Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1966 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1964 - 1965

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Máirt, 5 Iúil, 1966.

Tuesday, 5th July, 1966.

The Committee sat at 2 p.m.

DEPUTY JONES in the chair.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd Reachtaire Cuntais agus Ciste) and Mr. P. S. MacGuill (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 40—AGRICULTURE.

Mr. J. C. Nagle called and examined.

368. Chairman.—Paragraph 34 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report reads:

“Subheads C.2.—Veterinary Research E.1.—Improvement of Milk Production E.2.—Improvement of Live Stock

34. The charge to these subheads includes expenditure of approximately £60,000 on the purchase, importation, insurance and maintenance during periods of quarantine, of Charolais cattle from France and Friesian cattle and Texel sheep from Holland. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding insurance premiums and the recovery of losses which would appear to have been covered by insurance. I have also inquired regarding certain transport charges in this country.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The insurance premiums and the losses to which I referred in this paragraph arose mainly in connection with four of the animals purchased which were not imported because they failed to pass the Department’s veterinary tests. On the basis of the information furnished by the Accounting Officer in his reply to my query, I estimate that the net loss arising out of the disposal of these animals was £1,650. The Accounting Officer informs me that the insurers denied liability. My query regarding certain transport charges related to the possibility of the Department’s using transport facilities available from the Army authorities at Spike Island. The Accounting Officer has informed me that these facilities were used as far as it was possible, but they were not adequate to do the complete job.

369. On what grounds did the insurers refuse liability in this case?

Mr. Nagle.—The total number of animals involved was 43 cattle and 31 sheep and, of these, 4 animals, that is to say 2 Friesian bulls, one Friesian heifer and one Charolais bull, reacted to a particular test which was applied in Rotterdam during the quarantine period. This test is known as a Pirbright test, as developed by the British Ministry of Agriculture’s Virus Research Station at Pirbright in England. Previously, the animals had gone through the continental test at the farm of origin against foot-and-mouth disease, and all had passed that test. They were all again subjected to the Pirbright test, on expert advice, in Rotterdam, and the four I mentioned reacted to the test. The test is an extremely sensitive one and there was no evidence, in fact, that the animals were developing, or had developed foot-and-mouth disease. The insurance company then held that, as there was no evidence of actual disease, they were not liable and there did not seem to be any possibility of pursuing the claim against them. The animals had to be disposed of, three of them by resale. The three Dutch animals could be re-sold in Holland—at a loss, of course—but the principal loss occurred in the case of the Charolais bull from France. It was then, of course, in Holland, in the quarantine station. This animal cost £961 but it had to be sold for meat, whereas the other animals were sold as going concerns, because under Dutch law they do not allow these Charolais animals, we understand, into Holland for breeding. There was no option but to slaughter the animal and of course the meat value, £91, was much less than the breeding value.

370. Deputy Hogan.—Have the Department amended their insurance so as to cover any losses arising out of this test in future?— We are looking into that. I understand it is not very easy to get a cover against failure to react to one of these tests.

Too sensitive?—Yes. For example, experts tell me that in this particular case, the reaction might have been due to what are called non-specific reasons and the animal might react for a combination of reasons which did not add up to the presence of foot-and-mouth disease in the animal. Another possibility, though I think more remote, was that some of those animals might have been vaccinated against foot-and-mouth disease, in which event they would react to the test but would not themselves be affected with the disease. Our veterinarians do not allow vaccinated animals in to this country and we never vaccinate against foot-and-mouth disease. If we were unlucky enough to have animals with the disease we would slaughter immediately and eradicate the disease. I am afraid we will probably find the premium exceedingly high if we can succeed in placing such an insurance, but it certainly is being looked into. I may add that this transaction was a little hazardous. It was the first time we attempted this and of course the dreadful fear was that foot-and-mouth disease might really have turned up at some stage despite every precaution. If one animal had definitely had the disease all would have had to be slaughtered immediately and that would mean a loss of over £50,000, even if the other animals in the same quarantine did not have the disease at the time.

371. Chairman.—This is the kind of risk you were insuring against?—Yes, that is what we had in mind and also, of course, the definite risk of injury in transit. In France they were moved a lot into and out of trains and trucks, then into quarantine, then into a ship. When they got to Cork harbour they had to be unloaded from the seagoing vessel to a lighter and transported to Spike Island, loaded on trucks at the quayside in Spike Island and brought to the quarantine station proper, which is ¼ mile from the landing slip in Spike The insurance would have covered all possible accidents or deaths through illness or theft or anything like that. We did recover one payment from the insurance company and they did not question it. One of the Texel rams died on Spike Island from natural causes, not foot-and-mouth disease, and we recovered its full value, about £55, from the same company.

Deputy Kenny.—Who looks after the animals in Spike Island?—Our Department staff look after them. It is under the general supervision of our veterinary people and they have under them a superintendent or manager who remains there all the time that we have any animals in the quarantine, which of course is not always.

372. Was there any progeny out of those animals during the year 1965?—Yes, I think all the bulls are now located with AI stations. We retained some heifers of the two breeds, Charolais and Friesian, and we conducted trials with these on our own farms and also in association with the Agricultural Institute, that is to say, we are trying to breed truebred Friesian and Charolais to establish a pure race here and we are also crossing them with other breeds and evaluating the results. These experiments are all in progress at the moment but I imagine it will be some years before we have the results. Some people, of course, say that it is the farmers at large who will decide whether the breeds will become established here. If they demand the use of these bulls in large numbers, then the breeds will have proved themselves but, nevertheless, the scientific tests are very necessary and are going ahead.

373. Deputy Healy.—Is there some reason why this test could not be carried out when the animals were being purchased in the first instance?—As I mentioned, they were tested on the farms, first of all, but it was with what you might call the European test.

Could you not use the other test?—The owners of the cattle insisted on what was their national test being applied and that seems not unreasonable when that was the accepted test in their own country. All the purchases, I think, had to be made on farms because in those countries they do not seem to have our general auction system at all so our men had to go on the farms and have them tested there. There was the possibility, however remote, that in transit from the farms to the quarantine in Rotterdam, they might, by some accident, have picked up the disease, so another test, before they left Rotterdam, became essential.

I can appreciate that they would have to be tested in Rotterdam but I would think that if the test that is carried out in Rotterdam could be done in the first instance there would be much less likelihood of failure or showing any positive signs again, but I suppose that is not possible under the methods they use in the land of purchase?—I understand that the sellers, who would be Frenchmen or Dutchmen, the farmers and breeders, would require the locally accepted test to be applied. This Pirbright test is extremely sensitive and does not always really prove the existence of the disease. On the other hand, we felt that it would have looked extremely reckless for us to have ignored the result of the test of these four animals and gone ahead with the importation, even though, in practice, it might not have been dangerous. It is not the kind of thing we would have liked to do. Furthermore, if the original Pirbright test could have been applied on the farm of origin it would have to be re-applied at the exit point and there is the possibility that animals which passed on the farm might go down in the test at the point of exit, this test is so sensitive.

Deputy Healy.—I am satisfied up to a point. Maybe I am a bit pessimistic in saying we were lucky. It seems to me if threequarters were affected, we would be in a different position and we would be still in the situation that we would not know whether it could be imported or not. We are, to my mind, buying a pig in a poke. You do a test when the animals are purchased, and, in quarantine in another country, you do another test later. The animals can pick up the disease on the journey but it does not show up on the farms where you purchase them. It could show up in another test later. We are taking a terrible risk because next year nine-tenths, in another test, might show that they have the disease.

Deputy P. Hogan.—I do not agree. We are taking precautions.

Chairman.—I do not want to interrupt but I would like to say that this can be brought up when we are discussing the Report later on.

374. Paragraph 35 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead I.6.—An Foras Talúntais (Grants-in-Aid)

35. During the year under review provision was made by way of supplementary estimate for payment to An Foras Talúntais of a non-statutory capital grant of £15,000, the Capital Fund of £840,000 provided under section 10 of the Agriculture (An Foras Talúntais) Act, 1958 having been virtually exhausted. £1,016,250 was also paid as a grant-in-aid under section 12 of the Act. These moneys are accounted for in the accounts of An Foras.”

Members have received the accounts of An Foras for the year ended 31st March, 1965*.

I think there is a division between the research work done by the Department and that of An Foras Talúntais?—That is so.

There is no fear of duplication?—We undertake a certain kind of research but that is different from that done by An Foras Talúntais. We regard them as the central research body of Agriculture.

Do you expect to have to put further capital into An Foras Talúntais?—Yes. They have already exhausted the American fund made available for capital purposes. The State is now providing a certain amount for capital purposes yearly in addition to the normal grant.

Is the information they are giving from this research being made freely available to farmers?—An Foras Talúntais publish regularly a journal called “Farm Research News”. This gives all available data. It gets a very wide circulation among advisory services whose business it is to transmit this information to working farmers and so forth.

