chief State Solicitor and he was pushing ahead with it but the deal, in fact, was not concluded. Although the company went into liquidation and became bankrupt, the fact is that £4,283 has been deposited in the joint names of the Chief State Solicitor and the solicitor of the company. I take the view that that money cannot go back into the assets of St. Patrick’s Copper Mines and become part of the Receiver’s funds. At least I am hopeful it cannot.

464. Is this the normal procedure in the Department?—It is not but St. Patrick’s Copper Mines were very anxious to get in and we did not anticipate any difficulty with them. The item of £214 in respect of contributions in lieu of rates which we had paid for the period June, 1958 to March, 1960 was remitted to the Department on 30th March, 1965 and has been lodged to the account of the Paymaster General in the ordinary way. The other sum of £211 is, of course, due to the Forestry Division for restoring the water supply which the company had tampered with in laying down their own pipes. We have also claimed that but the receiver has so far denied our claim for this amount. We have asked the Chief State Solicitor to comment on the receiver’s attitude in respect of this money, because the Department made it quite clear from the outset that the supply of water would be the responsibility of the company.

465. I take it, Mr. O’Brien, the transfer of these lands has not been completed?— It has not. The present position is that the Chief State Solicitor has been unable to make progress with the solicitors for the sale. The solicitors for the company have failed to reply to correspondence and the matter is still being pursued.

Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).— They took possession before completion of the sale?

Chairman.—They did take possession, which is not the normal procedure, but the Department had not anticipated any trouble with regard to the St. Patrick’s Copper Company.

Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).— Is that why the money is still there and has not been transferred?—Mr. O’Brien— I think it is more than that. The legal issue as to whether the money can be called back has to be settled.

It seems to me we are claiming £211 for work done but then if we do not recall possession of the land. I do not see how we can claim. It is a loophole they could get out of. It certainly casts a doubt on it?—They are in de facto possession, of course.

Chairman.—What I think we are concerned about is the £4,283.

466. Deputy Briscoe.—But whatever the receiver gets for the land anyway it will follow automatically that this amount of money will be forthcoming. Will it not?—That would be true but, unfortunately, the land is valueless because they poured all this waste on top of it and it is an awful mass of stuff. In fact, it is gradually becoming a nuisance as it dries out.

Chairman.—It is almost solidified?— Yes, solidified, but in summer time the dust blows from it; it is inert waste. They had no place else to deposit it and, a State Department having convenient land, we were easy to approach on the spot. It was highly urgent at the time, from the mine’s point of view, to have a place to deposit it.

467. Chairman.—Paragraph 45 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditorreads:

“45. 108 acres of land at Shelton Forest valued at approximately £7,150 was taken over by Nitrigín Eireann, Teo., in 1962. I have inquired whether the purchase price has been agreed and whether a formal agreement for the transfer of the property has been completed.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The Accounting Officer informed me that agreement had been reached with the company for the transfer of portion of the Shelton Abbey property to the company but the purchase price has not yet been fixed, pending clarification of certain details. We expected that all data for the fixing of the purchase price would shortly be available. That was in September, 1964. However, arising from my audit of Nitrigín Éireann, Teo. accounts, I understand that a few days ago the Department had requested payment of £7,900 and this amount has since been lodged in the joint names of the Chief State Solicitor and the company’s solicitor.

Mr. O’Brien.—That is right. The position between Nitrigín Éireann, Teo. and ourselves was settled, the compensation was finally assessed at £7,900 and the money was lodged this week.

Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).— Presumably on deposit? I hope Nitrigín Éireann, Teo. will not go the same way as the Avoca Copper Mines. Mr. O’Brien —Anyway, it is a State Body and I see that they have started exporting to Spain.

468. Chairman.—Paragraph 46 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:

“Subhead C.2—Forest Development and Management

46. An arrangement for the purchase, without competition, of supplies of certain seeds was approved by the Government Contracts Committee in July, 1958 on condition that checks would be made from time to time to ensure that the prices charged were reasonable. When the supplier was unable to complete an order placed in 1962 for approximately £6,500 worth of seed at a price of 22 dollars per lb., less 10 per cent, a quantity was secured from another source at 8.50 dollars per lb. I have inquired whether the condition imposed by the Government Contracts Committee is being compiled with.”

