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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 28 Deireadh Fómhair, 1965.

Thursday, 28th October, 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 and Mr. J. R. Whitty (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

308. Chairman.—I regret that owing to unforeseen circumstances, I will have to leave the meeting at this point. I suggest that a temporary Chairman be appointed to continue the proceedings.

Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— I propose that Deputy Healy do take the chair.

Question put, and agreed to.

Deputy Healy took the Chair accordingly.

VOTE 42—INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.

Mr. J. C. B. MacCarthy called and examined.

309. Chairman.—We shall deal first of all with Paragraph 65 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which reads:

“Subhead H.—Córas Tráchtála (Grant-in-Aid).

Grants under section 16 of the Export Promotion Act, 1959 to Córas Tráchtála, including £310,000 charged to the subhead, amounted to £1,159,885 at 31 March, 1964. Section 2 of the Export Promotion (Amendment) Act, 1963 increased the aggregate amount of grants which may be made to the board from £1,000,000 to £2,500,000.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The annual accounts of Córas Tráchtála are presented to the Oireachtas. I audit those accounts.

310. Chairman.—Paragraph 66 of the Report reads:

“An Foras Tionscal

Subhead J.1.—Grant under Undeveloped Areas Act, 1952 (Grant-in-Aid).

Subhead J.2.—Grant under Industrial Grants Act, 1959 (Grant-in-Aid).

Subhead J.3.—Re-Equipment Grants, etc. (Grant-in-Aid).

66. The aggregate amount of grants which may be made to An Foras Tionscal to enable it to carry out its functions is limited to £20,000,000. Grants issued to 31 March, 1964 were as follows:—

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This is just to keep the Committee informed of the total amount of the grants issued within the statutory limit of £20 million.

311. Chairman.—Paragraph 67 of the Report states:

“Subhead Q.—Repayment of Advances under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts.

67. This subhead provides for the repayment to the Central Fund in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act, 1939, of the amount of £8,910, which remained outstanding after the expiration of two years from the date on which an advance of £24,074 was made from the Fund on foot of a guarantee given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on behalf of Kilkenny Woollen Mills (1929) Limited.”

Have you additional information on that paragraph, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—A loan of £33,000 was guaranteed by the Minister for the Kilkenny Woollen Mills (1929) Ltd., in June, 1959. Production ceased in April, 1960 and a receiver was appointed in the following month. A sum of £24,074 comprising £23,386, the amount of the loan issued to the company, and £688 interest due and unpaid was issued from the Central Fund to enable the Minister to meet his guarantee to the Industrial Credit Company. The net amount, £15,164, realised for the assets of the company was repaid to the Central Fund and the balance, £8,910, has now been made good from the Vote.

312. Chairman.—Paragraph 68 of the report reads:

“68. The aggregate amount of trade loans guaranteed by the Minister under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts, 1939 to 1954, was £2,416,350 at March 1964. Guarantees, amounting to £1,181,000, were also given under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts, 1924 to 1934. Sums totalling £834,927 were issued out of the Central Fund on foot of guarantees and £217,398 was repaid. The Minister’s contingent liability in respect of guarantees still in operation at 31 March 1964 was £925,869.”

Have you anything to add Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—These are totals of guarantees given by the Minister and of the amounts outstanding.

Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— These guarantees seem to have been there since the foundation of the State, under one Act or another. Is the figure of £3,597,350 the total amount, going back to 1924?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

313. Chairman.—Paragraph 69 of the Report reads:

“69. Miscellaneous Appropriations in Aid includes sums of £587 and £162 received during the year in repayment of advances on foot of guarantees given on behalf of West Park Estates, Limited, and Sessions Marine, Limited, respectively.”

314. Chairman.—Paragraph 70 reads:

“Subhead R.R.—Shipbuilding Subsidy.

70. Provision was made by supplementary estimate to enable the Minister for Industry and Commerce to give effect to a Government decision to pay subsidy to Verolme Cork Dockyard Ltd. £650,000 issued in the year under review represents the maximum amount authorised by the Government in respect of the first two ships built by the company. Issues were made on the recommendation of a special committee appointed by the Minister to examine the company’s subsidy claims. I understand that the losses incurred by the company on these two ships were in excess of the amount of the subsidies paid.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The loss in this matter was greater than the £650,000 issued. I have no further information to add to that.

Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— No further subsidy is being issued?

Mr. Suttle.—No. That is the final subsidy.

Chairman.—Would you explain the composition of the special committee appointed to examine the subsidy claim?

Mr. MacCarthy.—The committee consisted of representatives of the Industrial Credit Company, the Industrial Development Authority and An Foras Tionscal.

315. Chairman.—Paragraph 71 reads:

“Subhead S.—Appropriations in Aid.

71. I inquired as to the circumstances in which the Minister for Industry and Commerce waived his claim to a share of the amount paid to the lessee of a State mining lease on its assignment to another party. I was informed that the original lessee had proved unsatisfactory and also that his bank had taken a charge on the lease. The Minister by waiving his claim to portion of the consideration for the assignment facilitated the redemption of the lease and it was hoped that more effective development of the mine would be secured. The Minister for Finance to whom the case was referred at my request, noting that the lease had already been assigned, gave his covering approval to the assignment and to the waiver of the State’s claim to part of the consideration. But he was not convinced that the procedure in the case was satisfactory and he felt that it should have been possible to effect an arrangement whereby the State would have secured a proportion of the consideration for the assignment and, in particular, that an unsatisfactory lessee would not in effect have been able to derive the full financial benefit.”

Have you anything to add to this paragraph, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The Minister is entitled to a sum not exceeding half the amount. The consent of the Minister for Finance is a prerequisite when a State grant is made.

316. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—Has the Minister made any inquiry as to this practice?

