Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1967 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1965 - 1966

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 13 Aibreán, 1967.

Thursday, 13th April, 1967.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

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

VOTE 39—AGRICULTURE.

Mr. J. C. Nagle called and examined.

575. 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 undertakes an approved scheme of reclamation work on his holding is entitled, when the work has been completed to the satisfaction of the Department, to a grant amounting to two-thirds of the estimated cost. The maximum grant was increased in the year under review to £50 per statute acre in western and northwestern counties and £45 per acre elsewhere. Grants to farmers amounted to £1,580,828 in the year as compared with £1,640,171 in the previous year.”

Mr. Suttle.—This scheme is now almost exclusively one of grants to farmers for land reclamation work and this is reflected in the figures shown. As stated in the paragraph, the rate of grant was increased during the year.

576. 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:—

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph sets out, for information, the expenditure incurred on the different types of fertiliser subsidy.

577. In regard to the lime and fertiliser scheme, is there any set target for the use of fertilisers?—Mr. Nagle.—There is. We were very anxious to raise the consumption of ground limestone to at least 1½ million tons per annum and we have been making fair progress in that direction. For example, if you go back to 1962-63—the fertiliser year ends on 30th June —the consumption was about one million tons. In 1963-64 it went up to 1,000,080 tons. That was not big progress but it was an increase. In 1964-65 it went up to 1,121,000 tons and in the following year to 1,257,000 tons. The indications for 1966-67, I am glad to say— final figures are not yet available—are that we should either have reached the 1½ million tons figure or get near it.

That is satisfactory.

Deputy Healy.—It is most satisfactory.

Chairman.—The target is being achieved?— Yes.

578.—Paragraph 40 of the Report reads:

“Subhead K.11.—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme

40. The expenditure is made up as follows:

Receipts amounting to £848,640 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 31st March, 1966, was £55,274,638 and receipts from the disposal of cattle for slaughter were £17,358,910. The net cost was therefore £37,915,728.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for information. The expenditure under this subhead is decreasing and fell by almost £1.5 million as compared with the previous year.

579. Here again the expenditure is falling year by year. You could not say what figure it may level off at?—At one time we reached a peak of something in the region of £7 million. After attestation towards the end of 1965, naturally the expenditure began to fall. There is some minimum expenditure which will always be with us because tests have to be carried out regularly even after attestation. In some regions it is an annual test. In other regions a biennial test is regarded as sufficient. As happened in Britain and other countries, we might for reasons not always entirely clear, have occasional flare-ups in particular herds. These are always something of a mystery but when they occur it is necessary for us to purchase the reactor cattle. I am venturing a guess when I say that eventually expenditure will level off at something in the region of £2 million annually—I would hope between £1½ million and £2 million.

580. Deputy Briscoe.—What I am about to observe has nothing to do with bovine tuberculosis. Is there a tendency for other diseases to show themselves in cattle when these antibiotics and so on are used? Do you find that expenditure on other diseases is on the increase?—My personal view is that on the whole that is not the case. There is a much keener awareness of the significance of disease nowadays. Also we were for some years very pre-occupied with the major problem of bovine TB and we had a date line to meet in relation to our store cattle exports to Britain. Naturally there was a tendency to concentrate on the one disease. It was known that there were several other extremely serious diseases such as brucellosis or contagious abortion. It was not possible to tackle them in a big way until we had broken the back of bovine TB. I should add that according as our stocking rate of cattle becomes more intensive, according as more animals are held on the farms, there is obviously a tendency for infectious diseases to spread a bit more. For example, when we began the bovine TB scheme many years ago, we found that the incidence of the disease was quite light in the west and north-west, in Mayo, Sligo, Donegal, and so on, where, in general, the herds are quite small. It was heaviest in the dairying counties in the south where there is a bigger concentration of cattle. It is not so much a case of new diseases appearing as of cattle being more susceptible. I hope that answers the question.

Deputy Briscoe.—Thank you.

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

“Subhead K.13.—Brucellosis Eradication Scheme

41. The expenditure is made up as follows:—

As stated in the account it was not found possible to introduce full scale eradication measures during the year.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The expenditure under this subhead fell well below the estimate of £375,000 for the reason mentioned in the paragraph.

582. Chairman.—Are you finding any difficulty in regard to this scheme?—We are not meeting any particular difficulty. The reason for the delay here was that it was considered necessary to get legislation through on the lines of the Act which was passed by the Oireachtas to deal with bovine TB. It was felt that, for what we call the eradication part of the scheme where you declare a whole area to be an eradication area, it was necessary to have legal powers to enter on farms and compulsorily test and buy reactors and so on. I am afraid it took much longer to get the Bill through than we had thought originally. However, the scheme is in full progress now. We have eradication measures in five counties in the north-west and it is intended to add five further counties in the northern half of the country pretty soon. In the south where the incidence of the disease is more serious, we have calf vaccination schemes in operation since June, 1965. Quite a large number of heifer calves have been vaccinated under this scheme.

583. Do you find that any cattle must be slaughtered?—That would occur in eradication areas. Donegal was the first county we tackled. The incidence there was very light indeed and some reactors had to be purchased in the course of these measures but nothing very considerable.

584. I presume these animals would be more or less disposed of in the same manner as under the TB scheme?—The arrangements are precisely the same. We invite contracts for the purchase of these from meat factories just as in the case of the TB reactors.

585. Deputy Hogan.—Will this scheme be expensive? How will it compare with the TB scheme?—We think it will be on a much lower level or plane of expenditure than the TB scheme. The latter scheme cost very nearly £40 million net. We would think that in the case of the brucellosis scheme—admittedly on a rather rough estimation—it should be possible to do it over a period of, say, six or seven years, for something in the region of £10 to £12 million. I naturally mention the figure with reservations but more to give an idea of the relative order of expenditure involved under the two schemes.

586. Deputy Crowley.—Is it always sure that you can detect the disease?—One complicating factor, of course, is that if you do not know whether an animal has been injected, when an adult, with Strain 19 you cannot then tell whether the positive reaction of the animal to the test is due to the fact that it had been vaccinated and maybe, therefore, quite all right or, in fact, has the disease. That has been a complicating factor and that is the reason why, in the South, where there was a lot of vaccination with Strain 19, we began with a vaccination of young animals which would not already have been vaccinated. By the time the young animals grew to maturity, the older animals, some of which had been vaccinated and would therefore raise doubts on the test as to whether or not they had the disease, would have passed on, would have disappeared, whereas, in the North-west, our information was that very little vaccination was practised there. The incidence of the disease in that area, in any event, was quite low and it was possible to begin a wholesale clearance operation there, taking out every animal that reacted, because it was a reasonably safe bet that 99 per cent of the animals that reacted were infected. There is a new vaccine which is called the “killed vaccine” as distinct from Strain 19 which is a live vaccine. This new vaccine does not give rise to the problem I mentioned. In other words, if an animal is injected with a killed vaccine, it would not react to the Brucellosis test so the vaccination of adult cattle with the killed vaccine is now permitted in itself.

587. Is there any chance that the test which is carried out by the Department could miss locating brucellosis?—I suppose there is always some possibility with any disease eradication scheme of missing some affected animals. I know that, in the case of the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme, there were a very small number of cases where cattle did not react to the test but, on post mortem, were found to be infected. On the other hand, I remember quite a number of cases of cattle which did react and which, on post mortem, showed no visible lesions due to the disease. Our veterinary people feel convinced that the blood sample, which is the common test nowadays, gives, by and large, very accurate results.