375. Paragraph 36 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead K.3.—Payments to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, Limited in respect of Loans

36. Reference was made in previous reports to loans amounting to £115,000 made by the Agricultural Credit Corporation to the Co-operative Fruit Growers’ Society, Limited, Dungarvan, repayment of which was guaranteed by the Minister for Agriculture. The total instalments payable to the Corporation to 1 November, 1964 amounted to £111,227 of which £106,196 had been met—£65,061 by the Society and £41,135 from the vote under the Minister’s guarantee. With the approval of the Minister for Finance it was decided to waive recovery of £34,188 of the amount due by the Society to the Department, the balance to be recovered when the Society’s liability to the Corporation has been fully discharged. It is understood that the balance of principal due to the Corporation which had not matured for payment at 31 March, 1965 was approximately £66,000.”

Have you anything, to add Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph gives the up-to-date position regarding the State assistance to this Society. The matter was previously referred to in the reports on the Appropriation Accounts for the years 1956/57, 1957/58 and 1958/59.

376. Chairman.—Is it an economic unit yet?—Mr. Nagle.—I am afraid I could not say it is. Their record in 1964/65 happened to be quite good. I could give the Committee the position at the end of March, 1966 if you wish.

I was interested because we have had this for a number of years. Have they got it off the ground yet?—They have made strong efforts. As I say, in 1964/65 their record was good. As I think I mentioned at a previous meeting my own personal view is that the original project, financed mainly by way of loan capital, from the very beginning met certain difficulties because they had to pay interest on and provide for repayment of the vast bulk of the capital employed in the business. That made things rather difficult. At the same time, we are satisfied that they are doing the best they can. They had a lot of teething troubles and there was some controversy about the varieties of apples that were planted to supply the cooperative. Some people think they were not the right varieties. I know it is easy to be wise after the event but there may be something in that idea.

377. Chairman.—I must apologise to the Committee as I will have to be absent for a time. We will need a temporary Chairman.

Deputy Healy.—I move that Deputy Hogan take the Chair.

Deputy Kenny.—I second that proposal.

Question put, and agreed to.

Deputy Hogan took the Chair accordingly.

378. Chairman.—Paragraph 37 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

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

37. The expenditure is made up as follows:—

I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding the possibility of payments under the Farm Buildings Scheme and from the Vote for Lands for the same work (see also paragraph 30).

As stated in my previous report, on the introduction of a unified scheme of domestic water supply grants under the administration of the Department of Local Government on 1 July, 1963, the Department of Agriculture 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.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The first part of the paragraph gives the usual analysis of the expenditure for the information of the Committee. With regard to the second part of the paragraph I wish to state that in the course of audit it was established that both Departments had paid grants to the same persons in a few cases though it could not be established with certainty that each Department paid a grant for precisely the same works. The replies to my inquiries indicate that while both Departments are satisfied that duplication is most unlikely to occur they have agreed to revive a procedure of cross-checking which had fallen into disuse.

Chairman.—This happened in a small number of cases?

Mr. Suttle.—It happened in a few.

Deputy Healy.—What is the total amount of money involved?

Mr. Suttle.—Less than £100 in each case.

Deputy Byrne.—Did you test all?

Mr. Suttle.—Only a very small proportion. Once we came across one or two apparent duplications we extended the scope of the audit and discovered one or two more. At that stage we raised the matter with the Accounting Officer.

Deputy Byrne.—It is possible that there are additional cases which show this duplication.

Mr. Suttle.—It is.

Mr. Nagle.—This is my understanding of it. In those cases which have been referred to I do not think the same buildings were grant-aided twice. I understand it was the same holdings. There is an important distinction there. I do not think it has been suggested or proved that the same building was grantaided by the Department of Lands and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Mr. Suttle.—There is a possibility that it could be.

Mr. Nagle.—The Land Commission showed that the grants which they are giving are not the same type of grants as the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are issuing. The Department of Lands in their reply said that the assistance given by the Land Commission is sanctioned on the original land settlement schemes and the grants involved are paid following a series of inspections on the ground. The Land Commission expressed the view that the likelihood of duplication of payments for the same buildings was very remote. That was also the view of my Department but we have arranged with the Department of Lands to keep each other informed on all relevant cases.

Chairman.—I take it there is no possibility of duplication occurring between the Department of Local Government and your Department as regards the domestic water?—There is no danger of that because we ceased to handle domestic water supply after a certain date.

379. Chairman.—Paragraph 38 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead K.7.—Land Project

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

An occupier of land who undertook an approved scheme of reclamation work on his holding was entitled, when the work had 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 £1,640,171 in the year as compared with £1,618,119 in the previous year.”

380. Chairman.—Paragraph 39 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead K.8.—Lime and Fertilisers Subsidies

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

Subsidy to meet the delivery cost of ground limestone was overpaid in earlier years as a result of the submission to Córas Iompair Éireann of irregular claims by a producer of ground limestone. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer about this and also regarding the nature and extent of the procedures in operation by Córas Iompair Éireann to check such claims.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I have been informed by the Accounting Officer that the amount overpaid on the basis of the irregular claims was £937 and that this sum was recovered from CIE. He has also given me details of the checks carried out by CIE on these claims and he informed me that he is satisfied that they are reasonably adequate.

381. Deputy Kenny.—With regard to the subsidy on lime, what rate is paid per ton?— Mr. Nagle.—This is a transport subsidy, as you know. We pay the whole cost of transport within a certain mileage of the limestone quarry. For example, in most counties the radius would be 30 miles but in Counties Wicklow and Wexford it is 35 miles. CIE look after most of the transport and, in fact, we pay them transport costs subject to inspection of their books. The average cost of the subsidy per ton in 1964-65 was 12/5d. Actually, it may be of interest to the Committee to know that, when the scheme was introduced in 1957-58, the average cost was 11/10d. per ton. That fell a little a few years later and then rose to 12/5d. in 1964-65. Compared with the original year, there was no spectacular increase.

382. Chairman.—Paragraph 40 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead K.11.—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme

40. The expenditure is made up as follows:—

Receipts amounting to £1,202,237 were credited to Appropriations in Aid in the year on account of the sale of cattle slaughtered under the scheme.

The gross cost of the scheme from its inception in September, 1954 to 31 March, 1965 was £52,378,051 and receipts from the disposal of cattle for slaughter were £16,510,270. The net cost was therefore £35,867,781.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Expenditure under this subhead has been gradually decreasing over recent years and with the attestation of the six southern counties in October last expenditure should now be levelling off.

383. Deputy Crowley.—How many claims are there for compensation for reactor cattle?—We have the number of reactors, but we have not the actual figures for claims.

Perhaps Mr. Nagle could supply those later on?—All the statistics I have are for numbers of reactors, not the number of claims. There will be no difficulty in supplying that information.*

Deputy Kenny.—How many veterinarians are concerned in the scheme?—There were about 750 veterinarians involved in 1964-65, of whom about 470 were principals and 280 were the assistants of those principals, which gives 750 in all.

384. Chairman.—Paragraph 41 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead K.13.—Brucellosis Eradication Scheme

41. A comprehensive survey with a view to formulating a scheme for the eradication of brucellosis was carried out in 1964 and expenditure amounting to £22,843 was incurred on travelling and incidental expenses including the purchase of equipment and vaccine. Receipts amounting to £38 were realised from the sale of vaccine.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This is a new scheme which is likely to extend over a number of years. It had not actually got under way in 1964-65 and, as stated in the paragraph, expenditure was confined to preliminary work.

Deputy Crowley.—What kind of equipment was purchased?—Mr. Nagle.—There was a variety of equipment for the milk survey. It was designed in the Netherlands and it was agreed it would facilitate our survey. Our veterinarians thought it was far the best available and it promised a saving in time and manpower by the simultaneous treatment of milk samples in multiples of 100. The equipment consisted of antigen, drop apparatus and stock, milk sample takers, milk tray units, tanks, milk tube containers, et cetera, and a large number of disposable plastic milk tubes. Refrigerators and incubators were also part of the equipment. It can be used again for future surveys.

385. Deputy Kenny.—Will this scheme be introduced in the same way as the tuberculosis scheme?—Both schemes are similar in many ways. The scheme has been operated from our original bovine tuberculosis offices. In fact, animals which are condemned or suspect will be purchased at market value exactly in the same way as the tuberculosis reactors. I am sure you know the incidence of brucellosis in the West and North-West of the country is light. The survey confirmed that I think. It is more serious in the south, so that we are making a beginning with eradication in the North-West. Donegal and other counties will be the first counties for eradication. In other words, we will try to root out the definite reactors there and pay compensation precisely as we do for tuberculosis cattle. In the South, we have to begin by a calfhood vaccination scheme. We hope that as a result, in a few years the number of brucellosis cases in adult cattle in the South will become much smaller. The eradication measures in the North-West and West will then be extended to the South. That is in a way how we moved with regard to tuberculosis. We had the first eradication scheme in the West, and Counties Sligo and Donegal were the first to be attested. We have a similar strategy with regard to brucellosis.

Will the reactors be disposed of to the canneries in the same way?—Yes.

386. Chairman.—Tuberculosis eradication has cost £40 million to the present time. Will this scheme work out just as expensive?—We do not think so. I must be cautious in view of our tuberculosis experience but I think it is unlikely. I would regard the tuberculosis position, from a financial point of view, as more serious than this. We began with tuberculosis, I understand, in 30% to 40% of cows in the south. The incidence of brucellosis is not of the same extent although I know it is serious and some people think it has been increasing. This scheme may take about 6-7 years to completion but I do not think it will cost anything like the tuberculosis scheme. I am saying this with reservation. I hope that, over all, it should not cost much more than £10 million. That is an estimate I have done just now.