Mr. Suttle, I think you have something to add here.

Mr. Suttle.—I have a very long reply from the Accounting Officer which I am afraid I will have to read out to the Committee to give them some idea of the position. It is as follows:—

“The seed offered by Messrs. Forest Tree Seeds at 8.50 dollars per lb. was described by the firm as Pinus Contorta (Coastal Variety) from the Frazer River Delta. From general knowledge of the tenderer’s supply arrangements, it was to be expected that the seed would be from Lulu Island in the Frazer River Delta, the site of the firm’s seed extractory and a ready source of coastal Pinus Contorta seed. The low price quoted tended to confirm this assumption.

The alternative seed offered by the Manning Seed Company was from a seed collection region also on the Frazer River but, importantly, 100 miles from Lulu Island.

For technical reasons it was considered desirable to limit as much as possible purchases of seed likely to come from Lulu Island since there was an accumulating body of evidence that plants grown from Lulu Island seed would not prove satisfactory under Irish conditions. On the other hand, the seed offered by the Manning Company, though not of the specific provenance desired by the Department, was in the opinion of the technical officers likely to be more acceptable than seed from Lulu Island.

In these circumstances the decision to purchase the total quantity offered by the Manning Company and to confine purchases from Messrs. Forest Tree Seeds to a figure of 183 lbs. to make up the balance of the season’s requirements was fully justified on the available information. The price differential was of little significance, except as an indicator of the probable origin of the seed offered by Messrs. Forest Tree Seeds. The difference in price per lb. would not be much in excess of, if it amounted to, 1% of the cost of establishing plantations in the area serviced by each lb. of seed and represented on insignificant additional charge in the light of the greater prospect of satisfactory growth.

In the outturn, it appears that Messrs. Forest Tree Seeds tender was exploratory and that their claim to be in a position to supply, confirmed on placement of the Department’s order, was based on the hope of ad hoc collection; at a later stage, difficulty in collection was admitted and the quantity finally supplied was less than two-thirds of that ordered. This outturn was in accordance with the Department’s general experience of difficulty in securing seed supplies on the basis of competitive tenders—an experience which influenced the decision in 1958 to confine purchases to a single regular supplier and which lent added weight to the decision in the present instance to buy the seed offered by that supplier. It is clear that, had the Department been prepared to buy the total quantity originally offered by Messrs. Forest Tree Seeds, there would have been a substantially greater shortfall in supply against that season’s requirements.

Though in the present case the issue did not arise since there were more paramount considerations on which to base a decision, it may be well to record that even where a choice had to be made between Pinus Contorta seed from an acceptable region available from the regular supplier and seed emanating from the same region offered at a lower price from an alternative supplier the Department would purchase from the regular supplier in the absence of any ready means of confirming that the alternative cheaper supply was of an acceptable provenance. Seed provenance is a biological variation within a species (itself a classification within which the botanical features of the plant or tree are practically identical or varying to such a small degree that they cannot be readily seen or described so as to permit of the recognition of more than one species) related to ecological variations and influenced by environment. Most species which occur over a wide geographic range consist of varying numbers of ecotypic or geographic races, adjusted by natural selection to the regional environmental variations within the overall geographic range; however, even within a region of uniform climatic conditions, various stands of a species may differ sharply within their gene components with a consequential significant variation, hereditarily caused, in their growth capacities. This variation is of particular importance in the case of Pinus Contorta and it is of the utmost advantage (in the use of this species in the extremely infertile soil conditions which are encountered so frequently in afforestation in Ireland) to secure seed collected under the general supervision of agents who have been briefed in our particular requirements which run counter to general experience in the use and behaviour of various varieties and provenance of this species in the course of North American silviculture.

Even with other species which do not present problems of the same magnitude, there is, of course, advantage in purchasing from a firm of high repute and with a sense of obligation to an established customer, in that there is a better prospect of securing seed from phenotypically desirable stands and, of course, overall, a better prospect of actually obtaining supplies at an adequate level. The problems of successful placement of orders on a simple competitive tendering system have already been mentioned.