588. 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 1st 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. The total grants paid from the commencement of the scheme to 31st March, 1966 amounted to £5,761,950 representing grants for 384,130 calved heifers. Departmental statistics based on the half-yearly census of cattle population show that the number of milch cows increased by 245,000 between 1st January, 1964 and 1st January, 1966 and I have asked for information as to the extent to which this increase can be reconciled with the number of grants paid.”

589. Mr. Suttle.—The Accounting Officer has given the following reply to my inquiry about the discrepancy, representing expenditure of over £2 million, between the number of grants paid and the increase in cow numbers:—

“The object of this scheme is to increase the total national herd rather than each individual herd. The increase in the total number of cows between 1964 and 1966 shows that the national herd expanded satisfactorily in accordance with this objective. The number of herds earning grants under the scheme up to 31st December, 1965, represents just about half the number registered under the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme. It can be taken that all the cow herds which show an increase are included in the scheme and that those herds which did not participate were static (including cases where the carrying capacity of the farm was already being fully utilised) or had shown a decline. The Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme was, of course, in very active operation in 1964-65 (the whole country being attested in October, 1965). In that period, over 64,000 cows were slaughtered under the scheme. This must inevitably have led to a temporary decline, or operated against an increase in numbers, in the case of many herds. While it would not be practicable to require that all animals on which a grant has been paid should be retained permanently, an analysis made early in 1966 shows that about two-thirds of the animals which had earned grant since the inception of the scheme were still retained in the herds. This is regarded as very satisfactory.”

590. Chairman.—May we take it, Mr. Nagle, that there is no evidence of any serious abuse of the scheme?—Mr. Nagle.—Overall, it was a very big scheme. We believe it has been quite successful. The general objective of the scheme was to increase the total number of cattle in the country as a whole. The difference between the two figures mentioned in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is probably accounted for by the facts mentioned in our reply which he has read out. In other words, it is not at all claimed that the number of cattle in every herd in the country increased. The number of herd owners who participated was something over 50 per cent. In the case of the remaining 50 per cent or 48 per cent. of non-participants, admittedly there might have been some decline in numbers and, coupled with that, we were removing cows from herds at the time under the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme which was a kind of negative factor. The purpose of the scheme was to increase cattle production by increasing cow numbers. Certainly, up to this year, 1965-66, the rate of increase in cows was such as, if maintained, to achieve the 1970 target for cattle production which was proposed in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.

591. Deputy Healy.—Might I ask if the increasing of the number of cattle was irrespective of grade? Does it mean just any four-legged animal?

Mr. Suttle.—In-calf heifers only.

Deputy Healy.—I do not know much about the cattle industry generally. Was this an effort to increase the cattle population, per se, just the head of cattle, and no more? Was any effort made to increase any special herd or to breed any type of cow?

Mr. Suttle.—No. Cow numbers.

Deputy Healy.—I see. Could that scheme have been abused inasmuch as it might have produced animals that would be substandard?

592. Chairman.—The question Deputy Healy is putting is whether the scheme, in its overall effect, might include the production of the scrub type of animal.

Mr. Nagle.—The first objective was to increase the basic cow herd in the country and thereby to increase cattle production. We attempted to achieve this by relating the grants to the first calved heifers added year by year.

Naturally, the bulls which sired these heifers should have all at least passed the licensing test of the Department and of course a very considerable number of these calves would have been produced through artificial insemination which is now being used to the extent of something like 60 per cent of the total matings in the country. I think that to that extent quality should not have been affected but I would be inclined to agree with Deputy Healy that in some cases farmers have not been as careful as they might be. There have been suggestions that some unlicensed bulls were used. It is very hard to prove the truth or otherwise of such a statement but I doubt whether this has been on any really serious scale. I never remember a new scheme initially which did not in practice produce some snags. We propose to have a look at this matter to see whether a further tightening up, a more specific tightening up on standards, may not prove to be desirable.

593. Deputy Briscoe.—I gather that the kernel of what you have stated is that only where unlicensed bulls were used would there be a danger of poor quality cattle?—That would be the immediate danger.

It would be going on behind the backs of the Department?—Yes.

594. Chairman.—Could you say how far you have got towards achieving your target and what progress there has been up to now, and when you can terminate the scheme?— The scheme began in 1964 and up to 1966 the rate of increase was approximately in accordance with that necessary to reach the 1970 target. However, as far as we can see, there is a small reduction in January, 1967, in the number of cows as compared with 1966. It was a very small reduction. Nevertheless, the fact that there was not a further increase in cow numbers in the January, 1967, census might give reason to think that unless there is an upward trend in the next year we may not in 1968 have reached the 1,700,000 cows which the experts tell us are required to meet the cattle output target for 1970. The total number of cows in the country since the scheme began has gone up from under 1,300,000 to over 1,500,000. The latter figure is of course far higher than any figure for cows ever recorded in this country. To that extent we were fairly pleased with the results of the scheme. During the past 60 or 70 years there has been apparently an unexplained top ceiling beyond which cow numbers never went which was something in the order of 1,250,000 to 1,300,000. If one looks at the figures from 1900, they are a bit depressing, cow numbers always fluctuating around that number. The fact that farmers have increased them to 1½ million is a good thing. I frankly admit, though, that unless the levelling off noticeable this January is not repeated next year, unless there is a further increase next year, we may not reach the 1,700,000 cows which we were hoping to get in 1968 or 1969. Though I say good progress has been made, it is not certain at the moment that we can reach the 1,700,000 figure in the time we had hoped.

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

“43. In the course of a limited test check of payments made under the scheme it was observed that grants were paid in respect of five animals which had been described as cows in tuberculosis eradication test reports in earlier years and which on the basis of ages given in those reports were between five and eight years old at the time the calved heifer grants were applied for. I have asked for the observations of the Accounting Officer.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—In his reply to my inquiry about the ages of animals, the Accounting Officer replied:

Following the introduction of this scheme, it came to notice that in BTE herd test reports furnished by veterinary surgeons in 1963 and 1964, some cases had occurred in which heifers had been incorrectly designated in reports as cows. As basic herds, for the purpose of assessing grants payable under the scheme, were, in general determined from these reports, a circular letter stressing the importance of correct designation of animals as cows and heifers in BTE test reports, was issued to all veterinary surgeons on the 18th August, 1964. Reminders about the need for accuracy in this matter as well as in the recording of the age and other particulars of animals, were included in subsequent annual circulars to veterinary surgeons in connection with herd tests and there is no longer any problem on this score.

As it would have been unduly harsh to penalise applicants under the heifer scheme for errors by private veterinary surgeons in BTE test reports, the following procedure was adopted and has since been followed. Where an applicant claims that an animal described as a cow in the relevant test report by his veterinary surgeon is in fact a first calved heifer, the claim is accepted if the applicant furnishes an amending certificate to that effect from the veterinary surgeon who conducted the test and if the Department’s inspecting officer is satisfied, from his examination of the animal, that the claim is genuine, i.e. that the animal is a calved heifer as defined in the scheme. Any cases in which there are doubts are referred to the veterinary inspectorate for a ruling. The initiative in obtaining an amending certificate from his veterinary surgeon lies entirely with the applicant.

The accounting officer attached examples of cases which were covered by the foregoing procedure. In one case the animal was recorded as a cow in the BTE test report in October, 1963. The applicant, however, described it as a first calved heifer. The agricultural officer who examined the animal was satisfied that it was a first calved heifer. On 15th January, 1965, the veterinar surgeon concerned certified that the animal had been incorrectly classified as a cow in the tuberculin test report, that it should have been entered as a heifer. This certificate was accepted and a grant was allowed on the animal. In another case three animals were recorded as cows in the test report of 25th November, 1963. The applicant claimed that the report was incorrect and that the animals were first calved heifers as described in his application. On 26th October, 1964, his veterinary surgeon certified that a number of animals including the three mentioned had been incorrectly recorded as cows in the test report, that they were in fact breeding heifers at the time of the test. This certificate was accepted in so far as it related to the applicant’s claim and, following examination by the Department’s agricultural officer, grants were allowed on the three animals. In another case, the veterinary surgeon of an applicant certified that an animal had been incorrectly recorded by him as a cow in his tuberculin test report and that it should have been classified as a heifer. The agricultural officer who inspected the herd in December, 1964, was satisfied that the animal was eligible for a grant.