A figure of 20 per cent in the south is probably an over-estimation?—It is possible. The expenditure in the West will not be considerable. The number of reactors there is small. The whole trouble is to locate the reactors and get them out.

387. Deputy Molloy.—Will the veterinary surgeons be co-operating in this scheme?— Yes, it is being operated in almost precisely the same way as the TB eradication scheme.

What fees will be paid?—I would like to send you a note on that if I may?*

Could you give me an average figure for payments to an individual veterinary surgeon in the bovine tuberculosis scheme?—I could, yes. If you divide the total number of veterinary surgeons I mentioned earlier, 750, into the total expenditure on fees you get an average per veterinary surgeon of over £2,000.

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

“Subhead K.14.—Scheme of Grants for Calved Heifers

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

The scheme which commenced on 1 January 1964 provides for the payment of a grant of £15 for each additional calved heifer kept by herd owners above their normal herd replacements. Payment of grants commenced in May, 1964 and the original provision of £405,000 under the subhead was increased to £3,155,000 during the year by supplementary estimates.”

Mr. Suttle.—This is a new scheme designed to bring about a progressive increase in the national output of cattle and beef as planned in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.

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

“Subhead K.15.—Scheme of Grants for Forage Harvesting Equipment

43. Grants of one-third of the approved purchase price of new harvesting equipment for silage making are made available through County Committees of Agriculture. The charge to the subhead represents the sums paid to Committees in recoupment of grants made by them under the scheme.”

Mr. Suttle.—This is also a new scheme. Payments are made on the basis of vouched claims submitted by the County Committees of Agriculture. The scheme provides that the equipment purchased must be retained for five years in good condition during which time it may be inspected by officers of the Department or of the Committees.

Chairman.—It deals mostly with silos?—Yes.

Deputy Crowley.—What was the amount, Mr. Nagle?—The amount of the grant was one-third of the purchase price and the price range generally was from £235 to £250.

You have not got the figures for what the Department has spent?—The figure is certainly available.

Mr. Suttle.—£60,000.

Mr. Nagle.—In 1964-65 the total grants paid were over £60,000 and in 1965-66 they were £72,000.

Deputy Molloy.—Had you any cases in which the machinery had not been kept in good condition?—Not any that I heard of. They have been inspected.

How often are they inspected or what is the system?—On average they are inspected about once a year. These machines have largely been purchased by farmers’ sons who go into the contracting business. Generally it would be in their interests to keep the machines in good condition. They do the job for their neighbours and that is what we are trying to encourage here.

Chairman.—Does it cover all forms of machinery?—No, only those used in silage making.

Deputy Molloy.—You are certain that all the machinery has been kept in good condition?—Yes.

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

“Subhead K.17.—Payments to Pigs and Bacon Commission

44. The payments to the Commission arise in connection with the operation of the scheme of support prices for exports of Grade A bacon. £1,950,000 was paid in the year and is accounted for in the accounts of the Commission which are audited by me.”

Members have received the account of the Commission for the year ended 31st December 1964.*

Deputy Kenny.—How was the scheme of support prices operated?—There are guaranteed prices for the better grades of pigs, for grades such as A Special and A, and then there are two small intermediate grades known as B.1 and L. Guaranteed minimum prices are laid down for these pigs as decided by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. They are given effect to by an Order made by the Pigs and Bacon Commission. All bacon curers must pay at least the minimum prices for pigs which fall into any of the four qualifying grades. On the other side of the picture there are guaranteed export prices for the two best grades of bacon, corresponding to the two best grades of pigs, so that the curer is enabled to pay the minimum price for pigs and in return is getting guaranteed export prices for the best grades of bacon. That is broadly how it works. The Exchequer, of course, meets the difference between the cost of pigs and the lower price which the bacon realises on the export market.

Chairman.—Is there a levy on the factories?—There is a levy which is also used as a contribution to the cost of support. This levy is levied on the curers and I suppose it could be said that it is borne by consumers in the home market.

On what basis is it levied?—It is levied per pig going into bacon. In 1964-65 the levy was about 15/- a pig. It has now gone up over that.

Deputy Kenny.—Does the producer have to bear any of that levy at all?—It is a rather debatable question. If the market prices for pigs were at the statutory minimum prices, if they were not above them, though they often are, I do not think it could be said that the producer would bear any of that. At the moment the producer has to get 260/- a cwt. for A Special. If that is what he is getting, obviously as you cannot pay below the guaranteed price, he would not be paying the levy. In that case it is between the curer and the home consumer.

391. Chairman.—Paragraph 45 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead K.18.—Losses on Disposal of Wheat, etc.

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

Reference was made in the previous report to an arrangement under which An Bord Gráin took over 193,519 tons of unmillable wheat of the 1962 crop for resale on the home and export markets. The losses of An Bord on the disposal of this wheat amounted to £2,226,516 including £1,103,092 for ex-gratia payments of 12s. 6d. per barrel to growers who sold the unmillable wheat.

As stated in my previous report the Exchequer liability arising from the 1962 wheat crop fell to be offset to the extent of the savings which accrued to the flour millers as the result of the use of Irish wheat in the grist at a lower percentage than 75 per cent. The amount of these savings as certified by the Irish Flour Millers Association auditors, £729,523, was surrendered for the benefit of the Exchequer as follows:—

Mr. Suttle.—As indicated in previous reports An Bord Gráin was assigned the function of purchasing and re-selling unmillable wheat of the 1962 crop, the losses arising to be met from the Exchequer. On account payments were made to An Bórd in 1962-63 and 1963-64 and this paragraph deals with the clearance of the outstanding liability of the Exchequer. The accounts of An Bórd audited by me are laid on the Table of the House. The audit of the accounts for the year ended 31st August, 1965 has recently been completed.

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

“Subhead K.19.—Temporary Beef Export Payments Scheme

46. This scheme came into operation on 1 February, 1965 and provided for the payment of subsidy, based on the rates payable under the British Fatstock Guarantee Scheme, in respect of carcase beef exported to the United Kingdom market.”

Mr. Suttle.—Expenditure under this new scheme was provided for by way of Supplementary Estimate and payments relate only to the last two months of the financial year. The scheme was originally intended to terminate on the 30th June, 1965 but was subsequently extended to 30th June, 1966.

Has the scheme terminated now, Mr. Nagle?—It has recently been replaced by the arrangement made with the British Government under the Free Trade Area Agreement which came into operation on the 1st July this year. In effect it is continuing under that Agreement.

Chairman.—There has, of course, been provision made of £75,000 for the present financial year?—Yes. The British payments will apply only from 1st July and, therefore, for the months of April, May and June it was a net charge on the Exchequer. As well as that, the Government have undertaken, out of Exchequer funds, to supplement the British Government’s payment in the event of exports of carcase beef to the United Kingdom exceeding the figure of 25,000 tons, which is the subject of the Agreement with the British Government.

393. I wonder is this money going to different factories?—Yes. The payment is made to individual factories at rates which are equivalent to the amounts of the British deficiency payments from week to week. The rates are announced regularly every week in the newspapers, but this money is paid to the exporting factories.

Is it possible to get a list of these payments to the different factories?—Yes. I will see if that information can be made available.*

394. Paragraph 47 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

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

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

The creamery milk price allowance was increased by two pence per gallon as from 1 May, 1964 to enable a similar increase to be given to producers.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph analyses the Exchequer support for milk and milk products which is disbursed partly through An Bord Bainne and partly by direct payments from the Vote, and includes also a contribution towards publicity. The accounts of An Bord Bainne are audited by me and are laid on the Table of the House. The audit of the accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1965, has been completed. The audit of the accounts of the National Dairy Publicity Council—a company limited by guarantee— for the year ended 31st March, 1966, has recently been completed by me.

395. Deputy Crowley.—Under free trade, will we still be subsidising butter to the same extent as we are subsidising it at present? Is that a fair question?—It is. Definitely I think we will be. I do not think the Agreement will make a difference in that sense, but the Agreement makes a tremendous difference to the position in regard to our access to the British market, not only for butter, but also for other milk products, because our butter quota has been increased from 12,900 tons to 23,000 tons, with a possibility of growth, and the British Government have undertaken not to regulate their imports of milk products from Ireland except in the context of a worldwide agreement in which event we are to get full consideration in regard to our special position in their market. We were, if I may say so, very worried about our access position prior to this Agreement, which seemed to us not to be on a firm foundation under the old agreements, and that is the advantage we see here.

396.—Chairman.—Would it be less costly for us to have more diversification in subsidies and to subsidise such things as chocolate crumb and powder milk rather than butter?— Bord Bainne, I think, subsidise every whole milk product. I say whole milk product because it does not subsidise, and there is no need to, skim milk powder which sells under its own steam. I understand their policy generally is to try so to organise their subsidies as to encourage reasonably the export of the product which will cost them less and, in that, I think they are being reasonably successful. I should add that, even though there is room for further diversification in milk processing, the experience in other countries seems to show that, no matter how well you develop your diversification, butter remains the main product—I do not mean the only one— whether you like it or not.