Mr. MacCarthy.—In fact, there may be a little misunderstanding about this. As it stands here, it makes us look a careless lot in the Department who let £750 go which might, otherwise, have accrued to the Exchequer. That is not the position at all. The note arose out of the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General asked us to seek the sanction of the Minister for Finance after the event. We did so, though this was a new departure in policy in regard to a system which had prevailed since the 1940s. Prior to that, there never had been a provision in leases requiring one half of the consideration money to be surrendered to the Minister if the Minister in his sole discretion so decided. It was we, in the Department, who put this provision into leases from that time onwards with the idea of preventing speculation. A great deal of interest was becoming manifest in our minerals at that time. There was some indication that the interest in some cases was largely a speculative one. People would get a licence, do the minimum amount of prospecting and then seek to sell their interest in the lease to somebody else. As custodians of the taxpayers’ interest in this matter, we felt that we ought not to have that sort of thing and we wrote this provision into leases. The Minister for Finance agreed to that and the decision in each case under the clause was left to the absolute discretion of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The lease, in each case, is countersigned by the Minister for Finance. We always assumed that the Minister for Finance, in countersigning a lease, realised that this clause left the decision at the absolute discretion of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and that it meant just what it said. Heretofore, we have never sought Finance sanction when we waived a share of the consideration money. If this is required, we certainly have no objection to it and we can adopt it as standard practice. In this particular case, the Department of Finance said it felt that it should have been possible to come to some arrangement. We have no knowledge of what arrangement the Department of Finance had in mind. The person who had the lease had almost gone bankrupt. He could not carry on and the bank was pressing him. We wished to proceed to take over the lease if we could but this, because of complicated legal proceedings, would involve us in heavy cost. This man persuaded somebody in the neighbourhood to buy his interest for £1,500. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in order to keep the mine in production, which, of course, is the whole object of the Minerals Act, decided not to ask for the surrender of the £750 because, had he done so, the transaction could not take place. The lessee owed the bank more than £750 and he owed other people further sums. In fact, the total amount of £1,500 had to be used to pay off the creditors. If the Minister had refused to sanction the transaction, all that would have happened was that the mine would have remained with the lessee who could not work it until legal proceedings had been concluded. Our aim, as I said, is to prevent speculation in those matters. Speculation is, perhaps, a rather strong word to use but we do not want somebody cashing in on a lease which he does not intend to use. That is the purpose of the clause. We are, of course, agreeable to seek sanction from the Minister for Finance in all future cases since the Comptroller and Auditor General feels that course to be desirable.

Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— What mine was this?—It was situated on 80 acres in Ballynameeltoge, County Leitrim. The original lessee was Mr. Patrick Bruen and the new lessee was Mr. Hugh J. Rorke of the same district. I have not got the name of the bank. There was indebtedness of £1,500 which coincided with the amount received.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—I must say that very clear information has been given.

317. Chairman.—Paragraph 72 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“72. The amount allocated and the recoupments from the American Grant Counterpart Special Account of expenditure incurred up to 31 March 1964 on agreed projects sponsored by the Department of Industry and Commerce are shown in the following statement.

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This is for the information of the Committee and I have nothing to add.

318. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—On the Vote itself, the explanation to subhead F.2—Provision of Additional Laboratories and Equipment— says that the purchase of equipment was delayed pending the recruitment of professional staff. What does this mean?

Mr. MacCarthy.—They were rather slow in acquiring the staff. The laboratories have been opened but there was difficulty in getting staff. They had not yet recruited all their staff and they wanted the new technicians to have a say in the equipment to be purchased.

319. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—On subhead J.3 — Reequipment Grants, etc. (Grant-in-Aid)— does that refer to grants given to industrial firms to prepare them for freer trade—adaptation grants?—Yes.

320. Deputy Byrne.—On subhead L.— Technical Assistance—I think the Minister has expressed concern from time to time at the failure of industry to take up these consultancy grants. Has there been any improvement?—Yes, a very decided improvement. In fact, in this year, 1963-64, while we had, of course, a substantial enough saving, it was much less than in previous years under that heading. We had earmarked under the total subhead £209,000 for these consultancy schemes. Actual expenditure was £182,000. So that the shortfall was £27,000. Even there, the reason for the shortfall was not that the schemes had not been carried out but that the bills had not yet come in from the consultants. We still feel that there is substantial scope for greater use of it but, certainly, the position has improved out of all recognition as compared with a few years back.

321. Could you give us any idea as to the allocation of these grants as to Irish and non-Irish firms of consultants?—I am afraid we could not break it down. We do not distinguish between them. The test was, is the applicant engaged in industrial production and will the proposed scheme add to productivity. Certainly that was the test in 1963-64. We do not go into whether it is an Irish-owned firm or a foreign-owned firm.

I mean the consultants whom they employ?—I beg your pardon. Broadly speaking—this is rather a guess—it might at this stage be about 50/50 because Irish consultancy firms have been established. Some of them are really only Irish branches of English firms but there are others genuinely Irish, particularly in the more technical field like engineering consultancy. In regard to ordinary management consultancy, there are some Irish firms now but the biggest operators in that field would be British firms.

Nonetheless, if they have Irish branches we may assume they employ Irish staff.— Certainly.

Which, perhaps, the non-Irish based firms do not do?—Perhaps.

322. On subhead R.R.—Shipbuilding Subsidy—paragraph 70 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is relevant. These subsidy payments, you have informed us, Mr. Suttle, were issued on the recommendation of a special committee. Was that a departmental committee?

Mr. Suttle.—I think Mr. MacCarthy has explained already.

Chairman.—Would you explain the composition of that Committee, Mr. MacCarthy?

Mr. MacCarthy.—The committee consists of representatives of the Industrial Credit Company, the Industrial Development Authority and An Foras Tionscal. There is one slight qualification, if I might make it. This committee has not got the final say because the Government determine the amount of the subsidy in respect of each ship.

323. Deputy Byrne.—In regard to Item No. 2 of the Appropriations in Aid— Repayment on account of salaries of officers on loan to outside bodies—could we be informed as to what are these outside bodies?—Certainly. I can give you the exact details of this. The first item contributing to the total was the case of Dr. Beddy who was Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority and also Managing Director of the Industrial Credit Company. The Industrial Credit Company were required to make a repayment to our Vote in respect of that part of his time which was spent in the Industrial Credit Company and a receipt of £1,500 came in for that. There are two officers of the Department on loan to the company, Nitrigin Eireann Teoranta. One is a Mr. McSweeney, an assistant principal, and the other is a Miss Dunne, a clerk typist. In respect of both of these the sum of £2,328 came in. The third case, which yielded £2,428, refers to Mr. T. S. O’Neill, who is now the chairman of An Foras Tionscal, who in the year of account was a member of the Industrial Development Authority seconded wholetime from his post of principal in the Department of Industry and Commerce. The fourth case refers to Mr. John Gannon, an assistant principal in the Department, who is seconded wholetime to the Irish National Productivity Committee as Secretary and the amount received in his case was £1,057. There was not a full year in that case.

324. May we assume that the capacities in which these officers served in these outside bodies did not include that of director?—I can answer that in each case. In Dr. Beddy’s case the answer would be that he was, of course, Chairman. It was not a company but he was Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority. Mr. McSweeney is not a director of Nitrigin Eireann Teoranta. Mr. O’Neill, again, is not in a company but he is chairman of An Foras Tionscal now and in the year of account he was a member of the board of the Industrial Development Authority. Mr. Gannon is not a member of the board of the Productivity Committee; he is the secretary to it.

The Witness withdrew.

325. Chairman.—I regret that I must leave the meeting at this stage. Perhaps a further temporary Chairman could be appointed?