597. Chairman.—There must be many difficulties?

Mr. Suttle.—My difficulty about the matter was that these animals became first calved heifers when they were five years, seven years, and six years old respectively. It happened for the first time. I am not a technical man in these matters.

598. The explanation has been very full. Is it reasonable to assume that animals of from five to eight years old would be having their first calf?—Mr. Nagle.—In our opinion, after investigating them, these five cases, three were due to errors of description by the local veterinary surgeon when he was taking down the particulars of the herd in the first instance. As the Committee know, for the purposes of this scheme, an increase in the number in the herd is an increase registered over the basic herd figure in 1963 or 1964, whichever is the higher, as recorded by the veterinary surgeon for the purposes of the bovine TB scheme. We thought that was a reasonable good base because at the time no one had any idea that we would use the bovine TB returns for the purpose of an incentive or bonus scheme. The figures were regarded as as accurate as they could possibly be. The veterinary surgeon first of all enters the description of the animals and their numbers in his field book and has subsequently to transcribe them into an official form which is sent to the Department. Furthermore there is a large volume of work which the veterinary surgeon now has to do under the bovine TB scheme and very often the transcribing might be done by a clerk he employs. After investigation, after querying the veterinary surgeons and re-inspecting the herds, our feeling was that some of the animals were mis-described. In other words, a maiden or in-calf heifer in 1963 or 1964, through a slip in transcribing the returns, came under the “cow” heading in the form we got. Our field officials and inspectors in the normal way rely on the veterinary surgeon’s returns in the basic year. I may mention that there have been other cases of farmers who alleged there was mis-description, but we did not accept this on investigation. If a farmer feels there was some kind of mis-description of his basic herd, a special inspection would be arranged, as in these cases and the veterinary practitioner would be queried. We believe these were due to genuine mistakes. The number of tests carried out would run into millions. There are over five million cattle in the country and mistakes undoubtedly do occur occasionally in sending in the returns. Our general feeling in these cases was that mistakes had been made and that it would not be equitable to withhold the grant. In many other cases where similar requests were made, we did not agree with the case that had been made.

599. Deputy Healy.—Do I understand that the number under discussion——

Mr. Suttle.—We did only a very small test check and it struck us as being unusual that heifers should remain heifers for five, six or seven years. We felt it would be very unusual for a farmer to keep a heifer on his hands for five, six or seven years without producing any return by way of a calf or anything else.

Deputy Healy.—I feel that considering the magnitude of the scheme, this margin of error is not a figure that should upset us too much.

Mr. Suttle.—We did only a small check and we came across these exceptional cases.

600. Deputy Briscoe.—Are there any prosecutions against anyone caught deliberately trying to mislead the Department?—Yes. If there is any gross case, the general policy is to prosecute.

Have you had any case since the scheme began?—I think there were some cases. I would prefer to check them and let the Committee know.* May I add that if you put the matter this way I think it is understandable. What we have to remember here is that the grants are given on the basis of the increase in subsequent years over the number recorded in the basic herd. I do not think this was so much a case of a heifer remaining a heifer until the age of eight years. It was an error in over-estimating or over-stating the basic herd in the base year of 1963 or 1964. One animal which must have been either a maiden heifer or an in-calf heifer was then wrongly described as a cow. That was added to the basic herd whereas an in-calf heifer or a maiden heifer would not be recorded in the basic herd. That swelled the basic herd for the purposes of the scheme. The man says: “My herd went up from ten to 12 and the addition is accounted for by the calved heifers I acquired in the meantime.” The Department says: “No, our record is that your basic herd was 11, not ten and you are entitled to one grant, not two.” He says: “That is not so. I am quite certain: I remember it well. It was only a couple of years ago”, and he demands an investigation. We go back to the veterinary practitioner and to our own field official and say: “Can you re-check not the number the man has at present time but the number he had in his basic herd. Is there a possibility that instead of having 11 he had only ten and that one animal was mis-described?” In these cases the answer was that some of the animals had been mis-described in the basic herd. That is how the difficulty arose. I do not think it was a question of the age of the animal. The grant would be paid subsequently on the increase in the basic herd but only on any additional calved heifers which had been added to the basic herd. The number in the basic herd was written down as higher than it was. At least that is our belief.

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

“Subhead K.16.—Grants towards the cost of Co-operative Projects

44. Provision was made under this subhead for the payment of grants of up to one-third of the approved estimated cost of co-operative packing and grading stations for horticultural produce. In addition loans up to the same amount made by the Agricultural Credit Corporation towards such projects may be guaranteed by the Minister.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This is a new type of service which implements one of the proposals relating to horticulture included in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. Only one such project was assisted during the year, the expenditure being £1,403.

602. Chairman.—Can you say what does this £1,403 relate to?

Mr. Nagle.—This relates to the two co-operative societies, one in Meath and the other in Galway, which appear to have got off to a rather slow start. It was a little disappointing this year in its outcome but it is moving ahead more rapidly at the present moment.

603. What would be the total cost of establishing one of these stations?—It could be quite a variable amount. I should mention that the grants are limited to one-third of what is called the approved estimated cost of economically sound projects. In the two cases I have mentioned, the maximum grant approved in one case was £4,500 so that the total cost there must have been about £13,500. In another case, the maximum grant authorised was £2,500. These were packing and grading stations for horticultural purposes. In that case, the total would have been £7,500 but these projects could run to rather higher sums too.

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

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

45. The expenditure is made up as follows:—

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph gives the usual analysis of the cost of support for milk and dairy produce. The accounts of An Bord Bainne and of the National Dairy Publicity Council are audited by me. The milk collection pilot scheme is referred to further in paragraph 47 of this Report.

605. Chairman.—What is the position of the accounts of An Bord Bainne as at 31st March, 1966?

Mr. Suttle.—I certified the accounts of An Bord Bainne for the year ending 31st March, 1966, on 23rd November, last. I do not think they have yet been presented to the Oireachtas.

Deputy Crowley.—Is this the total expenditure by An Bord Bainne?

Mr. Suttle.—I understand that the accounts of An Bord Bainne for the year ending 31st March, 1966, have not yet been presented to the Oireachtas.

606. Chairman.—Could Mr. Nagle say, with regard to the accounts of An Bord Bainne, the total amount paid by the Board for support for dairy produce which was exported? What total was paid by An Bord Bainne?

Mr. Nagle.—The subhead covers the two forms of support for the milk price.

Mr. Suttle.—But the grant to An Bord Bainne would really be only about two-thirds of the subsidies paid out because An Bord collected a levy in addition to this grant. I would say total subsidies would be about fifty per cent higher than the grant to An Bord. About £7 million would be paid out in subsidies by An Bord Bainne—I am speaking from memory—and that expenditure would be additional to the remaining headings in the subhead.

607. Is there a breakdown on how much is expended on each product?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes. In the accounts of An Bord Bainne, each product is dealt with separately.

608. Deputy Crowley.—Is there any limitation, Mr. Nagle, on An Bord Bainne on how they spend money or give out money?—Does the Deputy mean expenditure by way, for example, of marketing promotion, and so on, or losses?