Deputy Crowley.—Do you have to subsidise exports of cream to any great extent?—The export of cream is subsidised. Offhand I cannot say what the rate of subsidy is, but my recollection is that it is not very high.

Are we utilising this new method of preserving cream for six or seven weeks and publicising that in relation to our exports or are we just selling normal cream?—I think the bulk of the cream goes out in the normal way. I understand there is a great deal of experimentation going on with these new methods, frozen cream for example. Some have been exported but only on an experimental basis, I think. I do not know if it has become a commercial matter yet. There is, too, another method of long-keeping cream which has come on the market recently and we have hopes that that also may be useful in the export market.

Is this the one produced by Killeshandra?— Yes. They are making this long-keeping cream.

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

“Subhead P.—Appropriations in Aid

48. The Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Act, 1930 (Exporter’s Licences) Fees Regulations, 1964, and the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935 (Part II) (No. 3) Regulations, 1964 increased the rates of fees payable by fresh meat exporters and by bacon curers, respectively, in respect of animals presented on and after 1 July, 1963 for veterinary examination. I am informed that the fees were increased at the request of the meat trade for the purpose of collecting its contribution towards the cost of operating a proposed meat research unit. In the course of audit it was observed that, of the total fees collected at the increased rates, only the equivalent of the fees collectible at the old rates was brought to credit as Appropriations in Aid, the balance being credited to a suspense account. As the acts provide that fees collected shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer I communicated with the Accounting Officer. He explained that it was considered appropriate to lodge these additional fees to a suspense account in order to establish the amount of the State grant payable. I have informed the Accounting Officer that I consider this procedure irregular and that the fees in question should be appropriated in aid of the vote.”

Mr. Suttle.—The Accounting Officer has informed me that the fees in question have since been appropriated in aid of the Vote.

398. Chairman.—Paragraph 49 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Extra Receipts Payable to Exchequer

49. In April 1962 the Government approved in principle—

(a) the purchase by University College, Dublin of Lyons House and Demesne at Celbridge, Co. Kildare;

(b) the sale by the College of property at Glasnevin which had been leased from the State in 1926, and

(c) the application of the proceeds of this sale to the necessary capital development of the Faculty of General Agriculture, any surplus after completion of the development to be paid over to the Exchequer.

To facilitate the sale of the Glasnevin property the State’s interest therein was sold to University College, Dublin, at the price, £40,900, fixed by the Valuation Office and this sum was brought to credit as an Exchequer Extra Receipt.

A formal agreement dated 5 October, 1964 between the Minister for Agriculture and the College authorities provides for the payment to the Exchequer, after a period of ten years, or earlier if the College authorities desire, of the surplus referred to at (c) above.”

Mr. Suttle.—The lands sold at Glasnevin, i.e. the Albert College, comprised some 365 acres in three lots which had been leased to the UCD authorities by the Department of Agriculture for 99 years from 1926 under the University Education (Agriculture and Dairy Science) Act, 1926, and had been used for the purpose of the Faculty of Agriculture.

399. Chairman.—Paragraph 50 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund

50. In exercise of his statutory powers the Minister for Agriculture suspended, with effect from 31 March, 1965, the provisions of section 41 of the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Act, 1935 relating to the maintenance of the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund. Moneys standing to the credit of the Fund were paid to An Bord Bainne in accordance with section 46 of the Dairy Produce Marketing Act, 1961.”

Mr. Suttle.—This Fund is now wound up and the work is financed by An Bord Bainne.

400. Chairman.—Paragraph 51 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

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

51. Of the original amount of £300,000 provided in 1962-63 for this country’s contribution to the World Food Programme jointly administered by the United Nations and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, £85,961 has been paid in cash and £116,826 for food supplied from this country. The balance in the Account at 31 March, 1965 was, therefore, £97,213.”

Chairman.—We turn now to the Vote.

401. Deputy Healy.—On subhead D.3— Veterinary College—has all the equipment been purchased now, Mr. Nagle?—Yes, it has all been purchased now. The field station is being used now. It was fully completed some time last year and the universities are in occupation since last autumn. I think we can take it is all fully equipped.

402. Chairman.—In regard to subhead D.6—Scholarships in Agriculture, etc.—are these scholarships distinct from the scholarships given by our local committees of agriculture?—Yes, these are given directly by the Department as a result of specially conducted examinations.

403. On subhead D.10—Farm Apprenticeship Scheme—this is a new scheme. How are these apprentices recruited?—There is an apprenticeship board representative of a number of organisations including Macra na Feirme, the NFA, the Irish Countrywomens’ Association and the Federation of Rural Workers to represent the workers. They receive applications from would-be apprentices, young men under 21, provided they have got a Rural Science Group Certificate at a vocational school or the Intermediate Certificate. In addition, they must spend at least a year at an agricultural school. The Board then consider the applications and, if they agree, they endeavour to place the young men in suitable farms where the proprietors are prepared to take them. The period of apprenticeship lasts four years. The apprenticeship may be served on more than one farm. That is generally preferable but sometimes a man is allowed to spend it on the one farm if he finds it satisfactory. At the end of the four years the Department have undertaken to make 30 awards of £500 each for apprentices who complete the four-year period and pass the tests with special merit. The reason no expenditure has been incurred is that no apprentice has yet finished the four years. There will be expenditure later.

404. Deputy Molloy.—On subhead D.11— Rural Groups Advisory Service—could you tell us more about the parish agents, three of whom resigned during the year and were not replaced?—These are really the remnant of the original Parish Plan in which there was a fairly considerable number of our officers at one time. The Plan, was gradually wound up in the sense that, according as some of these men got jobs as instructors in agriculture or maybe got better jobs in the Department they were not replaced. The remaining men are engaged mainly in doing field trials and carrying out various experiments.

How many agents are employed at the moment?—At present I think there is no more that one. That is up to date.

What type of remuneration are they being paid?—They have the same as our basic rate for Assistant Inspector. They are regarded as of the same status.

In regard to the money granted, the £700 of which only £420 was spent, could you give us any idea on what it was spent?—It was spent, as I indicated on these various trials and experiments.

405. Chairman.—On subhead G.—Special Agricultural, etc., Schemes—could we have an indication of what these special agricultural schemes were?—These schemes apply to what is known as the congested districts, what we call the twelve western counties, and they include, for example, the cost of purchase of bulls, boars and rams for allocation on easy terms within the congested districts. The Gaeltacht Glass House Scheme is carried on this subhead and also a scheme known as the Seed Distribution Scheme, under which we supply to smallholders in the congested districts good quality seed of different kinds at 75 per cent of the cost. A smallholder is defined as one who has a valuation not exceeding £15. Also included under the subhead is the cost of the parish agricultural advisory agents, a very long title I am afraid, not to be confused with the parish agent. These men were formerly known as agricultural overseers and assistant agricultural overseers whose special job it was to look after a small compact area in the congested districts. In practice they nowadays administer the farm buildings scheme and other similar schemes in the congested districts and the actual work of advice, and extension has been taken on more and more by the County Agricultural Advisory Service.

406. Deputy Healy.—On subhead K.1.— Miscellaneous Work—I see that the cost of two pieces of old Irish silver for presentation was £50 each. It seems rather a coincidence that each of them cost exactly the same amount. Are they special pieces. If they were made to order, I could understand them being £50 each but when they are old Irish silver, I am surprised that each of them cost £50 at different times?—I think it must be a coincidence. So far as I remember such purchases as these are made in consultation with some expert authority, In this case, old silver, somebody in the National Museum was asked for advice. Generally, through the advice of museum experts and such people, we are able to get these things at a fairly competitive price.

I have no objection to the price. I think it is fairly competitive.

407. Deputy Molloy.—On subhead K.7.— Land Project—I wonder if it would be possible to get a breakdown of the expenditure under the Land Project per county?—I think it would be possible. We can do that for most schemes and I will check to see if we can do it for the Land Project and if so, we will send the particulars to the Committee.*

408. Deputy Molloy.—On subhead K.9— Prevention of Diseases in Live Stock—could we have an explanation of how the money was spent?—Yes; there are really two items here. One was advertising and publicity, mainly in regard to the warble fly and the amount of expenditure there was £4,251.

That was the whole lot?—That was the lot but included in the provision were grants for sheep-dipping baths, none of which was availed of by applicants during the year.

Is there any reason for that? Were you disappointed that there was no demand?—We were because the grant was about 50 per cent. It was specially raised for the one year but in fact the 50 per cent is being continued now for another year. We were told that a lot of people did not know about it, that there was not enough publicity, so it has been extended for another year. For that reason the expenditure related only to the warble fly advertising. I should also say that the advertising also included an element of publicity with a view to the elimination of sheep-scab but the warble fly was the principal one.

Has there been an improvement in demand for this grant for the erection of sheep-dipping baths?—Yes. I understand it has improved this year. When people realised that the 50 per cent might come to an end and be replaced by one-third, apparently it led to a number of applications.

Deputy Burke.—Is it to individuals you give the grant?—Yes. This would be given to individuals who as a rule might be able to accomodate other people’s sheep as well.

Sometimes local authorities set up a sheep-dipping bath as well?—Yes.

If they decide to put up a bath, are they entitled to get the grant?—Yes, but they are tending to use the new mobile sheep-dipping equipment more now which, I understand, is excellent.