Deputy Briscoe.—I propose that Deputy Hogan do take the Chair.

Question put, and agreed to.

Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary) took the Chair accordingly.

VOTE 41—AGRICULTURE.

Mr. J. C. Nagle called and examined.

326. Chairman.—Paragraph 51 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:

“Subhead K.4.—Improvement of the Creamery Industry, etc.

51. A cheese factory at Wexford set up by the German cheese producers, Edelweiss, in co-operation with local interests and with the aid of a grant of £100,000 from An Foras Tionscal and a loan from the Industrial Credit Company, Ltd. commenced production in January 1961. The concern met with technical difficulties of production soon afterwards and in February 1962 the German interests withdrew from the project. At the request of the Department of Agriculture and with the approval of the Government the factory was operated on a temporary basis by the Dairy Disposal Company Ltd. who were guaranteed against losses incurred in its operation. By 31 March 1964 payments amounting to £2,500 were made from voted moneys to the company against operating losses in the period 11 May 1962 to 31st July 1963. In reply to my inquiry I was informed that audited accounts covering that period have not yet been furnished to the Department.”

Deputy Byrne.—Have audited accounts now been furnished to you up to 31 July 1963? Have you been given any explanation for the delay?

Mr. Suttle.—The latest information I have is in the paragraph. I understand from inquiries made recently that audited accounts are not yet available.

Mr. Nagle.—If I may, I should like to mention first of all, that this was in the nature of a rescue operation. The German firm which up to then was running the cheese factory apparently ran into certain difficulties and departed rather abruptly, if I may so describe their action. We were then faced with the situation in which either the cheese factory would just close down or else we could, so to speak, improvise some arrangement to keep it going. If we could keep it going for a period there would be an opportunity of looking around and finding a permanent solution. It was in these circumstances that the Dairy Disposal Company were asked to come in, really as a caretaker to keep the business going. We believe they did a very good job and saved this enterprise from total collapse. The conditions in which they took over the caretaking function, as approved by the Government, were that they would be guaranteed against any losses they might incur in the running of the cheese factory. It is felt that losses will be of the order of £2,500. They may be a little more, perhaps even a little less. An audited account for the period in question will certainly be furnished. One of the reasons for the delay in furnishing it so far, I understand, has to do with two contra items. On the one hand, An Bord Bainne, I understand, have furnished to the receiver an account for milk levies due over a fairly considerable period. On the other hand, there is a counter-claim for export subsidies on cheese sent out by this firm. So you have three parties involved, the receiver, who is still winding up the affairs of the old company. An Bord Bainne and the Dairy Disposal Company. That is the sole reason for the delay in furnishing the account.

327. Deputy Treacy.—What is the present position in regard to this industry? Will it be a viable proposition?— As I mentioned earlier, the Dairy Disposal Company were asked to go in as a caretaker to prevent immediate collapse. When they took over the running of the factory there was an opportunity to look into a more permanent solution. As a result, the Unigate Group took over this cheese factory. Certainly, I have no reason to think that that has not been a success. We feel that the Wexford factory is now on a very permanent basis, that all the original difficulties, which were very many, seem to have gradually subsided. Difficulties such as milk quality gave a lot of trouble in the early years of the Wexford factory. We hear very little about that now, and, in fairness, it must be said that the new firm, which is running the factory, seems to be successful. We regard the Wexford cheese factory as a permanent fixture in our dairying industry.

328. Were any conditions laid down with the parent company of Edelweiss in respect of future operations of that industry? Were there any conditions laid down in the grants allocated about maintaining the industry for any reasonable time? Were there any stipulations made at all?—It is rather difficult for me to answer that because the grants would have been made available by An Foras Tionscal and the conditions would probably have been laid down by that body. The job of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries would be to give manufacturing licences when satisfied that the firm had fulfilled the technical conditions of hygiene, plant and matters of that kind. As everybody knows, a grant was given to the German firm by An Foras Tionscal and there was a substantial investment by the German interest but I do not know anything about the detailed conditions which may be attached to the grant.

329. Chairman.—Paragraph 52 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Subhead K.6.—Farm Buildings Scheme and Water Supplies

52. The expenditure is made up as follows:—

A unified scheme of domestic water supply grants under the administration of the Department of Local Government was brought into operation on 1 July 1963. The Department of Agriculture accordingly ceased to accept applications for grants to pipe water into farm kitchens but is continuing to deal with applications that had been received before that date. (See paragraph 34).”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I have no further information.

330. Chairman.—Paragraph 53 of the Report reads as follows.

“Subhead K.7.—Land Project

53. The payments made in the year under this head are as follows:—

An occupier of land who undertakes an approved scheme of reclamation work on his holding is entitled, when the work has been completed to the satisfaction of the Department, to a grant amounting to two-thirds of the estimated cost subject to a maximum of £30 per statute acre. Grants to farmers amounted to £1,618,119 in the year as compared with £1,528,196 in the previous year.

The payments to the Office of Public Works are in respect of salaries and travelling expenses in connection with drainage surveys and works.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for the information of the Committee.

331. Chairman.—Paragraph 54 reads as follows:

“Subhead K.8.—Lime and Fertilisers Subsidies

54. The expenditure from this subhead is made up as follows:—

The reports of officers of the Department who inspected the records of the manufacturers and importers to verify subsidy claims were examined by my officers with satisfactory results.

In order to ensure that the full benefit of the phosphatic fertiliser subsidy would reach the farming community it was decided, as mentioned in paragraph 45 of the report on the 1962-63 accounts, that the Department of Industry and Commerce should carry out an annual examination of the accounts of home manufacturers with a view to advising the Department of Agriculture of any significant change in the cost of producing superphosphate. The results of the examination of accounts for the 1962-63 fertiliser season are not yet complete.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—In reply to my inquiry the Accounting Officer states that he has been informed by the Department of Industry and Commerce that, owing to pressure of work, there was some delay in the examination of a new system of cost accounting set up by the principal manufacturer; that an examination of the new system was made to the extent necessary to satisfy the examining officer that there was no reason to question its accuracy, and that the result, coupled with the fact that the financial accounts for 1962-63 showed no indication of excessive profittaking, indicated that it could be taken that the prices in the year ended 30 June 1963 were not unreasonable. The Accounting Officer is satisfied that the full benefit of the subsidy reached the farming community.

The Accounting Officer has also informed me that he has been notified by the Department of Industry and Commerce that its examination of accounts for the 1963-64 season has been completed and that the prices were not unreasonable.

Because of the large sums involved in the phosphatic and potassic fertilisers, £3½ million, I emphasised the necessity of full examination of the books of account of the manufacturers and traders concerned.