In general, therefore, such information as becomes available in relation to prices quoted by potential alternative suppliers must be regarded not as a reason for switching current orders away from regular suppliers but rather as data to be taken into account in keeping the level of prices charged by the regular supplier under observation. Your attention has already been directed to the difficulties in such price comparisons but such efforts as are possible will continue to be made to keep noncompetitive price-levels under review.”

That is a very highly technical explanation. At the same time I feel that, despite the Accounting Officer’s official reply, since he did not get from his regular supplier what he asked for, what he was supplied with should have been obtained at a lower price than the price of fully acceptable seed. I am still not satisfied that the price was reasonable in the circumstances.

469. Deputy Kenny.—What does that mean, in ordinary layman’s language, in a few words. This is either superman’s language or you would want to be a real naturalist to understand all this?

Mr. O’Brien.—The subject at issue is that we bought a certain amount of seed at $22 per lb. The suggestion is that the cheaper seed we bought at $8.50 a lb. is almost identical. Our technical people, in whose hands I am for this purpose, do not agree at all. They rigidly and sincerely maintain they were in receipt of two different seeds altogether and that the first seed, while it was not exactly what we required—it was less acceptable than what we would have liked—was acceptable. The cheap seed was something far less acceptable. It was probably from Lulu Island, which has a bad name in the Forestry Division. This is a dumping ground off Vancouver. I could show members of the Committee some plantations where this seed was planted and the crop failed.

Deputy Briscoe.—Why are we taking it?—We are not. We had to take it for one particular purpose. We are not taking it any more.

Mr. Suttle.—There was a certain difference of opinion between some of the technical officers. I will quote an extract from a report from one of them:

“Afterall we have been buying P.C. seed over the last 30 years, with very little regard to provenance problems, with pretty good results on the whole, except for a few strands of the Murrayanna type. In fact we do not know the provenance of some of our best strands. Now the pendulum has gone full swing and we are limiting ourselves to one or two particular areas from which it is most unlikely we will be able to get our full supply in any one year.”

The trouble about this seed is you do not know the result for 15 to 20 years.

Mr. O’Brien.—I think the report the Comptroller and Auditor-General is reading is from one of our technical officers which pre-dates by a year or so the visit of two of our officers whom we despatched to America. They actually saw the place the seed was collected from. After that it was the common opinion of the technical officers that Lulu Island seed was totally unacceptable. I also said in my original reply to the audit query by way of general comment, that we need quality seed and must pay for it, and the cost of seed in relation to forest establishment and merit of the final product is infinitesimal. It will be there for 50 years. That is the all-important thing. The cost of the seed is only a trifle. Recently I have seen a Department of Agriculture leaflet with a banner headline: “Dear Seed is the Cheap Seed”.

470. Chairman.—Could the technical experts say, at this stage, that the seed would be profitable in 50 years or even 20 years from now?—We made trials with some of this cheap seed and the technical officers’ advice given to me is that it is more expensive in the end to try to keep the tree crop good because you have to expend far more money on manure and treatment to keep the trees alive. We would get better seed growth if we sow proper seed in the first instance.

471. Deputy Kenny.—The first line of the paragraph refers to purchase without competition. Are there any other places that such good seed could be got from besides the Forestry Company?—Messrs. Manning Tree Seed Co. in America.

Is that the only one?—It is the most reputable firm in America with this particular type of seed. We are confirmed in that by our knowledge that the British Forestry people do business with them.

472. Deputy Briscoe.—What exactly is the yield per lb. of this seed? Do they give the figure?—I asked that this morning. One lb. of this seed will produce 90,000 one-year seedlings. That will fall to 60,000 transplants, one year in the seed bed and one year as a transplant. Allowing a fall of 10 per cent for unfit plants, the eventual yield would be 54,000 plants, enough to cover 32 acres.

It is a small cost?—It is trivial.

473. Chairman.—What would be the annual order from this firm?—Our total import of seed costs about £16,000; that would be between hard woods and soft woods. More than half would be from this firm.