Deputy Crowley.—Not in that way. I believe that, last year, they lent some money to the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Would that be right?—I understand that that was the case.

609. Was this in complete conformity with their rules and regulations?—I think such a transaction would certainly be the responsibility of An Bord Bainne and within their discretion. I presume it would be a matter for the Board to ensure that such a transaction was perfectly in order from the legal point of view.

Mr. Suttle.—An Bord Bainne have very wide powers. They can do anything to promote the dairying industry. That, in effect, is their general power. Under that, you can do practically anything, even the loan of money to the Agricultural Credit Corporation could be regarded as promoting the dairying industry. Their powers are not limited in any way. That is the general power they have under the Bord Bainne Act.

610. Deputy Crowley.—Who can take responsibility for a decision such as this?— The Board collectively.

Deputy Crowley.—It must be by the board?

Mr. Suttle.—In laying down principles to work on, the Board would carry out the decisions.

Deputy Crowley.—It is imperative, then that the board must make this decision?

Mr. Suttle.—I would not say it would be imperative. I would have to read the Act again. I look on every transaction on the basis of their powers and that they are properly exercised. If I saw the chief executive doing something that should be the duty of the Board, I would check up that matter with him. Having passed their accounts, I can only assume that everything was done in accordance with the law.

611. Deputy Healy.—Assuming that the Board has confidence in the general manager and that he is acting within the law, it is hard to pin him down to make a decision on every item? I take it that the general manager has a free hand in this, if it is not contrary to the Board’s wishes?

Mr. Suttle.—The Board will lay down lines on which the general manager can work but anything in principle would be a matter for the Board itself. However, the Board would lay down the general operations that the chief executive would carry out and limit him in that way.

612. Deputy Healy.—My point is that if the general manager was doing anything that could be criticised, the criticism would come from his board of directors?

Mr. Suttle.—Or from me, as auditor.

Deputy Healy.—If they fall down on it, by letting him do something he should not be doing—

Mr. Suttle.—If anything like that did occur, we would report to the board and report on the accounts.

613. Deputy Treacy.—When is the report of An Bord Bainne likely to be made available to us?

Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor General says he audited it last November but that it has not yet been laid before the Oireachtas.

Mr. Nagle.—I am sure it will be ready in printed form very soon. It is our practice to get all these accounts before the Oireachtas as soon as we get them. In the first instance, they are presented to the Government and then they are immediately tabled in both Houses. I can assure the Deputy that there will not be any delay as soon as we have the printed version of them available.

Deputy Treacy.—Within a month, perhaps? —I hope so.

614. Chairman.—In regard to the contribution to the National Dairy Publicity Council, could you tell us how that body is constituted? Has it any other income beside State grants?— Its finances are derived from the State, from An Bord Bainne and, thirdly, from the two District Milk Boards, Cork and Dublin. Speaking from memory, the State contributes 50 per cent and Bord Bainne and the two District Milk Boards together contribute the remainder. In the first instance, this was an experimental venture. We got the idea that if the consumption of some milk products, especially cheese, could be increased, there would be an obvious saving on export subsidy. While other products were not to be neglected, cheese was regarded as the main initial target because our per head consumption of cheese has been very low while our consumption of butter was high by comparison with other countries.

615. Deputy Healy.—Have we any indication of how successful the scheme has been in its aim to make people more cheese-minded?— There has been a sizeable increase in cheese consumption since the establishment of the council.

Enough to justify the expenditure?—That is the belief, especially if this trend is maintained. If they have succeeded in getting an increasing trend of cheese consumption, one would hope the consumption would go up steadily every year. Another aim, of course, is to improve the quality of the cheese. It has improved considerably in recent years.

616. Deputy Hogan.—On the question of the special allowance for high quality creamery milk, how is that scheme progressing? Is there a higher percentage of milk securing bonus payment now than at the beginning?—The trend is upwards. At present, approximately 50 per cent of creamery milk qualifies for this quality bonus. Of course we shall not be satisfied until it reaches 100 per cent. At the beginning, the percentage of total supply qualifying for the bonus was a good deal lower. It is hoped that with the additional penny now payable on quality milk and also with the aid of grants for milk coolers announced in the Budget Statement the other day, there will be an appreciable increase during the coming two years not only in the percentage of milk qualifying but in the percentage of suppliers who benefit from the scheme because it is true that to an extent some of the very small dairy farmers, for example in the West, have not on a percentage basis qualified to the same extent as the dairy farmers in the South and other regions. It is for this reason that grants for coolers are being introduced—it is really to help the smaller men, especially, to bring the standard of milk up to that required to qualify for the twopence per gallon bonus.

617. Deputy Briscoe.—Do you expect a large demand for these coolers?—I think so. The Budget, I think, has provided about £100,000 for the current financial year. We think the scheme may last four of five years and that the expenditure in subsequent years would be substantially in excess of the £100,000 estimated for this year.

Are they being imported?—Some of them are made here and some are imported. As you may know, there are essentially three types of milk cooler. There is the very humble in-can cooler which costs about £10; then there is the surface cooler which might cost £30 or £40; and finally there is the de luxe, the ice bank cooler, the cost of which might be at least £140. I think the ice bank cooler is imported but some of the other types are available from assembly plants at home.

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

“46. Under the Creamery Milk Quality Grading Scheme which came into operation on 1 May 1965 a special additional milk price allowance of 1d. per gallon is paid to participating creameries in respect of milk of premium grade received by them. As indicated above payments of the special allowance in the year under review amounted to £524,832. Grading of milk is based on sampling carried out by the creameries and samples are check-tested by departmental inspectors. I have inquired as to the extent of the checks carried out since the inauguration of the scheme and the results thereof. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding discrepancies between total milk intake as shown on some claims for special allowance and on the corresponding claims for ordinary milk price allowance. I have also inquired regarding cases in which milk intake figures were certified as correct by departmental inspectors but were subsequently found to be incorrect.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—I have received replies from the Accounting Officer to the three questions raised in this paragraph.

(1) Regarding the extent of the check testing carried out, the Accounting Officer in the course of his reply stated that during the period 1st May, 1965, to 30th April, 1966, 344 complete check tests were carried out by dairy produce inspectors at the 177 testing centres and that significant irregularities in testing were disclosed in only one instance.

(2) Regarding the differences in milk intake figures under the two schemes, I am informed by the Accounting Officer that they arise mainly from the fact that slightly different methods of calculation are used to determine the gallonage under each scheme and also from the fact that under the quality milk bonus scheme inspectors do not concern themselves with the quantity of milk received which does does not qualify for bonus, but which does form part of the total intake for the purpose of the milk price allowances scheme.

(3) In regard to the certification of incorrec-figures I am informed that errors occurring in the records kept by the creameries came to light at annual inspections after the inspectors had furnished their monthly certificates.

620. Chairman.—Is the check adequate for the scheme?—Three points have been mentioned. First of all, it is right to point out that apart altogether from test checks there is continual supervision by the dairy produce inspectors who, of course, are continually circulating around all creameries and separating stations. It is their job to see that the provisions of the Dairy Produce Acts are being complied with as well as any regulations subsequently made. These inspectors, all technically qualified men, do a great deal of supervision of the actual carrying out of the tests by the creameries. That is quite apart from test checks. I think that is really the principal guarantee as to the accuracy of figures. In addition, there is a certain amount of test checking. In other words, our inspectors would remove a sample and do the job themselves somewhere else and compare it with the creamery’s results for the particular day on which they took the sample. We feel that the amount of the supervision and checking appears to have been adequate.

621. Deputy Hogan.—Would this embrace more than the fat and protein content?— Standard tests are prescribed. The main test is known as the methylene blue test. It is a very simple test, provided it is done accurately and with care.