Chairman.—Are you satisfied that there has been no excessive profiteering on the part of those who were heavily subsidised? —I am.

332. Chairman.—Paragraph 55 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Subhead K.11.—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme

55. The expenditure is made us as follows:—

Receipts amounting to £3,689,491 were credited to Appropriations in Aid in the year on account of the sale of cattle slaughtered under the scheme.

Tenders submitted by canning firms for southern area reactor cows in the quarter ended 30 June 1963 resulted in ties for each of the six counties concerned, but in subsequent discussions with the firms regarding the allocation of contracts some increase in tendered prices was obtained by the Department. For the remaining quarters in the year prices were agreed by negotiation.

The gross cost of the scheme from its inception in September 1954 to 31 March 1964, including expenditure under the scheme of Guaranteed Payments in respect of exports of fat cattle and carcase beef, was £48,056,910 and receipts from the disposal of cattle for slaughter were £15,308,033. The net cost was therefore £32,748,877.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—In the Finance minute on the Committee of Public Accounts report on the 1962-63 accounts it is indicated that the Minister for Agriculture has not a right of access to the accounts of canning firms. I have drawn attention to the fact that in the year under review there was no competition in the disposal of reactor cows and the Department was compelled to negotiate prices with the canning firms.

333. Deputy Healy.—Is there no way of overcoming this difficulty whereby the Minister has not the right of access to the accounts?—Mr. Nagle.—The position during this year remained rather like what it was in the previous year which was the subject of comment in your report relating to the previous year. The dilemma we found ourselves in, quite frankly, was that everybody, on the one hand, agreed that it was a matter of national importance that the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme should be pushed ahead with as rapidly as possible and brought to a conclusion which now, fortunately, it has. We were in the position that we had to do something in the national interest with great speed and we were involved, at the same time, in very large scale transactions in the shape of the purchase of reactor cattle. On the other hand, we were one of the biggest purchasers of cattle in the whole country and in the resale of these cattle to the only people capable of handling them, that is, the canning factories, we found that a really competitive set-up did not seem to exist. As I mentioned last year, the canning firms tended to band themselves together. We tried various devices for breaking that up, but, everytime, without in any way infringing the law, we were advised, the canning industry found a way out. Unless the scheme was to be temporarily abandoned we had then no option but to negotiate prices with them. The important question the Committee would like to ask, I am sure, is, were those prices which were received for the reactor cattle below what they should be and, if so, by how much? It is rather difficult to answer this definitely. It is a fair conclusion, as I said earlier, that if we had had full competition in bidding by the canning factories, the average price received would have been higher than it was but it would really be impossible to go beyond that and say it would have been so much higher.

One perhaps slightly consoling fact is that, strangely enough perhaps, our average losses on these reactors actually declined between 1962-63 and 1963-64. For example, in 1962-63, according to the figures that I have been supplied with here by my Department, the average loss per cow reactor was £30 11s and again according to these figures, the average loss on cow reactors in 1963-64 was £27 6s. 3d. Then if I may mention the reactors other than cows, the average loss fell from £19 5s. 3d in 1962-63 to £14 12s. 11d. in 1963-64. So, we at least have that much consolation. I should, perhaps also add that I do not think the meat trade would ever admit what I have just suggested. They have always contended that they paid a perfectly fair price, that it was necessary for them to have this form of bulk negotiation in as much as the Department had intruded itself into this trade and was handling a vast amount of animals, that that factor itself upset all the normal functioning of supply and demand. Some of them had even alleged that the outturn of 1963-64 was anything but profitable but, again, I have no way of checking these views either. I am merely stating that these are the kind of views the meat trade would put up in an attempt, maybe, to counter the suggestions I have made.

Deputy Burke.—We were dealing with an abnormal position, in the national interest, at that period.

Chairman.—We are withdrawing from the cattle trade now?—Indeed, frankly, it is a tremendous relief. We are now virtually out of this business.

Deputy Burke.—You have done a good job.

334. Chairman.—Paragraph 56 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“Subhead K.14—Payments to Pigs and Bacon Commission.

56. The subhead provides for payments to the Commission in connection with the operation of the scheme of support prices for exports of Grade A bacon. £1,400,000 was paid in the year and is accounted for in the accounts of the Commission.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This Paragraph is for the information of the Committee. I audit the accounts of the Pigs and Bacon Commission.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—We hope we will get another and more open competitive market in future.

335. Chairman.—We all hope that. I think the accounts of the Pigs and Bacon Commission were available last year for the Committee. I wonder could we have them this year?—Yes. As soon as the accounts of the Commission are available they will be furnished, of course, to the Committee.*

Deputy Byrne.—Surely the accounts for the year 1962-63 are available?—I am practically certain they are available.

Mr. Suttle.—Yes, they have been certified. They may not have been published due to the printing strike.

Mr. Nagle.—That is probable, yes.

336. Chairman.—Paragraph 57 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:

“Subhead K. 15.—Losses on Disposal of Wheat, etc.

57. The expenditure under the subhead is made up as follows:—

Recoupments to An Bord Grain:

Have you anything to add to the information contained in that paragraph, Mr. Suttle?

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

337. Chairman.—Paragraph 58 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:

“58. It was arranged that An Bord Grain should take over for resale on the home and export markets so much of the 1962 wheat crop as was unmillable. 193,519 tons were taken over and the disposal arrangements included the substitution in the export programme of 74,036 tons of feed barley in lieu of wheat on the basis that the loss to the Exchequer would be less on exports of barley than on wheat. The barley was exported by members of the Irish Corn Trade Association who were paid an export subsidy by An Bord in reimbursement of losses incurred. An Bord also undertook the making of ex-gratia payments of 12s. 6d. per barrel to growers who sold the unmillable wheat. The accounts of An Bord shows a loss at 31 August 1963 of £2,193,585 towards which £2,100,000 has been advanced.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—Again, this paragraph is for the information of the Committee and I have nothing to add.

338. Chairman.—Paragraph 59 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:

“59. The unmillable wheat of the 1962 crop taken over by An Bord Grain, referred to in the previous paragraph, included 178,718 tons of dried wheat from the Flour Millers Irish Wheat Association. For this tonnage and for costs of drying and handling the Department authorised payment by An Bord of £4,003,002. This amount was certified by the Association’s auditors as the aggregate cost of 202,552 tons of green wheat of which the ex-farm cost was £3,426,491. I communicated with the Accounting Officer as I was not satisfied that the auditors’ certificate adequately accounted for the difference between the aggregate and the ex-farm cost or for the difference between the quantity of green wheat bought by the millers and the quantity of dried wheat delivered to An Bord. In reply I was informed that the certified cost of the dried wheat was, after examination, considered reasonable in relation to the ex-farm cost of the green wheat. Also, a drying loss of 11.77 per cent. was regarded as reasonable in the circumstances of the 1962 wheat harvest.”