Deputy Molloy.—The explanation says that no claims were received from local authorities?—Yes.

Individuals could also have applied for these grants?—That is right. In some cases individuals could get them, provided they could look after the sheep of a number of people in the same bath. I should say that the Grants under this particular subhead— K.9.—are in respect of baths constructed by local authorities. Grants for private sheep-dipping baths are made under subhead K.6 (Farm Buildings Scheme).

Deputy Jones took the Chair.

409. Deputy Kenny.—With regard to subhead 0.—Technical Assistance—what industries are assisted under this?—These are intended to be what we call the agricultural processing industries, industries which are processing agricultural products, for example, the milk processing industry, the bacon industry. It was felt that some of these people, their technical managers and so on, might benefit by study courses abroad and that kind of thing and any industry which is processing an agricultural product would come under this head.

What kind of assistance do you give those industries? Is it by way of grants?—We did not give any in 1964/65—we have since then —but it would be a grant—not the entire cost but a sizeable amount of the cost of visits to, say, a course abroad—for example, they might be running a course in Holland on bacon curing and we could pay half of the cost of some nominated representative of the factory going out.

410. On item 32 of the Appropriation-in-Aid—Repayment by Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann Teoranta—how does this repayment arise?—The position here, I think, was that many years ago Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, on request, purchased a considerable quantity of superphosphate at a time when this was a rather scarce product. They imported it here and a considerable loss was incurred on it for which the Dáil voted a Supplementary Estimate in due course. But the transaction was not entirely finished because there were insurance claims pending for certain losses due to deterioration of the product in transit and so on, and this little income here is really the result of the insurance company’s admitting one of these claims.

411. Members have received the accounts of the Dairy Disposal Company and Associated Companies for the year ended 31st December 1964.*

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 22—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. P. Berry called and examined.

412. Chairman.—On subhead B—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—expenditure was less than the Estimate. I presume there was not as much travelling.—It was very slight.

413. Deputy Andrews.—On subhead D.2. —Committee on Irish and Comparative Law (Grant in Aid)—could you give us a breakdown of this?—For some years past we have provided £500 in each year towards the cost of publishing the Irish reports. Additionally we have provided £3,500 for the publication and printing of certain legal text books. In fact in the year under review, 1964-65, no legal text books were published. In the previous year, one had been published by Mr. Scanlon and we had given £700 odd to its cost, and we have been recouped from sales to the extent of £500 odd; but in this particular year we spent £500 towards the cost of Irish reports but spent nothing on the production of the legal text books.

Do you give anything towards the cost of the High Court Rules compilation?—yes, but it is under a different heading. We paid £210 to the draughtsmen of the Superior Court Rules Committee and £500 for the preparation of the Index to the Rules.

414. On subhead E.—Commissions and Special Inquiries—what type of Commissions and Special Inquiries are these?—We had three Commissions—the Commission on Ground Rents, the Commission on Court Practice and Procedure and the Bankruptcy Commission. The reason why there is a drop in the expenditure is that the Ground Rents Commission finished its proceedings shortly after the commencement of the year, in May, 1964.

415. Deputy Kenny.—What is the scale of fees for nationality and citizenship certificates?—For adults, the fee is normally £20; for others, where they have Irish associations —minor children of naturalised persons and wives of such—it is scaled at about £5. I can give you the exact details.

You do not know how many are going to apply? You have no foreknowledge?—We have no foreknowledge.

What is the period of residence?—Five years—four continuous years plus one, in the previous five; but five continuous years is the norm. The Minister can, for special reasons, where there are Irish associations, reduce the period.

Deputy Burke.—If he marries an Irish woman, you take that into consideration?— Yes, there is a reduction normally to two years, or the Minister can reduce the period further—he can wipe out the residential period.

416. Deputy Molloy.—I note that two officers were paid £243 and £187 in respect of overtime. Can you give us any idea of how you estimate the payment for overtime?— It is time and a quarter.

VOTE 23—GARDA SÍOCHÁNA.

Mr. P. Berry further examined.

417. Chairman.—On subhead B.—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—I notice that the excess resulted mainly from increased rates of subsistence allowance and travelling expenses and from expenses arising from the visit to the United States of America and Canada of the Garda Síochána Band. Would you have any figure for the band tour—how the receipts compare with the expenses?— I can tell you offhand that the cost was £28,000 and receipts were £28,400. In fact we made a marginal profit.

418. Does this subhead also carry compensation paid in respect of accidents involving Garda cars?—Yes, it does.

Is it a knock for knock arrangement?— Knock for knock is the general arrangement but sometimes there are halving arrangements.

419. Subhead F.—Transport and Carriage —what is the strength of your fleet of cars at the moment?—We have a total of 440. That includes 179 motor cycles, 19 Zodiac saloons, 29 Zephyr Sixes, 44 Zephyr Fours, 37 Consuls, 91 Cortinas, six Prefects, nine Crestas, 31 Mercedes saloons and 15 miscellaneous.

Deputy Molloy.—The Mercedes saloons would be Ministers’ cars?—The Ministerial fleet.

The total fleet is 31?—That is right.

420. Deputy Andrews.—You may disallow this question, Mr. Chairman. Why is it we get Mercedes motor cars?—

Chairman.—I am afraid that is a question that must be asked elsewhere.

Deputy Andrews.—I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, because I thought it might be disallowed.

Chairman.—The position with regard to these matters generally is that the Accounting Officer accounts for expenditure but as to what types of cars are bought, he does not have a deciding say.

Deputy Andrews.—I have something against the supply of Mercedes cars particularly.

Chairman.—We will allow you to say a lot when the report is being prepared.

421. Deputy Molloy.—Why are 31 Mercedes cars needed?—There are reserves.

How many reserves?—In addition to the Ministers proper, there are the Parliamentary Secretaries, The Ceann Comhairle and the Attorney General, and then there are always some cars in stock which have about reached the end of their lives. The life of a car in the normal way is around 75,000 miles. We sell at that time but some cars may be in the 45,000’s or 50,000’s and this accounts for having 31 Mercedes.

I don’t find that explanation too clear. How many spare cars have you in reserve?— We have 31 Mercedes in all.

You said you had some reserves?—There are 14 Ministers, with Parliamentary Secretaries, the Ceann Comhairle and the Attorney General. All these get cars. Subtracting these from 31, you are left with six or seven reserves.

Deputy Andrews.—These are reserves which would be brought in in the event of the other car breaking down?—Yes.

422. Deputy Molloy.—Are there any State cars provided for former Taoisigh, and Presidents possibly? Are these supplied from your Vote?—There is no car provided for a former Taoiseach; there is for former Presidents.

The President of the Executive Council?— The ex-President, Mr. Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh, has a car provided apparently on the basis of security, protection, prestige.

In the event of the death of one of these people with a State car, having held a former position, what would happen the car?—It goes into stock.

Chairman.—It is part of the fleet and goes back to the fleet.

Deputy Molloy.—Would it be in order in inquiring if in the case of the late Mr. Costello who, I understand, had a car—

Deputy Kenny.—Not “the late”.

Deputy Molloy.—I am sorry; Mr. Cosgrave. He had a State car?—Yes.

And his car, would go back into the fleet?— That is right. He did not have a Mercedes; he had a Ford. That was for police purposes.

423. Chairman.—On the Appropriations-in-Aid—is there an interest factor in the repayment of advances under subhead F.(3)?— There is no interest factor.

VOTE 24—PRISONS

Mr. P. Berry further examined.

424. Chairman.—With regard to subhead B—Prison Services, Maintenance, etc.—do you employ your own architect or the architects in the Office of Public Works?—We do not employ an architect in our own work but where we have major works we employ an architect from the Office of Public Works. Where we have minor works we employ our own Clerk of Works and our own artisans.

425. Deputy Andrews.—A general question: is there any scheme whereby members of the Oireachtas can visit prisons?

Chairman.—I think that the Accounting Officer would be very pleased to have a visit from you?—At this meeting last year I suggested that Deputies should come and see for themselves what we are doing.

426. Deputy Kenny.—With regard to subhead E—Manufacturing Department and Farm—what exactly do they manufacture? The grant involved is £30,000?—We bake for all the prisoners in Mountjoy and Portlaoise. Then there is agricultural work. We weave all the cloth for both prison officers’ uniforms and prisoners’ clothing. We do tailoring and needlework. We have elaborate shoemaking shops. We do laundry work and basketmaking and also matmaking.

Deputy Molloy.—For whom do you make the shoes? What type of shoes do you make? —We make men’s and boy’s shoes. Lately, indeed, we have been making ladies shoes.

For general sale?—For the women prisoners and staff.

For prisoners?—We have not yet gone in for making the pointed toe variety.

Deputy Healy.—Stiletto heels would be very dangerous in prisons?—As to why we chose shoemaking, that is a type of employment in relation to which we are most likely to get jobs for the people when they leave prison.

Deputy Molloy.—You do not make the boots for the Army?—No.

You would not be able to do that?—We would not have enough prisoners.