622. Chairman.—Paragraph 47 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“47. A sum of £10,277 was paid to a co-operative society towards the cost of a pilot scheme for bulk collection of milk. The payment represents 50 per cent of expenditure incurred by the society on the installation of farm cooling and storage tanks.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph, which is for information, relates to one specific project for which a sum of £18,000 was voted.

623. Chairman.—What are the results of this analysis?—This is a very interesting experiment which, if successful, might point the way towards future development. The experiment has been carried out and I think the figures are being processed by An Foras Talúntais, the Agricultural Institute. We are awaiting the final results from the Institute.

Do you envisage any further scheme of this kind?—Not at the moment. If the results of this are of a positive nature, one way or the other, it may not be necessary to repeat the experiment.

Deputy Briscoe.—May I ask where this co-operative society is?—In Waterford. It is a very big co-operative society.

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

“Warble Fly Eradication (Grant-in-Aid) Account

48. Fees for certificates issued by the Department in respect of animals treated under the Warble Fly Eradication Scheme are brought to account as appropriations in aid. The amount collected is issued by way of a grant-in-aid (subhead K.9) to a fund from which compensation is paid to herd owners for losses attributable to the treatment. The amount paid over to the fund during the year was £31,467 and compensation to herd owners amounted to £10,598. The account of the fund is appended to the appropriation account.”

625. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle.

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph deals with the setting up of a type of insurance fund for the payment of compensation arising out of the operation of the Warble Fly Eradication Scheme. Compensation was paid on certificates by the Department’s veterinary officers that the claims arose from losses directly attributable to the warble dressing.

626. Chairman.—Are you satisfied with the success of the scheme?

Mr. Nagle.—Yes. Last season a great deal of progress was made and also the year before, 1965-66, with the result that last season there was really quite a spectacular reduction in the incidence of warble fly. We have various proofs of that both in the returns we get from the meat factories at home and the abattoirs and also the returns we get from the other side of the Channel in relation to the incidence of warble infection in store cattle. Both have fallen really quite dramatically. The percentage incidence at one time we believe was around 60 to 70. The last tests show that it appears to be down to under one per cent. We hope we will be able to keep it that way.

627. Deputy Treacy.—Can you say what percentage of the claims for compensation made by owners for losses attributed to the treatment for warble fly was upheld by the Department?—I think I have the figures. The number of claims made in this particular year was 1,197—maybe we could say 1,200—and of those, 218 were rejected and payment was made in 979 cases. About 80 per cent of the claims were agreed to, the amount paid being £20,800.

628. It might not be in order, but may I ask if I may take it that the farmers as such have no choice in respect of the person who does this treatment? The treatment must be carried out by an inspector of the Department?—For the most part the scheme is carried out through the artificial insemination stations which operate on our behalf. These are co-operative societies, with the exception of the Dairy Disposal Company station. They employ persons to do this dressing and as the treatment is now compulsory, we must presume that by and large the farmers have to accept whoever is sent out to do the dressing of the animals.

629. The farmer’s own veterinary surgeon would not be acceptable?—Private practitioners have also been doing these but I think that by far the greater proportion of the dressing is handled by the AI stations throughout the country.

630. May I take it that these AI men are highly qualified in the matter of the treatment for warble fly? Do they get special instruction? —They get instruction and they are good men generally about cattle. They are used to handling cattle and also the application of the dressing is quite a simple affair, I understand. There is really no trouble with the application. It goes on the back of the animal. This insurance fund has been very useful because of the widespread fear at one time—which was unfounded—that it would cause abortions on a large scale. The introduction of the scheme had a very useful psychological effect. The fears were calmed down and the scheme went ahead very rapidly. In the case of less than 1,000 animals out of many millions there were side effects which warranted compensation.

631. Deputy Hogan.—Are the Department maintaining rigidity in meeting claims that were submitted after 24 or 48 hours from people who thought their cattle were damaged by this dressing?—I do not know that that has been the case. There must be some rules and regulations about claims not only for the obvious reason that we do not want money to be squandered but to enable claims to be properly investigated. You have to have a fairly prompt application. To my present knowledge, I am not aware of any particular claims which were rejected solely on the grounds of late application.

632. Deputy Briscoe.—It there much variation in the side effects?—This is handled by a committee of experts and includes one of our own and others recruited from the veterinary profession. We delegate these decisions to these people entirely.

633. Deputy Treacy.—May I take it that these experts do not consider that a 24 hour period is perhaps too short a period to diagnose whether damage has been done to animals under this process?—I am not quite sure but I can pursue this point afterwards and let you know.*

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

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

49. Of the original amount of £300,000 provided in 1962-63 as a 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 £185,086 for food supplied from this country. The balance in the Account at 31 March 1966 was, therefore, £28,953.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The sum of £300,000 mentioned in the paragraph was intended to cover a cash contribution of 240,000 dollars and the provision of foodstuffs to the value of 600,000 dollars. The sum of £85,961 represents the full amount of the cash contribution.

636. Deputy Hogan.—Is there any overlapping between this fund and Gorta?

Mr. Nagle.—These are quite distinct things. The World Food Programme is entirely an inter-governmental affair. Governments all over the world met under the auspices of the United Nations and the Food and Agricultural Organisation and they were asked to pledge contributions to this programme, both in cash and in food, which they did, including our Government, and the resources thereby made available are disposed of by the World Food Programme authorities to the under-developed countries, the less well-off countries, for a variety of purposes varying from emergency relief during, say, a cyclone disaster, and so on, to social services such as school-feeding programmes. It has been a very useful programme, we believe. Gorta has been set up to carry out the objectives of the world-wide Freedom from Hunger campaign which is geared mainly to voluntary effort and voluntary contributions by citizens. In a way, the two are complementary. The World Food Programme is a governmental matter and the Freedom from Hunger campaign, of which Gorta is the instrument in this country, is for the individual citizen who is asked to make voluntary contributions in his private capacity.

637. Deputy Healy.—Do we have any knowledge of where our money or our food goes specifically?—We do. I can give some particulars. The position is that when you pledge this food and money, you also undertake to make it available as and where required to the Programme authorities. Let me give some examples. There were shipments of milk powder to Pakistan for the purpose of emergency relief for cyclone victims. The value of the powder in that case was about £43,000. To Columbia in South America, we sent £50,000 worth of milk powder, whole milk and skimmed milk, for school nutrition projects and £7,000 worth of skimmed milk powder was sent to Taiwan—Formosa—to help in feeding workers who were engaged in a forest conversion project. Over £2,000 worth of canned stewed mutton was sent to Jordan to help a school nutritional project.

638. Deputy Treacy.—What steps have the Department taken to ensure that the supplies of food of the kind mentioned here do in fact reach the people for whom they are intended?— The responsibility for this rests altogether on the authorities of this World Food Programme who are located in Rome. These authorities themselves are subject to an intergovernmental committee of which Ireland is at present a member. The Committee settle the whole policy to be followed by the executive authorities in Rome. The finance committees of both the United Nations and the Food and Agriculture Organisation review the accounts and reports of the World Food Programme every year regularly. These finance committees are in the nature of a Public Accounts Committee for these organisations and, naturally, the accounts of the programme are subject to a very intensive audit. The present auditor, I think, happens to be the Comptroller and Auditor General of Great Britain. He is also the auditor for the World Food Programme accounts. Any time he is not satisfied with the way any particular project has gone, he would of course raise it in his report. It would then go to the governing bodies of the United Nations and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. Some audit queries have been raised from time to time which I think is only to be expected in such a massive and huge programme involving shipments of food all over the world and dealing with many governments of all kinds and in all kinds of countries. So far as I remember, by and large I think the governing authorities have been satisfied that the food is reaching the people for whom it is intended but strict control is very necessary.