474. Have the Department been carrying out tests to see that the prices were fair? —We were able to do that with the same type of seed supplied to the British Forestry Commission by comparing the charges to that Commission.

Have these tests been supplied to the Government Contracts Committee? Have they been informed of these?—They have. We have actually had men out there to inspect the collection arrangements. To an earlier query from Mr. Suttle, I said:

“The impossibility of comparing the price charged for seed collected to a purchaser’s detailed specifications with prices quoted for seed of a loose general specification available ex stock has nullified any efforts by the Department to keep the prices charged by the Manning Seed Company under periodic competitive review. Independent enquiry, has, however, confirmed that the prices charged by the Company are not out of line with prices paid by another customer (i.e. the British Forestry Commission) in broadly similar circumstances. Since 1958 close contact has been built up with the Manning Seed Company and within the past year officers of the Forestry Division undertook an extensive tour of potential seed collection areas in North America, in the course of which they had opportunity of reviewing in detail the problems and cost of collection to the desired specifications. Their report did not disclose any ground for concern in relation to the prevailing trend of prices. In fact their view was that Mannings were the only suppliers on the West Coast of America with the technical officers, equipment and collection organisation necessary to provide us with the service we require. It was also confirmed that they were dependable.”

Deputy Briscoe.—I personally feel very satisfied with this explanation because reputation is the most important factor in purchasing an item such as this, on which the future of the country depends a lot for its prosperity. If you were offered an identical seed from another company at $10 a lb. but the reputation of that company was not such, it would be better to pay $22 and know you are getting good merchandise. That is my feeling on this.

475. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary). —There is a big discrepancy between the prices of seed but the Accounting Officer has explained it is only a small proportion of the ultimate end product in terms of money. He mentioned the British Forestry people and I should like to know do they use a proportionately similar amount of this seed from the same firm?—We might have a slightly greater demand but, possibly, a little different in character. Though they would not use this provenance of Pinus Contorta seed extensively for England, the proportions would be similar for Scotland where the conditions would be more like ours.

Do they buy from this company to an equal degree as ourselves?—Yes, that is our information.

476. Deputy Kenny.—Has the Department made any attempt at all to supply any kind of seed themselves?—We have. We engage extensively in home collection of seed but the year in question happened to be a bad one for seed. In 1963-64—that is the year in question — we sowed altogether 11,091 lbs., of seeds, 3.056 conifers and 8,035 hard woods. Of this, only 445 lbs. were home collected that year but we are building up to a very substantial home collection of seed. If we can get good stock, good mother stock, from which to collect the seed—what I think the foresters call “plus trees”— we will be very content. Last year I think there was quite a good collection of home seed. I have just learned that, for this particular species of Pinus Contorta, we will in future be independent of imports and will be able to collect all our requirements at home from now on.

Deputy Burke.—Congratulations, Mr. O’Brien.

477. Chairman.—Paragraph 47 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:

“Subhead C.3—Sawmilling

47. In paragraph 22 of its report dated 11 July, 1963, the Committee of Public Accounts suggested that trading accounts of the Department’s sawmills should be prepared annually and appended to the appropriation account. Trading accounts for the period ended 30 September, 1963, are appended to the account.”

With regard to the trading account, Mr. O’Brien, I think you said you would see if you could let us have these brought up to 31st March?—Yes. We will from this year onwards.

478. On the Vote itself, subhead C.2.— Forest Development and Management—I notice from the explanation that there was a saving of £50,000. partly on the purchase of machinery. How much machinery was purchased in that year?—We bought about £50,000 worth against a £90,000 provision.

Could you give us the value of the machinery in use at the moment?—The current capital value would be £353,000.

479. Deputy Kenny.—The explanation also refers to items of miscellaneous expenditure, one of which was a sum of £10 paid to an adjoining landowner as compensation for the inconvenience caused by the ploughing in error of part of his lands. Labour to the value of £32 was employed in repairing the damage. How did it come about that the Forestry people did not recognise their own property?—There was an error in ploughing; the Forestry Service went into somebody else’s land and ploughed it up. The ploughman had just moved in with a new machine from a different area and did not recognise the boundary.