427. Deputy Andrews.—Do the prisoners get paid for these services?—Yes, we give a gratuity of 6d. per working day plus a bonus of 6d. for industry and good conduct: prisoners can earn 3/6d. per week. They are allowed to spend that on personal items such as sweets or cigarettes. Where the person concerned is a long-term prisoner, portion is put aside and given to him on release.

Deputy Andrews.—It is a clear case for a prisoners’ trade union. I was making the point that the prisoners would appear to be underpaid.

428. Deputy Burke.—Is there not some rehabilitation scheme under which prisoners are allowed to work outside?—This is one of the things I should like Deputies to see for themselves. It is an entirely new departure. The enactment of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960 permitted for the first time the temporary release of prisoners. At the moment we must have between 20 and 30 such prisoners. They are allowed out at 8.30 a.m. and returned at 6 p.m. We should like to show Deputies the conditions to which they return. They go into a corrective training hostel built just within the grounds. They have a television set and a nice sitting room just like this one fitted with armchairs and library books. They can also make tea. The whole idea is to acclimatise them to normal living conditions outside. It is a most interesting experiment and one on which we have been congratulated by many people from abroad.

Deputy Kenny.—Are any of these prisoners long-term?—None of the present parole prisoners are lifetime prisoners. We had a man who was serving a life sentence for murder. At the end of 12 years we found he was getting to the point at which he was deteriorating: he was going down rather than up. We brought him from Portlaoise to Mountjoy and released him from day to day, first under supervision and later on his own. We had him watched for a month or two. In that way we got him back to a norm. We eventually found him a good job in Birmingham where he has made a complete success.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—That is wonderful.

Deputy Molloy.—Have you had any experience of escapees?—We had one who was a Welshman. We brought him back.

That is a very fine record.

Chairman.—On page 56 of the Appropriation Accounts Deputies will see the Abstract Statement of the Manufacturing Accounts of the Prisons and the Reconciliation with Appropriation Account.

429 Deputy Healy.—Have we got any scheme for the female prisoners such as that which was outlined in respect of the male prisoners? What facility is available from the point of view of allowing them to work outside?—There are very few female prisoners. If you turn to the annual report on prisons you will find there that the daily average of women prisoners is no more than about eleven. Of course, some of these would be on remand or awaiting trial. Generally, the women we get in are in for disorderly conduct and drunkenness—short termers. If you had the proper type of long term female prisoner she could be rehabilitated by getting her a job outside. There is no difficulty in principle involved.

430. Deputy Molloy.—Have you any idea how much per annum per prisoner it costs the State to maintain him in prison? Is that a figure you would know offhand.—I answered a similar question before when it was about £11 per head. It would have gone up to about £12.10 a head.

Deputy Andrews.—Per week?—£12.10 per week. One of the difficulties about administering prisons is that you do not go in for making a profit. You want to rehabilitate.

Deputy Molloy.—They would still be a charge on the State if we did not have to rehabilitate them?

Deputy Kenny.—Do you charge these people for accommodation in this hostel? Are the ones on parole out earning still a charge on the State?—Yes.

Do you give them free board and lodgings inside then?—Yes, Deputy.

Deputy Kenny.—They cost the State £12.10 and they are earning outside?—We must not lose sight of the fact that in regard to the entire prisons system the whole idea is rehabilitation. You do not give the man conditions designed to rehabilitate him and then charge him.

431. Deputy Molloy.—When do you determine that the period of rehabilitation terminates?—When a prisoner comes in, he is screened by a board. The police report is procured and the background of the prisoner is looked at. The prisoner is kept under observation for two or three months perhaps, and then a decision is taken as to whether he can be cured by corrective training. Prisoners may be moved, say, from A Wing to D Wing where this treatment is available. They are given lectures. They may be asked to join such societies as Alcoholics Anonymous. Then, again, there are prison welfare officers whose principal duty it is to find jobs for the prisoners, find out their aptitudes and family background. They have recourse to the trade unions and the Federated Union of Employers to get jobs for them. Similarly, we have an After Care Committee consisting of prominent businessmen, the whole purpose being to get these prisoners permanent continuous employment immediately when they leave prison. The most single determining factor in the rehabilitation of a prisoner is to get immediate employment on discharge.

What is the average parole time in relation to the type of prisoner mentioned by Deputy Kenny?—If we find he keeps to his parole, after a month or two we give him full freedom. It varies with the type of individual but, generally speaking, it is about a month.

Deputy Healy.—This is a wonderful scheme and I am sure we all commend it and certainly would like to pay tribute to Mr. Berry and his staff but, certainly, it is not something that should be publicised too much because I know many people in the constituency I represent who are working and have not got the same accommodation free or otherwise for living at all or are as well housed or as well looked after as these people are. It is a double-edged weapon, as far as I can see.

Deputy Burke.—All the same it is very charitable work because if you cannot rehabilitate a man who is down-and-out he will be back in prison again.

Deputy Andrews.—I do not understand what Deputy Healy means by a double-edged weapon.

Chairman.—He means you would have all the prisons full of Corkmen.

Mr. Berry.—I should mention that of a daily average of 566 for that particular year only about 20 or 30 of that daily average would be affected so it is only a small proportion: the deserving ones.

VOTE 25—COURTS OF JUSTICE.

Mr. P. Berry further examined.

432. Deputy Molloy—May I enquire what the salaries of Supreme Court Judges, High Court Judges and Circuit Court Judges are?—

Chairman.—They are in the Book of Estimates.

Deputy Molloy.—Yes but I think Mr. Berry would have the information. What I really want is pension and gratuity on retirement?—It does not arise on this subhead. The salaries of the judges come under the Central Fund.

Chairman.—If you apply for the Finance Accounts, you will find it there.

433. Chairman.—On subhead D.—Appropriations in Aid—with regard to the question of fines the explanation says that the amount available for transfer from the Fines Account was less than anticipated due to over-advances made from it in previous years. Are there some special circumstances attached to that? —The explanation is that in an earlier year or two we had credited to ourselves fines under the Fisheries Acts and the Revenue Acts which, of course, were not ours at all and this really is an adjustment.

They belonged to another Department?— Yes, that is right.

Deputy Burke.—The parking fines should have subsidised that?—

434. Deputy Healy.—Do the ordinary fines for breaches of the parking regulations and so on come under this Vote?

Chairman.—I think all fines are included there.

Deputy Burke.—That is what I mean, the parking fines should have pulled it up very well.

Deputy Healy.—Yes, because it seems to me hundreds of pounds are collected in Cork city each week. I wonder what headings they come under.

Chairman.—I am sure they come into it under the general collection of fines. Are they brought to account under this heading, Mr. Berry?—Yes.

Deputy Healy.—I take it that the whole amount is not here, £15,900?

Mr. Suttle.—Actually, these fines do not come into the Department of Justice Vote. They come into the Road Fund. There is mention in my report under paragraph 27 of £81,536 collected by the Department of Justice in fines. I think that would be mainly from on-the-spot parking.

Deputy Burke.—I suppose Dublin and Cork are doing that?—

Chairman.—There are other parts of the country. We cannot let those two cities monopolise it.

VOTE 26—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. P. Berry further examined.

435. Deputy Molloy.—I take it that when overtime is mentioned under the heading Extra Remuneration, all the people concerned are paid on the time and a quarter basis?— Yes, they are all civil servants.

436. Deputy Burke.—You have speeded up the working in the Land Registry very much, have you not?—Well the provisions of the Registration of Titles Act generally have not come into force yet. They will be brought into force on an appointed date, probably the 1st January next. From then on the work will be very much increased. As it is it is speeding up.

Deputy Healy.—They are very obliging anyway.

Deputy Molloy.—They are indeed.

437. Deputy Andrews.—With regard to the Note on page 59, will the Land Registry fees be increased considerably?—Yes, considerably. The office should be self-supporting but it never has been. In a recent Order made by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, the fees have been increased by about 75 per cent.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 36—LANDS.

Mr. T. O’Brien called and examined.

438. Chairman.—Paragraph 29 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead G.—Purchase of Interests for Cash, Advances for purchase of Land and Auctioneers’ Commission

29. Included in the charge to this subhead is £30,000 for auctioneers’ commission in respect of sales of lands to the Land Commission. In the course of audit it was observed that commission was paid in two cases to auctioneers who did not appear to have rendered service towards negotiating the agreements. In reply to my inquiry I was informed that the lands were on offer by auctioneers and were purchased wholly under voluntary procedure and that under the official arrangement with the Irish Auctioneers and Estate Agents Association a sliding scale of auctioneers’ commission is payable by the Land Commission in such cases.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Commission to auctioneers is an increasing charge against this subhead and I raised this question with the Accounting Officer on the basis that the auctioneers in these cases had not helped in any way or provided any service to the Land Commission.