Have you anything to add to the information contained in that paragraph, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing to add to the information contained in the paragraph. The accounting officer has informed me that he is satisfied with the figures certified by the auditors of the Wheat Growers Association.

339. Chairman.—Paragraph 60 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:

“60. The Exchequer liability arising from the 1962 wheat crop fell to be offset to the extent of the savings of the flour millers as the result of the use of Irish wheat in the grist at a lower percentage than 75 per cent. These savings were surrendered for the benefit of the Exchequer through the medium of a temporary customs duty on imported millable wheat imposed from 6 December 1962. Following representations from the flour millers the customs duty was removed with effect from 1 November 1963 on their undertaking to surrender to the Exchequer any shortfall between the amount of customs duty actually received and the amount of savings surrenderable as ultimately determined. The millers remitted £80,000 on account by 31 March 1964 —credited to Exchequer Extra Receipts —but a final assessment of the total amount of savings surrenderable is not yet available.”

Have you anything to add to the information contained in that paragraph, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The price of imported wheat is considerably less than the price of Irish wheat and permission to increase the proportion of imported wheat in the grist resulted in savings to the millers. These savings were surrendered to the Exchequer in the manner set out in the Report, that is, partly by way of customs duty and partly by actual cash payments to the Department.

Mr. Nagle.—May I add there, Mr. Chairman, that in addition to the proceeds of the customs duty, which amounted to, I think, £619,244, there was a direct payment from the industry finally amounting to £110,279, so that the total contribution, from the flour milling industry came to over £729,000. This figure was worked out in relation to the reduction of the Irish content in the wheat grist following this very difficult harvest and a costing of the price of imported wheat on six occasions during the year—because the price of imported wheat itself varies— and this particular sum represented the apparent windfall, so to speak, which the milling industry would have received if arrangements had not been made to syphon it off. We believe the figure, £729,000, is about the correct reflection of that particular element.

340. Chairman.—Apparently, you collect money in two ways, either customs duty or directly from the firms?—Yes.

Why are there two methods of collecting?—As far as I remember, I think what happened was this: it was intended, first of all, to try to collect the whole sum by means of customs duty but the millers made representations after a certain period to the effect that it would be more convenient for them not to go through all the rather elaborate motions of having to put imported wheat in bond and all the formalities connected with the charging of customs duty and at the same time said that if they could be dispensed with these formalities they would guarantee to pay the balance of the amount due, which in fact they did, to the tune of another £110,000 odd. I think the net effect was precisely the same. Each mill paid its proportionate share and we dealt then with the Flour Millers Association and they paid to us the total amount they had collected from their member mills.

341. Chairman.—Paragraph 61 of the Report reads:

“Subhead N.—Marketing etc., of Dairy Produce.

61. The expenditure is made up as follows:—

The payment to An Bord Bainne is accounted for in the Accounts of An Bord.

The creamery milk price allowance was increased by one penny per gallon as from 1 May 1963 to enable creameries to similarly increase the price to producers.”

Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing to add. The accounts were audited by me.

Chairman.—Are these accounts published?

Mr. Suttle.—They are. The accounts up to March 1964 have been audited, certified, printed and published. I cannot say whether they have been presented to the Oireachtas.

Chairman.—It is a substantial expenditure. Is it customary to present them to the Oireachtas?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes. They are laid on the Table.

342. Chairman.—Paragraph 62 of the Report reads:

“62. The amounts allocated and the recoupments from the American Grant Counterpart Special Account of expenditure incurred up to 31 March 1964 on projects sponsored by the Department of Agriculture are shown in the following statement. The amounts recouped were credited to appropriations in aid.

The allocation to the Agricultural Institute is accounted for in the Accounts of An Foras Taluntais.”

Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing to add. The expenditure is nearly completed in all the projects mentioned.

343. Deputy Byrne.—Do you audit the accounts of the Agricultural Institute?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes. They too, are presented to the Oireachtas. They were furnished to the Committee last year and if the members require them the same may be done this year.*

344. Chairman.—Paragraph 63 of the Report states:

“World Food Programme (Grant in-Aid) Account.

63. As shown in the Account contributions amounted to £134,286 in the year. These comprised £28,614 in cash and £105,672 for food supplied. The balance in the Account on 31 March 1964 was £137,126.”

Mr. Suttle.—A copy of the account of the Fund is published as an Appendix on page 113. Expenditure is partly by way of cash and partly by way of Irish goods purchased here for export.

Deputy Byrne.—I presume the goods are mostly dairy produce?

Mr. Nagle.—The total amount of money was £300,000 which was paid into this deposit account. Of that sum, more than £85,000 was to be made available as a cash donation to the World Food Programme and the balance in the form of goods, very largely milk products and again very largely milk powder, a product that keeps well and travels well and is of very considerable use in these less well off countries to which these donations are sent. The amounts actually contributed out of this Fund in 1963-64 consisted of 520 tons of full cream milk powder and 200 tons of skim milk powder, the total value of which was about £105,000. Then, there was a cash contribution to the programme of more than £28,000 so that the total payments in the year were £134,283. We operated this account according to the requests we received from the authorities of the World Food Programme. The programme is under the control of a joint council representing the United Nations in New York and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN and on their behalf an executive director, answerable to the two organisations, runs and manages this rather complicated programme which, as far as we can see, is proving quite a success. We are only one of a very large number of countries who have agreed to contribute. The aim is to assist needy and less well off countries, especially in times of difficulty. For example, if there was a disaster like a cyclone or flood, as happened in Pakistan not so long ago, we might be requested to send part of our pledge, as we call it, in the form of milk powder to that country. We carry out the requests as we receive them, of course keeping within the total amount of our pledge.

345. Deputy Briscoe.—Do we keep the stock in the country pending directions from abroad?—Sometimes it is not even necessary to keep a stock. A commodity like milk powder we find can be supplied by the producers if we give them a reasonably short notice of a few weeks or a month. Shipping is arranged by the World Food Programme authorities. We only pay the cost down as far as the loading on board ship. The Programme authorities take on all expenses after that. Naturally, our cash contribution would go in part to meeting those overheads of freight and handling.

346. Deputy Treacy.—I am wondering about the demand for skim milk powder. What is the nutritional value of skim milk powder?—Probably the Chairman would be a better authority than I am. I speak subject to correction, but we find there is a consistent demand for skim milk powder because I understand it provides in readily assimilable form high protein in the diet and they find in these countries there is a serious shortage of protein particularly among children. I understand that some of the skimmed milk powder may be introduced into the school meal system where it goes direct to the children through the schools.