That would be mountain land, of course?—It was only a small strip of 1½ acres of rushy land.

480. Chairman.—A further item of miscellaneous expenditure refers to a sum of £30 paid in settlement of a claim arising out of disputed ownership of lands acquired by the Forestry Division. Could you give some details on this? — In January, 1962, we took possession of an area of about 40 acres from a Kildare farmer. During the acquisition investigation, it was clear that the vendor did not fully know his boundaries or the full extent to which his predecessor had dealt with part of the lands. It happened that the predecessor had made some informal arrangement for the sale of three acres. The Department were aware of this and they put a “nil” value on that three acres in anticipation of a claim from the alleged purchaser. We were wise enough to anticipate it. That claim duly came up, we settled it at £30 and retained the land.

481. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary). The Abstract Accounts of Sawmilling Operations show sales by Cong and Dundrum. I had not time to examine these figures completely but I notice that there is a profit of £2,000 for Dundrum compared with a loss for Cong. Is there any reason why there should be such differences?—Actually Dundrum has a loss of £491 and Cong a profit of £3,545.

Chairman.—I presume there is an explanation for Dundrum being approximately £4,000 less than Cong?—Cong has been showing a profit for quite a while. There used to be far greater losses in Dundrum. In 1962 the Dundrum loss was £2,358. which had been reduced to £491 in the year in question, so it has improved.

Deputy Kenny.—Do they carry on the same type of work?—Yes, they do. There is probably a difference in the type of market. Cong supplies a good deal of material for builders’ merchants while Dundrum supplies a lot of fencing stakes and gates for farmers.

Is there no difference in wages?—No, they are exactly the same. There are three more employed in Dundrum than in Cong; there are 26 employed in Dundrum and 23 in Cong. Dundrum has been improving; the losses have been going down and we hope it will break even.

482. Chairman.—In the Accounts the factory wages for Cong are shown as £7,133 and those for Dundrum are shown as £9,865. Why is there this difference? —The reason is there is a far heavier incidence of absenteeism in Cong than there is in Dundrum.

Do they now produce the same amount, in or about?—They do.

Deputy Kenny.—Do you mean to tell me, with less employees at Cong they can have profits of £4,000 more than at Dundrum? Can they have this greater profit even with absenteeism and everything else?—Yes. Cong is an entirely different mill. There is modern machinery there.

Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).— There is a higher degree of depreciation? —That is because it is a more modern place.

Chairman.—I thought Dundrum had also been modernised?—There is a good deal of secondhand equipment in Dundrum still.

Deputy Kenny.—If you brought up Dundrum to the same state of efficiency in machinery, do you think the profits would go up proportionately?—The capital cost would be heavier, but I expect the profits would go up.

Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).— This is disappointing in my own constituency?—For many years back there has been a tendency for less valuable logs to go into Dundrum; there is a poorer recovery rate.

483. Chairman.—On subhead E.— Forestry Education—I notice there is a delay in the recruitment of trainees. Is there some reason for this?—The Kinnitty School has a capacity of 30 students and throughout the year and we had but 25. Shelton Abbey has a capacity of 60 and throughout the year we had but 55. We would normally fill up at the start of the year. A certain amount of wastage occurs; if the wastage occurred early in the year, we would call more candidates in the competition. If the year were too far gone, it would not be worth calling them for another year.

Do you mean that in the examination for Kinnitty you did not call the full number?—We did. We always call the full number for the vacancies advertised.

Wastage must have occurred?—Yes. With regard to Kinnitty School, we would have a competition in June and they would be due to enter in September. Some might leave in October and some might not leave until the following February.

I thought you did not have the full number from the beginning of the year in Kinnitty?—No, the average worked out at 25. We would start off at 30 in September and be down to 23 in May the following year.

There is no shortage of applications?—No.

484. Deputy Briscoe.—Subhead F.— Agency, Advisory and Special Services— mentions the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. I see that £8,000 was paid to the Institute in respect of testing of Irish grown timber. Over what period was it tested?—It was tested over an entire year; there is a regular continuing programme going on.