Chairman.—Could you give us any particulars of the two cases of auctioneers mentioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. O’Brien?—Yes, I could tell you the story fairly fully. In 1963 the Land Commission decided to pay auctioneers commission in appropriate cases. It was a sensible and sane decision for a body whose principal commodity is land and the idea was to move Auctioneers to work for the Land Commission rather than against it which was the position when no commission was payable; it also removed the sting of compulsory acquisition as voluntary purchase is far preferable. In effect, the arrangement placed the Land Commission in the same position as private purchasers; that is to say that the Land Commission would pay auctioneers commission where they purchased lands which had been in the hands of an auctioneer for sale. Such commission is by custom and practice paid by the purchaser even though it is the vendor who engages the auctioneer and it is for him that the Auctioneer provides the service of finding a purchaser on acceptable terms. As for two particular cases cited, one related to 85 acres in Galway required for the relief of acute local congestion. By letter dated 1st November, 1963, the auctioneers who were based in Dublin offered the lands to the Land Commission. Full descriptive particulars of the lands were furnished and a price of £7,500 plus fees quoted. The auctioneers telephoned subsequently on two occasions inquiring if the Land Commission were in a position to make an offer. Following reports by the inspectorate, negotiations were authorised and entrusted to the local Land Commission inspector in Galway. These were conducted with the owners solicitors who were located in Co. Galway. This arrangement suited the convenience of the inspector at Galway. The lands were eventually purchased at £6,500 in Land Bonds. The solicitors confirmed that the auctioneers were engaged in connection with the sale: and no doubt they were. The strong presumpion must be that the solicitors consulted the auctioneers as to the price and were advised that £6,500 was as good as could be got, so being instrumental in having offer accepted. If a service to the Land Commission be envisaged in such cases this is the service desired viz.—endorsement of the terms offered by the Land Commission resulting in their acceptance by the owner and a sale to the Land Commission. It is only when the sale is concluded and the lands are in the possession of the Land Commission that fees are paid. I must emphasise that this was a private treaty case and anybody else would be paying a full 5%. Because of the special graduated scale of fees negotiated with the Auctioneer’s Association, we paid 5% on the first £5,000 and 3¾% on the remaining £1,500. The second case related to an area of 77 acres in County Kerry, also required for the relief of acute congestion. The lands had been up for sale by auction which proved abortive and while still on the books of the auctioneer who was located in Limerick the owner offered them to the Land Commission. Negotiations were authorised and entrusted to the local inspector at Tralee. He opened discussions with the vendor’s solicitor located at Listowel; this arrangement suited the convenience of the inspector at Tralee. The maximum offer having been conveyed, the vendor’s solicitor wrote to the inspector stating:

“I have discussed with my client and the Auctioneer your offer of £5,500 (in Land Bonds) less £174. We are agreed that this figure is not acceptable.”

Agreement was finally reached at £6,174 Land Bonds on condition that auction fees were payable; this condition was written in on behalf of the owner in a letter in the following terms dated the 17th July, 1963:

“I enclose acceptance form duly signed by my client. As mentioned, we do this on the terms that you pay such auction fees as are due. You appreciate that the auctioneers have extensively advertised it.”

Within five days of this letter the auctioneers wrote:

“We have been informed by the Solicitor in Listowel, that this property has now been sold to the Irish Land Commission for £6,000, and we are writing to say that our commission on this sale is £300. We advertised the property for sale, and the matter was still on our books.”

At the time the owner offered the lands the auctioneer was still endeavouring to sell them. These were both private treaty cases where negotiations are delicately poised and it is impossible to be sure as to how an owner and his advisers act and re-act to the cut and thrust of bargaining which may shift from a slow start to a quick close. Personally I take the view that a man will not have an auctioneer unless he is going to be guided by his advice. I should repeat that these were private treaty cases and everybody else would have paid fees. In a way the question of rendering service for the Land Commission in these private treaty cases is misconceived. Strictly speaking the auctioneer’s initial responsibility is to his client—it is evident that in the fulfilment of that responsibility the Land Commission will not come into the auctioneer’s reckoning at all unless they are in the same overall position as to fees as any other purchaser.

439. Mr. Suttle.—Your own officials who carried through the transactions made the statement that the auctioneers had not assisted in the sales and it was on that basis—

Mr. O’Brien.—In these two particular cases?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes. The local inspector who carried through the transactions and who had to certify that the auctioneers had provided services to the Commission said no service was rendered and no fee should be paid.

Mr. O’Brien.—I should have to quarrel with that though I would dislike to do so.

Deputy Healy.—That would be understandable. As Mr. O’Brien explained, the auctioneers were evidently assisting. It was by remote control. One was in Galway. The local agents may not have appreciated the position. They were certainly involved. Anybody who knows anything about auctioneering knows that you have to pay the agent’s fees even though you may feel that they have done very little.

Mr. Suttle.—The agreement come to between the Department and the auctioneers provided for a scale of fees for services rendered. The regulation within the Department provided that a certificate should be given by the local inspector who carried through the transaction that service had been rendered by the auctioneers and on that basis payment would be made. The inspector said that no services had been rendered.

Mr. O’Brien.—I wonder whether that is correct?

440. Mr. Suttle.—I got the impression that it was more a matter of keeping goodwill than actual service.

Mr. O’Brien.—Goodwill arises but I wonder whether the Comptroller and Auditor General is correct. I should hesitate to suggest that he is not. Far be it from me to make any such suggestion. Again, I want to emphasise that these were private treaty cases. We do have an obligation of service in compulsory cases but not in private treaty cases. Where the Land Commission buy a property from an owner, which property is in the hands of an auctioneer, in a private treaty case we are in the same position as any ordinary purchaser and we pay the fees.

If instead of a voluntary transaction we are going after lands compulsorily then the situation is different. We will allow auctioneers fees only in certain instances there. We do require an obligation of service on the part of the auctioneers in such case and the domestic departmental regulation for that interprets compulsory acquisition as going after the lands, getting them and paying the commission if, and only if, there is no objection to acquisition and no appeal on price or on law or an objection is lodged and subsequently withdrawn before hearing. Sometimes they lodge objections merely to protect the vendor’s interest and if it is lodged and not proceeded with, there is the further requirement that it must not be used to put pressure on the Land Commission during the course of the negotiations. If the way is cleared by an auctioneer up to that—there being no objection on price, no objection on law, no objection on the merits—if that is all arranged and the auctioneer gives positive substantial service towards reaching agreement, then we will pay auctioneers commission even in compulsory cases but we will pay them at all times in private treaty cases, the same as everybody else.

441. Chairman.—If a property were on the books of two sets of auctioneers, as it often happens, what would you do in those circumstances?—That has arisen. In fact we would pay the auctioneer who introduced and actually concluded the sale to us.

The man in possession?—Yes.

Deputy Kenny.—In private treaty cases is it essential to get a certificate from the local inspector?—I hold that it is not.

Mr. Suttle holds that it is?—The obligation is not there and should not be there.

Mr. Suttle.—The inspector was asked to certify that a commission was payable and he said that it was not.

Mr. O’Brien—He should not be asked. The only note I could see in my file on that was that for audit purposes the Accountant asked that such a certificate be given. I think it would have been more prudent not to have raised it now as I believe the Accountant’s direction was designed for compulsory cases. Again, these are private treaty cases and everybody else would have to pay the fees. Personally, I believe this question of rendering service to the Land Commission in these private treaty cases is misconceived. Primarily, the auctioneer’s duty is to his client and there is no good in trying to convert him into our agent. He cannot act for two different people at the same time in relation to the same transaction. He would have to get the best price he could for his client and his initial responsibility is to his client and it is quite evident that in the fulfilment of that responsibility the Land Commission will not come into the auctioneer’s reckoning at all unless they are in the same over-all position as to fees as any other purchaser: after all it is very sensible to have such an arrangement. That was the whole idea in introducing it.

442. Deputy Burke.—I feel that in cases of this kind if regulations were to be brought in that would tie the hands of the administrative staff in the Land Commission, acquisition of land would be slowed up completely. While I agree that Mr. Suttle had a right to make this point, nevertheless, I feel in the interests of goodwill and of having the auctioneers on the side of the Land Commission when you want land in a district, such regulations should not be brought in. If the auctioneer is involved in advertising the sale of the land and if it is on his books my personal feeling is that he is entitled to get paid.

Chairman.—The reason why this occurs here is that the Comptroller and Auditor General saw fit to mention this matter because he thinks it is necessary. So far as the Committee is concerned, it was something the Comptroller and Auditor General had mentioned and it was appropriate to the Report. The Accounting Officer gave us the information and it is recorded here. I am sure that the Accounting Officer and the Comptroller and Auditor General will discuss this matter themselves again.

443. Chairman.—Paragraph 30 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead I.—Improvement of Estates, etc.

30. It would appear that grants were made from this subhead to certain persons who also received grants at or about the same time under the Farm Buildings Scheme of the Vote for Agriculture. As I could not satisfy myself that there was no overlap in these cases I have asked for information as to the procedures in operation to prevent the making of payments by both departments in respect of the same works. I have also inquired regarding the apparent duplication of functions and administrative costs (see also paragraph 37).”

Mr. Suttle.—This matter was already dealt with with the Accounting Officer of the Department of Agriculture under paragraph 37.

Chairman.—Yes, it was also raised on the Vote for Agriculture. It has been disposed of there. I take it that there are appropriate liaison arrangements and co-operation between the officers locally on this?—

Mr. O’Brien.—Yes. I would like to thank the Comptroller and Auditor General for that.

444. On subhead C.—Legal Expenses—the explanation says the incidence of costs, particularly in resumption of tenanted holdings, was not as high as expected. Is this where you are not satisfied that the lands are being used properly?—Yes; only unvested lands.