Deputy Burke.—In other words, there is a keen demand for it?—Yes.

Deputy Treacy.—There was a specific request for the skimmed milk rather than pure milk?—Definitely.

You supplied it on request?—Yes, at their insistence.

Deputy Burke.—It is information to us?—If I might add a general point. Skimmed milk seems to be coming into its own.

Deputy Treacy.—It used to be very popular in the old days?—Its value, if anything, is tending to increase and some people think that, maybe in 20 to 40 years time, skimmed milk will be almost exclusively used for human consumption.

347. Chairman.—Paragraph 64 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund.

64. The income of the Fund, derived from levies on creamery butter, amounted to £485,628 as compared with £474,625 in the previous year. £495,000 was paid in the year to An Bord Bainne towards the expenses of the creamery butter cold storage scheme and is accounted for in the accounts of An Bord.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing further to add.

Deputy Briscoe.—The paragraph states that £495,000 was paid in the year to An Bord Bainne towards the expenses of the creamery butter cold storage scheme. Could you tell us something about that? —This is a very old fund. It was wound up on the 31st March of this year. Our main purpose was to finance the cold storing of butter produced in the summer for use during the winter. A levy was collected from the creameries in relation to their turnover and so forth. The butter was then stored—previously, at the direction of the old Butter Marketing Committee which has now gone out of existence, but now at the direction of An Bord Bainne—in the public cold store if the creameries desired to part with it. In other cases, where the creameries themselves had cold storage facilities, they would agree to keep a quantity in storage for a stated period and would get an allowance for doing so. The cost of all this cold storage was, naturally enough, levied off the entire industry. Therefore, those creameries who were able to dispose of their production before winter—maybe some small ones could do so—had, in turn, to pay a certain portion of the total cost of providing for the country’s butter requirements for the rest of the year. There were some outstanding transactions and claims in connection with this fund, which have now been settled, otherwise we would have transferred the whole thing to An Bord Bainne some years ago. The account has now been fully cleared and as from the 1st April last the Board have taken charge of the fund. We have parted company with it. In future the fund will be fully accounted for in the accounts of An Bord Bainne.

348. Deputy Burke.—On the Vote itself, on subhead C.2—Veterinary Research—for what reason was the amount spent £16,450 less than the amount granted?—The £16,450 is made up mainly of two items. There is one of about £8,600 for salaries and wages and another, about £8,100, for general expenses. During that year we were not successful in filling all the authorised vacancies we had in the veterinary research laboratory. We had vacancies for a couple of senior research officers, for the basic grade of research officer and for some laboratory technicians. I am glad to say that fairly recently—by that I am referring to this year—we seem to be on the point of overcoming the difficulties which we had for a number of years. Our last competition to recruit veterinarians, especially research men, has been very successful.

349. Deputy Byrne.—On subhead D.5 —Trinity College, Dublin; School of Veterinary Medicine—and with that I would couple subhead D.4—University College, Dublin; Faculty of Veterinary Medicine—is there any overlap between the two schools? Is there any degree of liaison between them?—These arrangements go back quite a number of years. At one time, as you know, the veterinary college was an integral part of the Department of Agriculture but the view came to prevail in educational and academic circles, and I am sure quite rightly, that veterinary education should be a university matter, that veterinary education should be in the university just the same as medicine, architecture, engineering and so forth. Naturally enough the Government were quite agreeable to that proposition. The problem arose that there were two universities in Dublin. A number of proposals were made including the possibility of a joint board representing the two universities, taking over the veterinary college and running the veterinary course as a single course.

That particular suggestion of a joint board did not appeal to quite a number of important interests in this country and for that reason it was not found practicable at the time. There was considerable opposition to it. A further suggestion was made to the effect that the two universities could, while having their own veterinary courses, administer the college jointly, in other words, look after the buildings and the appointment of technicians but not of the professional staff. That proposal also did not appeal to a number of important interests. So, the present situation then developed, I would say inevitably, under which each university has a separate veterinary faculty with its own staff. They both use the Veterinary College of Ireland, which is held as a building by the State through the Department of Agriculture, and the State is represented in the Veterinary College by an administrator who is a civil servant and his job is to try to parcel out the accommodation fairly and equitably between the two universities. They are both teaching their students there but only to an extent in a combined way. As far as I can remember, the students of University College, Dublin do not participate in the lectures and classes given by the Trinity professors but the Trinity students do attend some of the University College Dublin lectures and practicals where they are regarded as occasional students. So that I think the answer is that to some extent, to quite an important extent, the courses are separate but that to a lesser extent there is a common use of facilities so far as the Trinity students are concerned, in so far as they would be admitted to certain University College, Dublin classes. Naturally, it is more expensive to have two faculties in one subject than one. There can be no question about that and whatever about the future, all I can say is, from having by chance some rather close association with, although I will not say responsibility for, this very difficult problem when it was being tackled quite a number of years ago, that at that time there did not seem to be any other possible solution than what in fact is now being done. Whether in future there may be a different approach to the problem, I do not know. It might be a good thing if there were.

Deputy Byrne.—We can piously hope there will be a more happy arrangement in the future.

Deputy Burke.—The accounting officer is a great peacemaker.

350. Chairman.—They use the same lecture rooms?—Yes, as far as practicable.

Have they the same laboratory?—I think to a certain extent they do. This is where the Administrator comes in. He has to arrange timetables so as to avoid the two classes trying to do the same thing at the same time in the one laboratory, which is rather a delicate operation.

351. Deputy Byrne.—Does the Department bear the entire cost of these two separate schools? Are there other contributions?—The State really bears the entire cost after allowing for receipts from students’ fees to the two universities.

352. Have you any idea how many students are in each veterinary school?— I would not like to guess the exact figure, which I can certainly send to you, but the number of entrants in the first year is generally in the region of about 50 for University College, Dublin and ten or so for Trinity College. In fact, that type of ratio was established at the beginning of this particular arrangement. So, if it is possible to take in more entrants the same ratio between the two universities is preserved. It does not follow, of course, that five years later the same number of men emerge as graduates. Some fall by the wayside, and so on, so that if you have 60 or 65 entrants the eventual number of graduates will probably be in the region of 55 or thereabouts. If the Deputy wishes, Mr. Chairman, I will get him the figures more precisely and send them to the Secretary.*

Deputy Byrne.—It might be helpful. Thank you.

353. Chairman.—On subhead D.10.— Farm Apprenticeship Scheme—this is a scheme which has not got off the ground? —Yes. This was a token provision for that year and the scheme did not materialise in 1963-64 but since then it has materialised and we have a Farm Apprenticeship Board now in existence which seems to be quite successful.