639. Has it been thought necessary or desirable to send out an agent with the bigger supplies of foodstuffs or perhaps to detail an agent by our Embassy in the region to keep an eye on distribution?—Not really, because our immediate responsibility ceases when the food is put on board at an Irish port. We provide the food f.o.b. The World Food Programme secretariat are responsible, then, for the supervision of subsequent operations all over the world. They have specially appointed officers and agents in the countries which receive these donations including special shipping officers at the port of arrival whose job it is to check supplies against documents, to report difficulties and, furthermore, to ensure that whatever is loaded on to trucks or trains for subsequent travel to its destination is not tampered with on the way. We believe that the general audit and checking system in operation by the international agency concerned is as good as could reasonably be expected.

640. Deputy Hogan.—Would the food distributed bear any label to show the country of origin?—Yes, we always try to give a fairly obvious and strong indication that it is a gift of the people of Ireland. That is our policy.

641. Deputy Healy.—When we are asked for food by this world organisation, are we told at that stage the country or countries to which it is going or do we send it to a common pool and the people there tell us where they sent it?—This is usually a three-year programme. We pledge so much for three years and then another three years is added. At this pledging conference, the Government will say, for example: “We shall pledge an overall amount of £450,000 of which a part will be cash.” We then give an idea of the build-up of the commodity side of our pledge, that is, milk powder, various kinds of canned meat and so on. Then, once we get the approval of the Dáil, we have nothing further to do until we get the actual current demands from the organisation. They come along in quite an ad hoc way. They usually write to us and say, for example: “In about two months’ time, we should like you to ship X tons of milk powder to such and such destination”. Then the details of shipping are made available. Shortly afterwards the order is placed for the product by our Department with the milk industry and that is how the thing runs along.

642. Chairman.—Has Mr. Suttle anything to add to paragraph 50 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which reads:

“50. Following my inquiry a number of suspense account balances outstanding for periods of from one to nine years were cleared and I am assured that clearance of other items to which I drew attention is proceeding.”

Mr. Suttle.—The question of suspense account transactions was referred to generally in paragraph 4 of this Report. This paragraph sets out the position in the Department of Agriculture.

643. In the light of the reference to paragraph 4, I take it this procedure will be followed in the future?

Mr. Nagle.—The present position about the suspense account for 1965-66 is that nothing, I am glad to say, is now in suspense account which relates to that year. I might mention perhaps that the grand total of the uncleared amounts in miscellaneous suspense account at the end of 1965-66 was £62 in the case of uncleared receipts and £54 in the case of uncleared payments. It is certainly desirable to have nothing in, but maybe it is a fair comment that these figures are not enormous in proportion to our turnover of over £30 million. At the same time, we accept fully that suspense accounts are things which should not remain in existence except for the minimum periods necessary. It is fair to add that the biggest single item in the suspense payments of £54 was a sum of £34 representing a payment we made for a Press advertisement inserted on behalf of the Food and Agirculture Organisation who were recruiting some stenographic staff here and who used us as their agent. Naturally, the organisation paid the cost of the advertisement but not until after the end of the financial year.

644. Chairman.—We shall now move to the Vote itself. In respect of subhead C.5.—Livestock Progeny Testing—could you say how much the imported pigs cost?—I am afraid I have not got the figure separately for pigs, but of course I will provide them later.*

645. I take it the tests have been completed? —Yes. They have all passed the quarantine tests and so forth.

And they were satisfactory, I hope?—Yes.

646. On Subhead C.6.—Contribution to Irish Meat Association (Grant-in-Aid)—is this meat research unit still held up?—There has been no particular development. This contribution, of course, is balanced by a levy on the meat trade of the same amount. The idea is that it would help to finance this meat research outfit, but for some reason, nothing has happened during the past year.

Have you any knowledge as to why it is being held up?—We are having discussions with various bodies and institutes on some suitable way of providing the research facilities but these discussions must not have resulted in any final solution of the problem.

647. On subhead D.3.—Veterinary College —has this work been completed?—The new station has been in full working order for about a year.

How much has it cost to date?—Subject to check, it would be of the order of £100,000.†

648. On subhead I.1.—Agricultural Societies and Shows, including miscellaneous grants-in-aid, etc.—there is a saving in grant-in-aid in respect of the Freedom from Hunger campaign. How did it arise?—The position is that the Government offered a contribution of £5,000 a year to Gorta towards their administrative costs. Gorta was not in existence for the whole of that year. They got the proportionate amount and got the full £5,000 in 1966-67.

649. On subhead K.3.—Payments to the Agricultural Credit Corporation Limited, in respect of Loans—for my own information could you tell me about the guarantee for irrecoverable losses mentioned in the note?— We guarantee the Agricultural Credit Corporation under certain loan schemes against irrecoverable losses. The Corporation are required to take all normal steps to recover their debts and when they fail they turn to the State. In respect of the unsecured loan scheme, since it started in 1963 the amount advanced to date has been in the region of £1¾ million, and so far the defaults have been low, I am glad to say. The other expenditure under this subhead was in respect of the Dungarvan Co-operative Fruit Growers Society Limited who have had to be forgiven a certain amount of their obligations, as I have already told the Committee.

650. Deputy Hogan.—Is the amount £600 without security to farmers?—It used to be £400 for individuals and £500 when done through a co-operative. It may have increased since. The money is made available without security. The loss so far has not been significant in relation to the amounts advanced.

651. Deputy Hogan.—With regard to subhead K.5.—Agricultural Production Council— does that Council meet?—I do not think it has met for some years. Of course there have been developments of an organisational nature in the meantime but this provision has been made traditionally.

652. Chairman.—With regard to subhead K.8.—Lime and Fertilisers Subsidies—the upward trend in consumption did not materialise due to unfavourable weather conditions and other causes. Would the strike in the fertiliser industry be involved here?—This decline was on the fertiliser side, not the lime side. I would say the principal factor was the rather unfavourable weather. Some people think—and there may be something in it— that another possible factor was that there was a decline in tillage. As a rule tillage crops are well fertilised compared with grass land. Fortunately there is an upward trend again now in the use of fertiliser this spring. There seems to be quite an increase so we can hope that we have reached the bottom and are now climbing up again.

653. Chairman.—On K.19.—Losses on Disposal of Wheat, etc.—Could you tell us, Mr. Suttle, what is the position in regard to the accounts of An Bord Gráin?

Mr. Suttle.—I certified these accounts on 3rd March last. In this connection there is one matter I should like to bring to the notice of the Committee. At the time I was certifying the accounts a matter was raised in connection with the interest on bank overdrafts. At the time the bank strike started last year the Board owed the bank somewhere in the neighbourhood of £2¼ million to £2½ million, due to the purchase of the various types of grain they deal in. During the period of the strike, they were selling grain and getting cheques in and they could not lodge this money. The total bank interest they had to pay during the year amounted to £114,000. If they had been in a position to lodge the cheques in the bank, they would have reduced the interest by about £9,000. I asked the Board to go to the banks and get some allowance in respect of this £9,000 interest they lost as a result of the bank strike. The banks refused to meet them in the matter.

Deputy Briscoe.—That must have occurred all round.

Mr. Suttle.—The Board lost money due to a bank stoppage.

Deputy Briscoe.—The citizens lost money too.

Chairman.—That is something we can refer to again.

Mr. Suttle.—I thought I should bring it to the notice of the Committee. At the time I asked the Board to approach the banks I thought there would be no difficulty and that they would meet them. The banks were getting £114,000 from them during that year. As it happened the accounts showed minor losses which would have been reduced by this £9,000.