445. In regard to subhead D.—Statutory Contributions to Land Bond Fund and Local Loans Fund—I take it this excess is due to the fact that you acquired more land?—Yes. We had been working to a land bond limit of £1 million but that year we were authorised to issue £1.5 million and the extra servicing charge arose.

446. On subhead G.—Purchase of Interests for Cash, Advances for Purchase of Land and Auctioneers’ Commission—I notice there are new classes of payments envisaged here?— Yes. They arise under the Land Act of 1965 but the Act had not been passed at the time and the regulations had not been made.

447. On subhead K.—Losses by Default, Accident, etc.—there are four beasts there. What happened to them.—This happened in County Mayo on a very big property known as the Oranmore and Browne Estate which comprises more than 1,500 acres, which we had let and which is very difficult to herd because of its size. All four cases arose out of grazing lettings on Land Commission lands there. An example of the type of case involved was where we made a letting of 37 acres to a local farmer for £200. That farmer, through his solicitor, claimed £124 for trespass on the area let to him and for loss of a bullock. Investigation disclosed that a certain amount of trespass had taken place at the beginning of the letting, before the necessary repairs to fences could be carried out by the Land Commission. The bullock for which compensation was paid broke a leg crossing a fence and had to be sold cheaply to a butcher. The Land Commission were legally advised to settle the claim and this we succeded in doing for £50 and 10 gns. costs as against £124 claimed.

448. Under Appropriations-in-Aid there is a very pleasant item, No. 4—Surplus Income of Rent and Interest Accounts—an increase of £20,500?—That was largely due to a profit on the management of untenanted land. The income from untenanted land that year was £300,000 mainly through lettings by auctioneers and stock managers and our outgoings were £265,000 mainly rates, wages and servicing of land bonds leaving a profit of £35,000 of which £30,000 was paid over to the Vote, item 4 here. There is another £29,000 to be accounted for and that comes from £24,000 being dividends arising on a capital sum of £525,000 built up out of previous surpluses and invested in Dublin Corporation stock and there is another £5,000 profit on the management of a few properties of the late Congested Districts Board.

449. On the National Development Fund, could you give us total expenditure on that up to this date?—Up to this stage we have spent £136,672 and my belief is that the ultimate expenditure will be £150,000. This is for the Shannon Flooding Relief Scheme around Athlone.

VOTE 37—FORESTRY.

Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.

450. Chairman.—Paragraph 31 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead C.2.—Forest Development and Management

31. Three tractors equipped with flexible rubber tracks were purchased in March, 1961 at a total cost of £8,625 for use on an experimental basis for ploughing difficult types of ground. It appears that these machines proved unsuitable for the purpose for which they were purchased and that the design is otherwise of limited utility. One machine was converted to a standard tractor at a cost of £756. In reply to my inquiry the Accounting Officer has informed me that the question of converting or disposing of the other two machines, which are being utilised mainly for the extraction of heavy transmission poles, is being kept under review.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?—

Mr. Suttle.—I understand that two unconverted machines are still employed on extraction work.

Mr. O’Brien.—That is so.

Chairman.—Is there any particular advantage in buying the one with the flexible rubber tyres?—Well, we thought there was. This particular machine was of a standard type in use in forestry but had a special feature of rubber tracks as distinct from steel tracks. Our Mechanical Engineer had seen it demonstrated in Sweden and felt that it could be decidedly useful for heavy ploughing in difficult ground. When the machines started ploughing here they suffered a high incidence of breakdown including transmission failure. As a result of negotiations between Post Office Stores—our purchasing agents, and the suppliers an arrangement was made under which one of the machines, which was seriously damaged, was repaired free of charge; modifications were carried out to all three machines to reduce risk of further failure. The machines were put to work on the extraction of poles, haulage of stakes and clearance of fire lines. Towards the end of 1963 it became evident that there was not sufficient of this work to absorb the three machines and one of them was converted for ploughing: this was done by the suppliers for a specially reduced price of £756. Although we did not think so last year we are now satisfied that there is continuing work on extraction of heavy transmission poles for the remaining two machines and we believe, in fact we are satisfied, that it will extend into their writing-off date. We now have a far bigger poles programme for the ESB than we anticipated. We have orders for £55,000 worth of heavy poles for the ESB which will be difficult to extract and which we would not be able to extract if we did not have these machines.

So you propose to convert the other two to this job?—They are at it now.

451. Paragraph 32 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead C.3.—Sawmilling

32. In the course of discussion by the Committee of Public Accounts on the appropriation account for 1962-63 it was suggested that the accounting period for the trading accounts of the sawmills should be the financial year. To comply with this suggestion, the accounts appended to this account have been extended to cover the period from 1 October 1963 to 31 March 1965.”

Have you anything to add Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing to add.

452. Chairman.—Paragraph 33 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead G.—John Fitzgerald Kennedy Memorial Park

33. The establishment and maintenance at Slieve Coillte, Co. Wexford, of a Memorial Park, incorporating an Arboretum and Forest Garden, dedicated to the memory of the late President Kennedy, is being undertaken by the Forestry Division.

During the year expenditure amounted to £43,990 and voluntary subscriptions towards the cost of the memorial amounting to £35,789 were brought to account as Exchequer Extra Receipts.”

Nearly £44,000 was expended. On what was that sum expended?

Mr. O’Brien.—Largely on buying the land —the site of the Park.

Have you any idea of the eventual cost of it?—It could possibly be between £150,000 and £200,000.

What area will it cover?—700 acres. It is on Slieve Coillte, which is very close to Dunganstown, the old Kennedy Home. The entire park will comprise 700 acres but 50 acres will be devoted to a horticultural school for the Department of Agriculture.

Will this be open to the public?—It will, yes.

Something on the lines of the National Parks of America?—Yes. The site planning of the Park has been completed and the area has been surveyed and gridded.

Is this a matter of subscriptions collected at home and abroad?—This money was collected in America—100,000 dollars—by Irish-American Societies, and in addition, they have said that further sums may be expected.

453. On subhead C.2.—Forestry Development and Management—I notice that there were changes in the working week. Did it reduce or increase the saving?—It reduced the saving. It was part of the five-day week arrangement. The arrangement we have now on the forest side is a 45-hour week worked over five days for eight months of the year, and for the remaining four months, November to February, the winter period, over 5½ days to permit of daylight working.

454. On subhead C.3.—Sawmilling—an ex gratia payment of £135 was made to a firm who made a genuine error in quoting for the supply of materials?—Yes; we were satisfied it was a genuine error. It was a tender competition held for the supply of hardboard delivered to Cong and Dundrum Sawmills. Oil-tempered hardboard was specified and the order was placed with the lowest tenderer. On receipt of the order, the firm immediately got in touch with the Department to say that a mistake had been made in the tender and that they had quoted for standard type hardboard instead of the oil-tempered variety. Their tender would have been in the sum of £408. 14. 2 instead of £273. 15. 4. The revised tender was still the lowest received. From the level of the other tenders, it was clear that a bona fide error had occurred in the original tender and the difference was made good. They were still the lowest tender.

455. The Notes indicate that you had some thefts during the year?—These were mostly small lots of timber, netting wire and barbed wire spread over 185 different forests. In a few cases the culprits were traced and prosecuted.

456. Did you acquire any large tracts of land in 1964-65?—There was no particularly large tract that year. It was generally a whole series of ordinary purchases. We acquired altogether 27,798 acres for a price of £196,600—just over £7 an acre.

VOTE 38—FISHERIES.

Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.

457. Chairman.—You had large savings under subheads C.—Sea Fisheries Development—and D.—An Bord Iascaigh Mhara (Grant-in-Aid)?—That was principally due to the fact that the second exploratory fishing vessel was not completed that year as had been anticipated. It has been completed since.

Would that be the expansion of the work you were contemplating?—Yes.

The second exploratory vessel?—Yes. They also intended to go in for more scientific investigation that year but sample fish were very difficult to get. For example, samples of crawfish could scarcely be got at all.

458. Deputy Kenny.—How many trainee skippers have you got?—At the moment the number is 12.

Is that the usual average?—It is. Since about 1960, 60 men have qualified altogether. In 1963-64, 12 obtained certificates of competency; in 1964-65, 11 and in 1965-66, nine obtained certificates of competency. Since the inauguration of the scheme in 1958 a total of 65 men have completed courses under the scheme. Sixty of these received certificates of competency, 58 of them were from Galway Vocational School, two from the Irish Nautical College at Dún Laoghaire and a further eight fishermen are at present undergoing training at Galway Vocational School. The Deputy is referring to the scheme of training fishermen as skippers?

Yes?—There is another scheme devoted to training boys as fishermen.

Some projects were deferred?—Yes, the capital works not undertaken that year by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara were extensions of the fish processing factories at Galway and Killybegs.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 5—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL.

Mr. K. M. Fowler called.

No question.

459. Chairman.—I am most grateful to the members of the Committee for the manner in which we have succeeded in getting through the work. We will make arrangements for a meeting at a later stage when the transcript of the evidence is ready.

The Committee adjourned at 4.25 p.m.

* See Appendix XXVI.

* See Appendix XXVII.

* See Appendix XXVIII.

* See Appendix XXIX.

* See Appendix XXX.

* See Appendix XXXI.

* See Appendix XXXII.