354. Deputy Byrne.—On subhead I.2. —Contribution to Irish Agricultural Organisation Society (Grant-in-Aid)— could I ask Mr. Nagle if the Irish Agricultural Society submits audited accounts to his Department?—I do not know that they are required to do that but I think I am right in saying that we do receive their annual accounts which I think are audited by a recognised commercial firm of accountants. So there is a possibility of following up to an extent what happens the grant. The grant has recently been increased.

355. Deputy Byrne.—It would seem sound procedure to insist in all these cases —the IAOS, Countrywomen’s Association, Macra na Feirme, the National Farmers’ Association—that the organisations should submit audited accounts, particularly where the Department’s contributions constitute a substantial part of their income?—I agree with that. On subhead I.7. I should perhaps say this was for a rather special purpose. It was in connection with the Thirteenth World Conference of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, a worldwide federation of farmers’ associations. They had a very big conference in Bray in June 1963. It was considered quite an honour that this country was selected as a venue and the NFA had considerable expenses in connection with the organising of the conference—the provision of facilities, rental, cost of interpretation and so forth. The Government agreed on this special contribution. It is not an annual affair, simply an ad hoc contribution.

356. Chairman.—On subhead K. 5— Agricultural Production Council—is this a new body?—No. It is a council of some considerable antiquity. It met during the war years and occasionally since the war, but it has been convened on only very few occasions in recent years, one of the reasons, perhaps, being that in the meantime, a number of farmers’ organisations have become quite prominent in the country and discussions are held regularly on agricultural matters with these organisations—the NFA, ICMSA, Macra na Feirme and so forth. The tendency seems to be now to deal with these bodies according to the subject that arises for discussion because they regard themselves as being representative. The Agricultural Council was, to a large extent, a nominated body in the sense that it was the Minister who named the members, of course after consulting the various organisations.

Is the council functioning at all or does it exist just on paper?—It has not met for quite a few years. We have a few other consultative councils, such as that on livestock, which have met. I recall a meeting of the Livestock Council when the question of importing Charolais cattle was raised.

357. Deputy Byrne.—On subhead K.13. Grants to Bacon Factories—what are these grants for?—They are intended to help the factories to modernise their conditions and layout. For example, the slaughter line might need some improvement. The grants are also used for the purchase of certain necessary equipment. They are used for the installation of gas chambers for the slaughter of pigs—or rather for the rendering of pigs unconscious before being stuck. Generally the grants are to help the factories towards much needed modernisation. The general rule is that grants are limited and scaled. In the case of a large factory it might be £35,000, for a medium-sized one it would be in the region of £20,000 and the sum would be £15,000 in the case of small factories. There is no question here of financing any vast reorganisation scheme or total reconversion or reconstruction of a bacon factory. On the other hand, we were advised that quite a lot of improvements as regards hygiene and general working conditions would be desirable and would become feasible through a grant scheme of this type. We have an advantage here because we have staff in each factory—veterinary and technician staff—and through them we have pretty detailed information about each factory about what improvements might be necessary, what such improvements might cost and then, through our own staff, we have facilities for following up what was done with the grants we paid out. If it would be of interest to the Committee, I can tell you that the total amount paid out through these grants in the period to the 31st March, 1965 was about £277,000. The vast majority of the bacon factories, that is, 35 out of 44, have availed of this scheme.

358. Chairman.—Would it be possible to get a list of the amount given to each factory?—We have that information. If there is no protocol about disclosing individual amounts, there is no reason why we should not let the Committee have the information.*

Mr. Suttle.—An Foras Tionscal furnish us with that type of information?—We can do the same.

359. Deputy Byrne.—What is the basis of the grants? Do you pay 100 per cent of the cost of the project? Is it on the basis of pound for pound?—Yes. Our grant would be 50 per cent of what our people regard as the correct estimate of the cost. We would not pay more than 50 per cent.

You would satisfy yourself that the factories concerned are unable to finance these projects from their own resources? —It is difficult to say if we could prove in each case that they were unable to do so.

Would they submit accounts?—It would be correct to put it this way. We believe that without this 50 per cent grant in operation, many of these improvements would not materialise. The grants were needed.

360. On the Appropriations in Aid, No. 15—Sums recoverable in respect of the salaries, etc., of officers seconded to outside bodies—could we be informed who those outside bodies are?—I do not seem to have a list of the bodies here but I can supply it to the Committee. I could, from memory, mention a number but I would prefer to give you a complete list.† We have people with the Dairy Disposal Company, Bord na gCon and quite a number of those bodies.

361. In the notes, I am a little bit intrigued by the second last paragraph on page 108 about the fines amounting to almost £3½ million incurred by holders of milling licences under section 10 of the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Act, 1935 which were waived. Is this an annually recurring item? Are these fines waived every year?—Yes. Mr. Chairman. I think this could really be described as a technicality but under the legislation concerned orders have to be made every year specifying how much Irish wheat will be used and distributing that among the various mills. In practice, almost invariably, these orders have to be amended considerably as the season advances but, theoretically, once any order is made millers remain liable to a fine if they do not do precisely what the order contemplates even though in the actual conditions following the harvest it would be utterly impossible for them to carry out what was said in some of these orders. Unfortunately, these orders have to be made under the statute. So, as the Deputy suggested, every year we have to go through this rather extraordinary motion of solemnly remitting fines amounting to an enormous amount but in fact really no offence has been committed, no real irregularity has taken place. It is just a legal technicality but unless there is a formal remission of the fines, I gather that the fines would remain legally due.

Deputy Byrne.—I do not envy the millers.

Deputy Briscoe.—No doubt, they understand it.

Deputy Byrne.—One would have thought that there might be a less cumbersome way of dealing with the position? —I am quite sure the Deputy is right. It might require an amendment.

Some alteration of the 1935 Act?—Yes.

362. Chairman.—We have accounts here of the Dairy Disposal Company Limited and Associated Companies* I think Deputy Byrne wants to raise a point on them.

Deputy Byrne.—I am really seeking enlightenment, first, as to what our function is in regard to the Dairy Disposal Company Limited; secondly, as to whether this balance sheet, which is called a combined balance sheet is in fact a consolidated balance sheet of the Dairy Disposal Company and subsidiary companies; and thirdly, I am wondering if in future years we will have submitted to us an account which conforms with the Companies Act, 1963, that is assuming that the Dairy Disposal Company Limited is subject to the Companies Act, of which I am not quite sure.

Mr. Suttle.—As a company it is subject to the Companies Act in the ordinary way.

Deputy Byrne.—This balance sheet does not conform with the Companies Act.