Was this money paid direct to them?— The subvention is to the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. It is under the control of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Chairman.—Have they issued any findings?—We expect the first findings before March next. The whole purpose of the exercise is to assist in the determination of properties of Irish timber for use in building construction.

485. Under the Appropriations-in-Aid, I notice that you did very well in the rents for grazing and shooting. You got over £3,000 more than anticipated. Is there any particular reason for the surplus?—It depends largely on the quality of land. If we got better than marginal quality land, the rents would improve while let before being planted.

486. I notice that in the Grant-in-Aid Fund for the Acquisition of Land for Forestry, the expenditure was much lower than the grant?—We expected to get substantial properties that year like the Wynne estate at Glendalough which did not come. We got the Charteris estate at Cahir, Co. Tipperary, part of which came to the Land Commission and the rest to the Forestry Division. Altogether that year we bought 29,652 acres of land at a price of £214,116, which is over £7 an acre.

487. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—What is the smallest amount of land the forestry people are inclined to take over?—If it were very near an existing forest, we would take even a small area but there would not be much point in taking say 10 acres three miles away from any existing property. We would do it if we saw prospects of a further build up in that region; it depends on the location.

VOTE 39—FISHERIES.

Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.

488. Chairman.—Paragraph 48 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead D.5.—Compensation, etc.

48. The charge to the subhead is an ex-gratia payment of £507, compensation for the loss claimed to have been sustained by the owner of a fishery arising out of the cesser of his entitlement to use small mesh gratings in his fishing weir for the purpose of taking sea trout.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—No, this paragraph is merely for information purposes.

Deputy Kenny.—What was the exgratia payment of £507 made for?—The owners of a weir at Waterville in Kerry had been statutorily entitled, since 1870, to use gratings of a narrow mesh on the ground that sea trout formed the principal part of the weir catch. In 1949, under the Statute Law Revision Act, the old order lapsed and the weir owner ceased to have the right to use the narrow gratings. He was compensated in the sum of £507 for the loss of his former entitlement.

Chairman.—There was no obligation on them?—If it had been realised when the new Act was being passed in 1949 that this entitlement was being undone, I think it would not have been statutorily undone. There was a sense of moral obligation and the owner agreed to accept £507 in compensation. He had enjoyed the rights for almost 100 years.

489. Paragraph 49 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead D.9.—Contributions to the Salmon Conservancy Fund

49. An account of the receipts and payments of the Salmon Conservancy Fund has been audited by me and together with my report thereon will be presented to the Oireachtas in accordance with section 49 (10) of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—No. Mr. Chairman, again, this paragraph is for information purposes.

Chairman.—We shall turn to the Vote itself on page 92.

490. On subhead B.—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—in the explanation I am intrigued by the ex-gratia payment of £8 made to an officer facilitating him in the course of cross-Border travel?—A member of the Foyle Fisheries Commission who travels to Belfast and Derry pretty regularly was given a contribution towards the cost of his triptyque and AA membership.

491. In the explanation under subhead D.5.—Compensation, etc.—the note states that only one claim for compensation matured during the year and was paid on an ex-gratia basis. You provided £13,000 under that subhead, Mr. O’Brien. How many claims had been anticipated?— We had anticipated one big claim of £9,000 in respect of what is known as the Homberger Fishery in Mayo which the owner claimed as a several fishery but would surrender his title to the State so that it would become a public fishery in consideration of the lodgment of a sum of £9,000. It was felt for quite a while that the title of this fishery was at least doubtful. If the question as to whether it was to be a public fishery or a private fishery had to be resolved in court, it would require evidence going back for centuries to establish the proper title and it would cost far more in legal and research expenses than it was worth. The Attorney General advised that a long drawn out legal battle with heavy law costs (as in the case of the Foyle) should be avoided and it was agreed in the course of negotiations for settlement to accept the owner’s offer of surrender of his claim to all rights in all the tidal waters to which his title deeds relate— these include the Owenduff, the Glenamoy and other waters in addition to the Owenmore. In recognition of this surrender, an ex-gratia payment in the sum of £9,000 is being made to the owners (now the National Provincial Bank Ltd., as Reps. of Homberger), the payment being made up of £3,500 apportioned value of the tidal water fishery, and £5,500 contribution to the costs of plaintiffs and special defendants. The Chief State Solicitor is at present clearing legal requirements connected with the payment.