654. Are State bodies given discretion in relation to their bankers or are they committed to one bank?

Mr. Suttle.—They split their overdrafts over all the banks.

655. Chairman.—Have you anything to add, Mr. Nagle?—Mr. Nagle.—I made preliminary inquiries about this matter and the answer I got was that they were being treated the same as big business houses were treated during the strike. That is the answer I was given. That is all I can say at the moment. One of the other semi-State trading boards with which my Department are concerned had an overdraft and did not get any credit either from the banks. This particular semi-State board is engaged in exports and is paid in cheques from outside the country. It was able to lodge these charges in an account opened elsewhere. The interest which it got on this account more than balanced what was due on the overdraft in its own bank. It received cheques from outside the country and it was in a position to open a separate account, a temporary account, on the other side of the Channel.

Deputy Briscoe.—When was the latest attempt made to try to get the banks—?

Mr. Suttle.—Within the past week or so.

656. Chairman.—I think what Mr. Suttle said is fair comment. The banks were not providing a service and could scarcely be imposing a charge. The banks deserve censure from that point of view.

657. Deputy Hogan.—If I might go back to subhead K.17.—Grants to Bacon Factories— in the previous year the figure was £138,000 and in the year under review it dropped to £66,000. Could the accounting officer give us any special reason for the drop in the grant?

Mr. Nagle.—I do not think there was any positive reason. That is how the applications went. In 1964-65 quite a number of schemes were completed and matured for payment— much more than in the subsequent year. Perhaps that fact tended to reduce expenditure in the succeeding year. It was purely a casual variation.

658. Chairman.—With regard to subhead M.3.—Agricultural Produce (Potatoes) Act, 1931, Flax Act, 1936 and Destructive Insects and Pests (Consolidation) Act, 1958, etc.— there is a note on page 104 of the Report about the deferment of the purchase of an experimental farm. Could Mr. Nagle give us any information as to what it was proposed to do with that farm?—It was hoped to acquired this farm somewhere in the North in the current financial year. It’s purpose really is for propagating the foundation stocks of seed potatoes which are the basis of our whole seed potato industry. Hitherto, we have relied on a number of individual farmers, mostly, I think, in County Donegal where the climate and the disease position from the point of view of potato production are good. But this has become rather increasingly difficult in recent years. Sometimes, if a farmer wanted to do something else on his farm for his own purposes, naturally enough the position was awkward. So our own experts recommended that we should have a separate and independent holding for this particular purpose to which we would transfer the work which is at present done on individual farms.

659. Does An Foras Talúntais do this type of work?—They do research work into the potato but this particular farm is at a later stage of the operation—strictly speaking, not research. I think it is the propagation of good stocks which have been established as a result of research.

I take it that it will be in Donegal?—Yes. All this work has been done in Donegal on individual farms. Now it will be on a Government farm.

660. There is a note on page 104 of the Report in relation to subhead M.9.—Sundry Statutes. We are told that there was no meeting of the Animal Remedies Consultative Committee during the year. What are the functions of that Committee?—An Act called the Animal Remedies Act was passed some years ago and this Committee was, I think, set up under this Act. It represents the Department of Agriculture and Health and the veterinary and pharmaceutical professions, and so on. Sometimes, for example, there might be a question of doubt as to the use of certain ingredients in what is known as an animal remedy. There might be a suggestion that an ingredient might have toxic effects on the animal, and so on. If any kind of major question of that kind arises, this consultative committee would be called together to give their expert advice but it did not prove necessary in this year.

661. On page 110 of the Report there is a table in relation to the marketing of agricultural produce (grant-in-aid). The first payment there concerns recoupment to Irish Fresh Meat Exporters’ Society, Limited, in respect of their contribution to the United States Meat Council in connection with legal action arising out of United States Laws for the labelling of imported meat. Could you outline, very briefly, Mr. Nagle, the circumstances giving rise to that payment?—Yes, Mr. Chairman. Here, a situation seemed to be developing which we thought carried with it considerable risk for the future of our meat exports to the United States. While they have fluctuated from year to year, they have reached very high figures indeed and millions of pounds worth of meat has gone to the United States in certain years. The particular development here was that in some of the individual States in the United States—usually, naturally enough, States identified with cattle—their own legislatures, in a few cases, passed legislation requiring all imported meat going into the particular State to bear a label of origin and certain other particulars which, in our opinion, would seriously prejudice the position of the imported meat in these particular States. There was obviously, also, reason to fear that if this practice spread there might be pressure from the interests concerned to have it applied on a federal scale by the Federal Government. It was felt that both the actual publicity attached to that and the actual labelling requirement would be very much to the prejudice of the sale of our meat. It was agreed, after discussion with the Meat Exporters’ Society, that this was a matter of national concern and it was considered desirable to take legal advice about the matter and to make representations through legal people in the tight quarters in the United States and in general to make carefully prepared representations about the situation and this is a contribution towards the cost of this. Under American conditions, it was not regarded as desirable—we took advice on this—to enter directly into the fray—that is, for our Government themselves—to do this. It had to be done through the trade itself.

662. There is a table on page 112 in relation to the National Development Fund. I presume it will not be much longer in completing the projects financed by that fund?—No. It seems to be largely used up.

663. We have been supplied with the accounts to the Pigs and Bacon Commission.* With regard to the matters mentioned in your note, Mr. Suttle, can you explain the position?

Mr. Suttle.—Subsidies on the bacon exports were normally shared between the State and the trade. Levies paid by the trade are credited to the General Fund of the Commission and, after certain charges, including support for pork exports, the balance of the general fund is transferred to the stabilisation fund from which subsidies on bacon exports are paid. During the year under review, the losses on pork exports increased to such an extent that no balance was available towards bacon subsidies and so the State had to bear the full cost of subsidising bacon exports. It was an unusual position that arose this year that the State had to bear the full cost of bacon subsidies where originally the intention was that this should be shared between the trade and the State but the expenditure on pork exports was so big that it absorbed the total of the trade contribution.

664. We come now to the accounts of An Foras Talúntais.† The biggest item there on capital account is Moore Park. What information have you got on this, Mr. Nagle, at the moment?—Mr. Nagle.—A sum of £110,000 was spent there.

Are the buildings completed?—I do not think so, Mr. Chairman, speaking from memory. I do not think everything that has been planned has yet been completed.

You have not any idea what the final cost is likely to be?—Not at the moment, I am afraid, Mr. Chairman.

665. Chairman.—We have before us the accounts of the Dairy Disposal Company and Associated Companies.‡ A sum of almost £1 million has been accumulated. During what period did that happen?—This figure must have been accumulating from the beginning of time, I think. It certainly would be the result of very many years’ activities and trading.

Mr. Suttle.—My recollection is that in the early years they lost considerable moneys. At one stage there was a vote of more than £100,000 to make good their trading losses. Subsequently, they repaid that and continued to accumulate up to this figure. However, I cannot remember the stage at which the tide turned, so to speak.

Mr. Nagle.—The reconciliation account mentions trade losses up to 1931, the sum being £112,000.

666. Deputy Hogan.—Was it not originally intended that their activities would be handed over for co-operative management? What happened to that intention?—A number of factors arose. The Dairy Disposal Company in practice established creameries in many areas where none existed before, notably in County Clare and in Kerry. I do not know whether there was in general, any very strong desire expressed in the co-operative movement to take them over, for many years at least, or to offer to pay the considerable amount of money involved in such a takeover. The matter was referred to in the report of Doctor Knapp, an American consultant, some years ago on the co-operative movement. The feeling was that this was a matter which should be considered in the context of an effective re-organisation of the creamery industry as a whole. As far as I remember, Doctor Knapp was anxious that certain measures should be put into effect in the co-operative sector, involving re-organisation, system of government and so on. It would have been in the light of that that the question of the absorption of some or all of the Dairy Disposal Company properties would have been considered. I think that is how it rests at the moment.