Mr. Suttle.—It is an attempt to bring it in line with the Companies Act. If the Deputy looks at the report of last year’s Public Accounts Committee he will see, taking the question of depreciation, they showed fixed assets at cost price up to last year. He can see that this year they are attempting to bring in the accumulated depreciation over all the years as a deduction from that figure. It is an attempt to bring it into line with the Companies Act of 1963 but I do not audit the accounts and I could not say to what extent it is fully complied with.

363. Deputy Byrne.—Are these companies—Cleeves Confectionery Limerick Limited, The Newmarket Dairy Company 1932 Limited, The Condensed Milk Company of Ireland 1928 Limited wholly owned subsidiaries of the Dairy Disposal Company Limited?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes, they are.

Mr. Nagle.—That is correct, yes.

364. Deputy Byrne.—I would hope that next year we would have a balance sheet and profit and loss account which conformed with the Companies Act. I would imagine that if an account is to be submitted to us at all, it should be such an account as would be submitted to the shareholders’ ordinary annual meeting of a public company.

Mr. Suttle.—That question is rather in the air. It was raised last year in your report. Do you remember that in the final paragraph of your report last year you raised a question of the accounts of bodies like the Dairy Disposal Company Limited being submitted to the Committee for examination and the Department of Finance in their Minute on that report have postponed dealing with that question as it is under consideration?

Deputy Byrne.—I think that is on a somewhat different problem. In our report last year surely we were referring to accounts which were not submitted to us. This, in fact, is the account of a State company which is submitted to us but which clearly does not conform with the Companies Act. There may be justification for that in so far as the Companies Act did not come into force until 1st April, 1964. There is no profit and loss account attached. The shareholders of any public company obtain an account which shows trading profit for the year and its allocation. This account does not do so.

Mr. Suttle.—I think originally this statement was submitted at the request of the Committee to reconcile the original sums that had been issued by the Department to the Dairy Disposal Company Limited in connection with the acquisition of creameries away back in the ’20s from which certain sums were written off later and the statement that is submitted here reconciles the amounts originally issued by the Department of Agriculture to the company with the present liability of the company to the Department and the balance sheet is really only submitted, if you like, as supporting that statement.

Mr. Nagle.—That was the basis of the arrangement. A consolidated balance sheet was furnished to the Dáil and the Committee of Public Accounts as a result of a promise made by the then Minister for Agriculture in the Dáil in 1943. At least, that is my recollection. The general form the accounts take was agreed. Of course, for very many years no State money has been advanced to the Dairy Disposal Company Limited. No money has passed from the Exchequer to the company. So that the original amount outstanding, as referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor General, would still be the only sum in which the State itself is directly involved. As regards the future format of the balance sheet, of course, it must comply with any relevant provisions of the 1963 Companies Act. The Deputy was kind enough to point out that the Act only came into operation on 1 April 1964, whereas the company’s accounts were made up to the end of December 1963. The changes that would effect in the presentation of this account, as mentioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General, have been advised by the company’s auditors. We certainly take the point that, in future years, the account must tally with any relevant requirements of the recent Companies Act.

365. Chairman.—Do the Dairy Disposal Company submit any accounts other than this? — They prepare annual audited accounts as well as a balance sheet. The undertaking given to a previous Committee of Public Accounts was that a balance sheet would be submitted in the circumstances Mr. Suttle has described. That was an arrangement come to with a previous Committee of Public Accounts.

Are the annual accounts submitted to your Department?—Yes. They send us a copy of their annual accounts each year.

366. Deputy Byrne.—I wonder can Mr. Nagle say when the last arrangement was come to. Would it be quite a number of years ago?

Mr. Suttle.—It would. I should think it was at least 15 years ago.

Deputy Byrne.—The practice has changed considerably since and we are now in the position of having to operate under the Companies Act of 1963, which requires certain disclosures not previously required. If the balance sheet is to come before us at all it must conform with the requirements of that Act. I consider that Mr. Nagle has met the case entirely in so far as the Act was not in force in the year covered by this account.

Mr. Suttle.—I do not think there will be any question of not complying with the requirements of the new company law.

The Witness withdrew.

VOTE 21—VALUATION AND ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Mr. J. Mooney called and examined.

367. Deputy Briscoe.—On Paragraph 4 of the Appropriations in Aid, I notice that sales of maps were better than expected?—They have been going up at a great rate. In the year which ended last March, they reached the figure of £26,000 and they are still surging upwards. Were it not for the present financial emergency we would expect that in the current year the sales would reach £30,000. There may be a setback this year, but the position is very good.

VOTE 22—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. J. Mooney further examined.

368. Chairman.—On subhead B—Contributions towards Rates on Premises occupied by Representatives of External Governments—has any progress been made on the question that arose with the American Government on the elements in the rate to be defined as beneficial and non-beneficial?

Mr. Suttle.—I have no further information.

Deputy Byrne.—Is it a question of some people not paying the rates they should be paying?—There has been some difficulty with the American people. They have disputed the basis on which the rates are apportioned as between beneficial and non-beneficial. They claim that under a convention they should not be liable for so much. That has been in dispute over the years and a big amount of arrears accumulated. We have been urging them to try to come to some agreement with us. The prospect is that we may be able to settle the thing very soon. Actually, we had a meeting with the External Affairs people a few days ago and since that they have been in touch with the American authorities. We hope the matter will be resolved soon. That would mean that they would agree on some basis for the future and we would clear off the arrears element that is here.

369. What is the amount of the arrears?—I could not really say how much. It would be about what would cover a couple of years. We paid off a lot of the arrears which had accumulated to the Dublin Corporation. That was two or three years ago and we took the initiative ourselves and said that, irrespective of this difficulty with the Americans we might as well pay the Dublin Corporation the arrears due to them on an apportionment basis, which was a very safe basis. We did that then but we have not given them anything for last year or the current year so an element of arrears has built up since.

Deputy Byrne.—When you consider the position of any unfortunate householder who does not pay up his rates on the nail it is very hard to sympathise with what is going on here.

Mr. Suttle.—This is an international arrangement. The representatives are only liable for the beneficial part of the rates. It applies to our representatives abroad as well. There are reciprocal arrangements?—Actually, the position in America is if we own premises there we pay no rates. That is what is annoying them here.

Deputy Byrne.—They want reciprocal arrangements?—They maintained they should not have to pay any rates in in Ireland. It is true if we owned premises in America we would not pay any rates but if we rented premises we would pay the full rent which would include full rates. I think we rent some premises. I know we did. Here, it does not matter, whether you are the owner or not, you pay rates.

Deputy Burke.—I am sure we wish Mr. Mooney every success in this matter.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XVI.

* See Appendix XVII.

* See Appendix XVIII.

* See Appendix XIX.

† See Appendix XX.

* See Appendix XXI.