492. Deputy Briscoe.—In regard to Losses, the item shown refers to compensation paid for fish accidentally killed in the course of treatment for disease on a demonstration farm. I take it this was a case of the cure being worse than the disease?—Yes; it was a curious case in a way; it arose from an overdose of Roccal which was understandable to some extent. If the Committee would like to know, I can tell them what happened.

The sum involved—£915—seems to cover a large number of fish. I would have thought that they would have experimented on a smaller amount first?— Actually, there was no time. On the evening of Thursday, 20th June, 1963 the owner of a demonstration fish farm at the Glen of Aherlow telephoned to report an outbreak of disease, apparently bacterial gill disease, and to ask for assistance of the Assistant Inspector of Fisheries who was responsible for supervising his fish farm. This officer, who was a fully qualified and trained biologist in fish culture was away on official business all day on the 20th June. He discussed the matter with the owner by ’phone on the morning of Friday, 21st June, 1963, and travelled later that day from Dublin to the farm. He brought with him a supply of a proprietary chemical, Roccal disinfectant, which was recommended as a remedy for bacterial gill disease in a manual on fish culture issued by the US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. On arrival at the farm at about 11 p.m. on 21st June he diagnosed the presence of bacterial gill disease in the fish. On the following morning he completed arrangements for dosing the water in the pond containing the affected fish. Within a short time of the dosage, all the fish in the pond died. Compensation of £915, representing the value of the fish, was paid to the owner. On full investigation of the case, it was established that, in calculating the volume of water in the pond for the purpose of determining the dose required to give the desired concentration of the chemical in the water, the Department’s officer incorrectly assumed that the sides of the pond were nearly vertical, whereas in fact, they sloped inwards towards the bottom. This mistake resulted in an overdose of the chemical being added to the water, thus causing the death of the fish. In other words, there was far less water in the pond than the officer had imagined. The investigation of the occurrence established that there were extenuating factors in relation to the mistake, as follows:—

(a) Neither the officer concerned nor other technical officers of the Fisheries Division had any personal experience of the disease or of the use of the chemical; the chemical was, however, known to be successful in other countries. The Department’s officer was not aware of the fact that the margin of safety between a concentration of this particular chemical which would destroy bacteria and one which would be toxic to the fish is narrow and that, accordingly, extra special care would be needed to ensure that the optimum concentration would be precisely observed. A specific warning on this point was not given in the US manual on which the Department’s officer relied.

(b) The officer, who was 27 years of age with four years’ service at the time of the occurrence, is an active man with abundance of energy and unchallengeable dedication to duty. In the week in which the mistake occurred he had travelled very long distances on official visits ranging from Dublin, Kerry, Castlebar, etc. On 20th June, the evening the owner phoned the Fisheries Branch, the officer travelled a total of 338 miles and did not arrive back in Dublin until around midnight. On the following day, the morning on which he phoned the owner, he had to make arrangements for dealing with an outbreak of disease of a different kind on another farm as well as travelling that evening to the farm at Glen of Aherlow and dealing with the disease there. He was not in a position to leave Dublin for Aherlow until 7 p.m. and he arrived there at about 11 p.m. There is little doubt that he was fatigued at the time of the mistake. There was little option, however, but to have the visit carried out by him as he was the officer primarily responsible for supervising the fish farm and was familiar with the position there.

The conclusion from the thorough investigations carried out was that the mistake was made more through miscalculation and rush than through negligence. In all the circumstances, and having regard to the previous very satisfactory performance of duty by the officer concerned, it was decided that the case would be adequately met by the withholding until 7th December, 1965, of the two increments on his salary scale which were due for consideration on 7th December, 1963 and 7th December, 1964, respectively. This imposes a penalty of approximately £166 on the officer concerned which by now, at this remove, I regard as rather stiff.

Chairman.—I was going to comment on that. Having regard to the situation in which it happened, it seems the officer was unduly penalised. The Committee can refer to that matter later.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.