VOTE 37—FISHERIES.

Mr. J. C. Nagle further examined.

667. Chairman.—We shall first consider paragraph 37 in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General:

“Subhead D.2.—Repayment of Advances.

37. Because certain fishermen failed to meet their commitments to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara in respect of the purchase of boats and gear the liability of An Bord to repay the Exchequer £217,584 of advances made under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952 was waived under the provisions of the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1963. The amount outstanding at 31st March 1966 in respect of these advances was £1,562,927.”

668. Mr. Suttle, have you anything to add.

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph refers to the write-off of moneys due by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara in respect of advances made from the Exchequer since 1952. The write off of advances amounting to £186,000 made to the Sea Fisheries Association—the predecessor of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara—was referred to in paragraph 37 of the Report on the 1961-62 accounts.

669. Chairman.—A considerable sum has been lost during the years. Mr. Nagle, are you aware of any reason why fishermen failed to meet their commitments in regard to the purchase of boats?—Mr. Nagle.—Recently, the position has imporved considerably— during the past year or two. The payment record by fishermen on foot of these hire purchase obligations has improved considerably. The losses previously were relatively heavy but some of them date back to periods of considerable depression in the fishing industry. It is also fair to mention that of the sum of £217,000 approximately £81,000 did not relate to any default by fishermen but to the write-off of a capital loss on the sale of three offshore boats which were operated by the Bord in 1960, when they were sold. Quite a proportion of this sum related to that transaction.

670. You could not say how much is due by fishermen at the present time?—I have a figure which is correct up to 1963. We seem to be working one or two years in arrears. The advances in respect of hire purchase boats in that period of 11 years up to 1963 were £1.2 million, of which £136,000 has now been written off.

671. There could not be any reasonable forecast as to what is likely to happen about amounts still owing?—There probably will have to be some further write-off next year, but not necessarily for anything that is happening this year.

672. Deputy Briscoe.—What is the method of collection of payments on these boats?—They are done really on a hire purchase basis between the Bord and the fishermen.

Mr. Suttle.—It is an odd type of hire purchase, much the same as that operated in respect of the glasshouses. A proportion of the catches went to the Bord. If the catches were good, the fishermen paid the Bord more than the normal instalment, and so on.

673. Are the Bord officers there to check the catches as they come in or is it left to the fishermen themselves?

Mr. Suttle.—For a considerable time the Bord seem to have taken the entire catches. They were buying the fish and marketing it themselves.

Mr. Nagle.—That position has changed, the Bord having gone out of trading.

674. How then do you ensure that the Bord are getting their fair proportion of the fish to pay for the boats?—This responsbility is delegated to the Bord. It is their responsibility to do everything they can to recover the prices of the boats. Naturally, before there is any write-off such as this, it has to go for investigation by this Department and by the Department of Finance. The payment referred to here, I presume, had already been approved by the Dáil in the Estimates or Supplementary Estimates. As we know, the reason why it has to be dealt with in this way is that the advances to the Bord come from the Central Fund originally, not from voted moneys.

675. Chairman.—We will turn to the Vote. In regard to Subhead C.—Sea Fisheries Development—it seems that the response to the training scheme has not yet picked up well?—No. We did not get as many applicants as we were hoping we would. We were hoping to get 80 young fellows in the fishermen’s course and 12 fishermen for the skippers, course. In fact we only got 45 of the boys and ten fishermen.

676. Is the second exploratory boat in commission?—Yes. They are both now in commission.

They are not both engaged in the same work?—They are both engaged in work of a research nature. It is divided between them. There is a big range of research work.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 35—LANDS.

Mr. T. O’Brien called and examined.

677. Chairman.—In regard to subhead I.— Improvement of Estates, etc.—I notice that a sum of £1,500 was paid to a migrant towards the construction of a new house to replace an old house which became uninhabitable due to dry rot. Were the Department aware of the dry rot?—Mr. O’Brien.—This was a biggish house in Leitrim which was allotted to a migrant, the Land Commission having taken it over as part of an Estate property. We arranged with the migrant to spend some money on reconstruction. That was done and in the course of the work some dry rot began to show. Eventually more began to appear and there were other hidden infestations. The only sensible way to deal with entrenched dry rot is to abandon the infected building. We did that; there is no sure way to victory in dealing with this insidious problem.

The old house is gone completely now?—He is using it as an out-office; a section of it was all right for this purpose.

678. In regard to item 4 of the Appropriations in Aid, can you tell us what is the total amount of unallotted lands at the moment?—52,000 acres of arable land.

Is that an increase or a decrease?—It was 59,000 acres in the previous year, 1964-65. In the year of account we allotted 50,000 acres not all arable—there was some bog—amongst 2,600 allottees.

VOTE 36—FORESTRY.

Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.

679. Chairman.—I notice in regard to subhead C.2.—Forest Development and Management— that there are new techniques?—These techniques led to savings on State forest nurseries. The new techniques were largely in weed control by chemical herbicides rather than manual labour.

680. In regard to subhead G. — John Fitzgerald Kennedy Memorial Park—progress was slow. Does that mean the opening of the Park will be delayed?—No. Progress was necessarily slow that year but it has stepped up in recent times. The contract has been placed for the administrative and reception building. The internal roads are laid out and tenders are now being sought. The opening has been fixed for 29th May, 1968, which is the anniversary of the birthday of the late President Kennedy.

681. In regard to the notes, I notice that a sum was written off in respect of losses incurred as a result of fires. Was that greater than the previous year?—It is much greater. That year there were 274 fires, 18 of which caused damage to 144 acres. Some of the big fires had occurred the previous year in late March and were brought into this year’s accounts. The biggest was at Killakee on the outskirts of Dublin where a fire raged for a period of three days and caused damage to 180 acres at a cost of £8,000; we had to get the Army before it was finally controlled. We were unable to trace the culprits, and believe it may have been due to a picnic party. If we ever succeed in tracing the culprits, we shall prosecute. There was a fire at Mullaghareirk on 8th March of the same year, 1965, which caused damage to 34 acres at a cost of £840; it was started by a young person of 17 years of age in contravention of the Forestry Act. He was prosecuted but he was given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. Actually, the family was very poor—in straitened circumstances—and the Chief State Solicitor advised us that pursuit of a civil claim would be futile.

682. Deputy Briscoe.—Do we have watch towers in these big forest fire areas?—What we have at the moment are fire patrols.

Deputy Briscoe.—It is not as effective?— Possibly not, but the whole situation in relation to fires is very difficult. The natural danger period is March, with dry undergrowth and bracken. The human danger periods are the long bright spells in summer, especially in the tourist amenity forests around Dublin and Wicklow. We use press, radio and television publicity against fires and we have fire patrols at dangerous week-ends.

Would watch towers not be better than fire patrols?—I do not think so. They are in use in the United States but there are very vast areas there.

They are not as vast here?—Not yet. Watch towers are useful mainly in the case of crown fires; one can see the top of the forest from them.

683. Deputy Kenny.—Is it a full time job for fire patrols?—No, except at the recognised week-ends, the August bank holiday and Whit Monday for example.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XXXVIII.

* See Appendix XXXIX.

* See Appendix XL.

† See Appendix XLI.

* See Appendix XLII.

† See Appendix XLIII.

‡ See Appendix XLIV.